Real-life research projects improve student engagement and provide reliable data for academics

This study recruited first-year students studying BSc Marine Biology and BSc Biology at the University of Portsmouth. As part of a core first-year module designed to train students in a range of essential laboratory techniques, these students undertake a single-instance practical to gain familiarity with dissection techniques and spotted dogfish (<em>Scyliorhinus canicula</em>) morphology. Students work in pairs, receive a specimen for examination, and are asked to complete a workbook regarding anatomical features. <br> Convenience sampling was conducted to recruit students from this practical to the current study. This utilised the lead author’s previous experience with teaching this activity to ensure study design would not impact learning objectives. This study was undertaken in accordance with the University of Portsmouth Ethics Policy (No: ED182005). All participants were informed of the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study, and of their right to withdraw without any negative repercussions on achievement and progression. <br> A visual overview of the data collection methodology is provided in Appendix 1. Due to the size of the first-year student cohort (120 students), this practical class had three repeats over a three-day period in January 2020. All classes were delivered by the lead author and supported by the same technician and demonstrating assistant. Each morning, dissection kits and specimens were prepared by the technician to allow one station per student pair. The stations were labelled sequentially so that each dogfish had an individual identification number. Prior to the start of each class, measurements were collected by the lead author and two lab assistants for all dogfish (e.g. total length, fin length, etc). This represented a “ground-truthed” dataset with which to compare student-collected measurements. <br> Approximately 40 students were timetabled to attend each class. The first class was timetabled to contain only Marine Biology students, the second class contained students from both degree streams, and the third class only contained Biology students. Therefore, ‘pure’ classes were initially selected as Experimental Groups whilst mixed class was kept as a no-treatment Control Group. Although the authors recognise that this does not represent an ideal experimental design, limited institutional resources and timetabling requirements restricted full educator control over this arrangement. This study limitation is further considered in the Discussion. Additionally, there was one case of a student attending the wrong day, resulting in a single mixed pair in one of the Experimental Groups (see Results). <br> Both Control and Experimental Groups had the same taught material to ensure no unfairness in terms of their education and learning outcomes. This included a description of sexual dimorphism (i.e. where two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics), which has been shown to exist in dogfish for a range of anatomical features (Filiz and Taskavak, 2006). This information was used to justify why students were recording measurements from their specimens. However, the Experimental Group was also told that their worksheets would be collected at the end of class to contribute to a scientific study investigating dogfish sexual dimorphism (which is indeed being conducted by the lead author); this was the only orchestrated difference between the Control and Experimental Groups. The importance of collecting accurate scientific measurements was emphasised to all students, regardless of their grouping. <br> A two-sided worksheet was given to all pairs for in-class completion and return. Each worksheet asked the pairs to indicate the degree stream they were from (Marine, Biology, or Both if a mixed pair) and the day of the week their class occurred. This information was collected to try and explain any underlying differences between students; for example, differing experiences between degree streams or communication between students on differing days. No additional background characteristics or demographic data were collected due to logistical challenges of ensuring student privacy whilst also linking such information to ground-truthed measurement records. Additionally, given the relatively small class sizes, it is unlikely that sufficient sample sizes representative of different demographic groups would have been captured for statistical analysis. The front page of the worksheet was specific to dogfish measurements and group work; it contained a diagram of a dogfish and indicated eight sites along the body where measurements were to be recorded, along with details on the dogfish sex and ID number (Appendix 2). The back page was specific to individual student motivation; it contained six Likert-style questions (one set per student; Table 1) relating to individual perception of practical classes, their confidence in their own technical skills, and their opinions of involving students in RLRPs. In order to provide some context and further interrogate the impact of the experiments, open-text comments were collected from students on the survey about their perception of undertaking the measurements. As these were a brief, adjunct to the research they are not intended for rigorous qualitative analysis (LaDonna et al 2018). Rather these comments were categorised based upon a descriptive interpretation of their core focus (e.g. ‘confidence’). Each statement could have multiple foci, for example if a student talked about gaining confidence but also acknowledged the possible employment benefits of engaging in the activity. These different foci were then quantified to build an understanding of the range of different perceptions across the cohorts.