Search

Pedagogical practices can influence students’ confidence and ability beliefs and affect their ambition to persevere in science. Given the continuing need to diversify science and retain students in scientific programmes, science education must be tailored to cater to the needs of varied student groups. Since early experience in university programmes can be decisive in determining students’ further academic and professional choices, pedagogies employed in undergraduate science courses can be particularly influential in supporting science careers. Undergraduate science instructors are therefore encouraged to consider their approaches to teaching and learning from a variety of perspectives that could help empower students from under-represented groups.

Reciprocal peer review was incorporated into a group chemistry assignment on a second-year undergraduate applied biology course and carried out using a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). The assignment required students to work in groups and explain the properties and uses of specific biomolecules in terms of their chemistry. A reciprocal peer review halfway through the assignment allowed students to share feedback on each other’s work. The resultant student-generated feedback comments, along with student interview data, were evaluated to see if there were any benefits or challenges in conducting a reciprocal peer review through a VLE. In general, students were positive toward the peer review process and appreciated the benefits of both giving and receiving formative feedback within the assignment. Conducting peer review in a VLE offered them a degree of anonymity that encouraged free and open exchange of critical feedback in a supportive environment, leading to the sharing of insightful feedback between students.

This paper describes how three technologies were utilised in combination to align student learning and assessment as part of a case study. Multiple choice questions (MCQs) were central to all these technologies. The peer learning technologies; Personal Response Devices (a.k.a. Clickers) and PeerWise(http://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz), were implemented to achieve scaffolded, self-directed independent learning by the students which aligned to the assessment methodology through creating, analysing, answering and discussing multiple choice questions. Personal response devices enhanced in-class activity involvement, whilst PeerWise provided structure and support for independent student learning through defined outside class activities. An associated technology, online MCQs hosted though a secure virtual learning environment, was used as an aligned assessment methodology. The rationale behind this case study, its implementation and evaluation are described and discussed. Finally, the potential widespread applicability of this aligned, technology enhanced learning and assessment methodology is outlined along with suggestions and guidelines to aid practitioners wishing to implement a similar approach.

Deep Eutectic Solvents (DES) are ionic liquid analogs that have attracted considerable attention as green solvents for biocatalytic transformations. The use of DES as part of a ‘solvent engineering’ approach to enhance enzyme stability holds great promise since they are biodegradable, relatively inexpensive and environmentally safe media for enzyme reactions. However, the behaviour of specific enzymes in such solvents is complex; some enzymes are inhibited in DES, while others appear to be activated.

Proteases are enzymes that cleave proteins. They occur widely in nature and play a fundamental role in cellular homeostasis; however, their presence can result in unwanted protein degradation during recombinant protein expression and purification. This unit introduces proteases, specifically focusing on the types commonly encountered during production of recombinant proteins. The strategies used to avoid and to prevent proteolysis are also described, with extensive consideration of the molecular, technical, and logistic methodologies involved. Curr. Protoc. Protein Sci. 71:5.25.1‐5.25.7. © 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.