My intention when registering as a first year for a BSc was to either become a physiotherapist/occupational therapist (due to my love for children and helping others) or a biology teacher (exploring complex situations). However, during one of my first-year lectures, I was introduced to plant pathology – to be honest, I didn’t even know existed until then.
Let me introduce you to Mrs Humphry (biology) and Ms Dyson (history) these wonderful ladies were teachers who taught with passion and care and encouraged our involvement in the classroom.
In my second year of University, Wilmarie Kriel, my first plant pathology lecturer, read from the attendance register: “I see there is a BSc Agric Plant Pathology and Entomology student in the class, Lisa Coetzee are you present?” To my surprise, Wilmarie told me that a Scarabaeidae beetle is making its way across the Thakaneng Bridge and suggested I collect it. I was awestruck that my lecturer was helping with an entomology assignment, which I was unaware of at the time, during her allotted period. Looking back on these teachers’ impact on my life, I realise three key elements which contribute to what I consider good teaching and motivates great learning:
I decided to continue with my postgraduate studies because I realised I had a love for the field work I would have the opportunity to engage in throughout our research. My supervisor, Prof McLaren, was committed to exposing me to the applied plant pathology, experimental design, statistical analyses, networking with industry members and connecting me to collaborators, in and outside of South Africa. Through Prof Mc’s commitment to assist in my maturation as a postgraduate I realised I wanted to be like him “when I grow up one day.” During my MSc Agric I made a promise to Professor Neal McLaren, my supervisor, to continue being a difficult student, asking questions and as he would say ‘rattling cages’. In completing my PhD, in 2020, I considered that I had kept my promise. Prof McLaren’s patience and guidance contributed immensely to developing my critical thinking and passion for teaching.
During my doctorate, I was confronted with a period of liminality. This led me down a path of self-reflection and engagement with scholars in philosophy, science and history, contributing to a paradigm shift in my role in academia. This experience shaped my view on academic integrity, contributing to society and not only building my personal curriculum vitae (or, in this case, my teaching portfolio). I agree with Darlaston-Jones (2007) who states, “[I believe] it is essential for researchers to understand who they are, what they hold true, and how to understand the inherent bias and prejudice that we are all subject to as a function of our context: and that it is critical that we understand this before embarking on our research.”
In reflecting on Darlaston-Jones’s (2007) challenge to understanding who you are and what you hold true while writing my doctorate dissertation, I traced back to Galileo, in the 1600s, where two assertions can be made upon a single term, credit; one relating to reputation, and the other money (Biagioli, 2006). I propose these terms still exist, and the economy of credit drives our current scientific and Higher Education (HE) systems . To view my teaching philosophy, I invite you to step into my experience as a doctoral student with this excerpt from my thesis:
“The following statement is an unpopular opinion of many but a truth in my reality. After three and a half years and being what seemed stuck, I was encouraged to complete and ‘just write up my thesis’; after all, it is a piece of paper which provides a means to an end. I was discouraged by this statement, particularly when it was made by doctorate holders, ultimately discrediting the value of the qualification I was pursuing.”
Reading this now, in 2022, I realise the hypocrisy in my thinking and that I considered all my previous degrees as a means to an end - The Doctorate. Consequently, I want to contribute to returning the value and motivation to those I am teaching by assisting in achieving graduation and skills development. In closing the preface to my dissertation, I posed a challenge to myself:
“to continue in academia and not blindly accept the status quo but to continue evaluating my scientific capacity and train students to do the same.”
Participating in the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST): Online Training Course for Supervisors of Doctoral Candidates at African Universities (November 2021), Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) Curriculum Renewal Programme (CRP, February 2022), and the Teaching Portfolio Workshop (April 2022) equipped me to start my journey in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), extending my personal challenge to education in Higher Education.
Prepared by Lisa Rothmann for PPLG2624 presented at the University of the Free State, Plant Science: Plant Pathology, prepared on 2020-10-02. Published on this website on 2020-11-05.
Sir Mark Wright said, “science isn’t finished until it is communicated.” Scientific communication (SciCom) as defined by Burns et al. (2003) as “the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science.” SciCom has many aims or purposes, which is related to the participants who are involved in the dialogue, whether it be researchers, mediators, members of the public, and interactions can occur within and between groups too (Burns et al., 2003). The aims of SciCom include, but are not limited to; i) sharing recent and exciting findings, ii) raising awareness of science iii) fostering public appreciation for science iv) stimulating inclusive perspectives on and in science and v) engaging with policymakers, vi) build trust between science and the public (Kappel & Holmen, 2019), vii) embracing or challenging the impacts science has on society and viii) find enjoyment or appreciating science as art or entertainment (Burns et al., 2003). These aims can be achieved through many platforms and methods driven by the defined aim and participants. The manner of SciCom which we are going to be focusing on in PPLG2624 is Scientific Reporting. This is one of the primary manners scientists disseminate their protocols and results, recently statistical code and data are incorporated into scientific papers too.
Upon the completion of a research project, the work is presented in a written manuscript, (usually) peer-reviewed and published in academic journals, and other platforms of course. These articles form the basis of dissemination the contents of the study but also validating or refuting the evidence presented (Willmott et al., 2003). There is a general outline for the content of a scientific report, these are usually (in the order of appearance) the; Title as well as the authors and affiliated institutions, Abstract, Introduction, Method & Materials, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References and sometimes or usually Acknowledgements.
This instructonal piece was inspired by Turbek et al. (2016), Scientific Writing Made Easy: A Step- by- Step Guide to Undergraduate Writing in the Biological Sciences, please take the time to read this and appreciate the efforts made by the authors.
They say first impressions last - after a title has caught the attention of a reader it is the ‘responsibility’ of the abstract to retain the reader’s interest and pull them in to read the entire article. Jalalian (2012) state that an abstract performs three critical tasks; i) addressing the intention of the study, ii) summarising the results and iii) the impact of these findings. Abstracts are usually a maximum of 600 words, but this can vary between Journals and usually do not include references. Keywords are also presented at the end of an abstract, these are usually not words used in the title, but are needed to guide readers to your article.
There are three key components in writing a great introduction, i) providing sufficient background information on the topic, ii) specifying how the work conducted fits in with the field of study and fills knowledge gaps and iii) stating the hypothesis or research aim of the study. In-text references will be used in this section and the following sections, these are usually either in one of the following formats; i.e. (Surname, Year) or (Surname 1 and Surname 2, Year) or (Surname et al., Year) and Surname, (Year) or Surname 1 and Surname 2 (Year) and Surname et al. (Year).
The key function of this section is to enable a reader to replicate and reproduce the study you conducted, this means the procedures need to be structured, clear and comprehensive. The experimental design and details of protocols followed for field trials or surveys, glasshouse and laboratory procedures are reported here, as well as the analytical framework implemented on the data collected through the above approaches. Materials and methods are written in the past tense and in the passive voice. Some researchers share the statistical code which they used as well, this is integrated into a Research Compendium, which is known to enable computational reproducibility. All established protocols are referenced and if any changes are made these alterations are also stated and cited.
The key findings of the study are presented in the results of a paper, providing a sequential and concise flow of the data interpretation as the materials and methods were presented. The results need to be specific and briefly related back to the biology of the finding, with a reference to statistical significance if appropriate. The results need to be an objective overview of the study, the discussion will provide the author with the opportunity to interpret the findings.
The discussion is usually initiated by stating whether or not the aim or hypothesis was met or refuted. The results are interpreted here and should allow for the reader to consider potential reasons for the outcome of particular results. References which supported the findings as well as potentially explain why results may not corroborate with the “normal” or expected results are provided. Additionally, recommendations for improvement or future research opportunities can be discussed.
This section is usually a short paragraph or a few closing sentences which highlight the impact of the study and how it contributes to the scientific body of knowledge in which the research is participating. It is the golden thread which ties all of the components of the study together.
The work conducted in your study would not be able to be completed if it were not for previous researchers, this section you cite in full the references you made use of in your text. There is usually a formatted style which is required by different journals (or in this case, your lecturer or supervisor). You also need to make sure all the references align between those in-text and full in your bibliography. There are many useful tools or software which can assist you in automating your in-text references and full reference list, these include Endnote, Mendeley and Zotero. I make use of Zotero, because it integrates nicely with Google Docs, where I do my writing, ensuring my work is backed up on my Google Drive.
This is a place to thank people or institutions who contributed significantly to the project, either through financial, infrastructural, staff and peer-reviewing contributions, for example.
Grammar, vocabulary and spelling used should be neat and interpretable, so not to impose on the reader’s ability to understand what is trying to be communicated. There needs to be flow in arguments and thoughts presented, ensuring sentence structure is emphasising the correct concept. Ultimately, the reader should want to read what is presented, their curiosity should be peaked and they should want to tell others to read your work too.
A work by Lisa A. Rothmann
lisa.ann.rothmann@gmail.com