|
For many physiologists,
teaching is the major focus of their activities. Indeed, from a global
perspective, probably most would fall into that group. Opportunities for
research are not available to all, so many academic staff members focus on
their educational roles. Most will attempt to keep current by reading new
textbooks, journals and the increasing numbers of online resources. Teaching
well is not just a matter of being up to date with the content. Educational
research is growing rapidly; it is providing us with a clearer understanding
of effective strategies and approaches. Newer methods focus on teaching for
understanding, recognizing that active learning—not passive memorization—is
one of the keys.
Workshop
An international workshop on teaching had become a feature of IUPS
Congresses. The tradition started in Jenolan (Australia) in 1983; in 1986 in
Vancouver one conference session was included. Keith Cooper and later George
Somjen both worked actively to ensure that the international educational
momentum was not lost. Thus, there were workshops in Kuopio (Finland) in
1989, Inverness (Scotland) in 1993, Repino (Russia) 1997. The leadership of
the Education Commission (now Committee) then passed to Ann Sefton and Penny
Hansen, and very successful workshops were held in 2001 at Lincoln (near
Christchurch, New Zealand) and in Pali Mountain, an idyllic location in the
mountains behind Los Angeles and San Diego in 2005. One feature of the
tradition has been the faithful attendance by a small but increasing group.
Indeed, at the recent workshop an impressive series of photographs recorded
the increasing numbers of “survivors” from each of the previous workshops.
We were particularly pleased to welcome two colleagues from Japan where the
next congress and teaching workshop will be held.
At the workshop four groups discussed a range of issues in teaching
physiology. Each prepared formal reports that are included in the full
account of the most recent teaching workshop. It is currently in press and
will appear in the next edition of Advances in Physiology Education. It is
available free online. In summary, there were four plenary sessions:
“Inquiry Laboratories,” Marsha Matyas (USA); “Are your students prepared to
learn physiology?,” Rob Carroll (USA); “Evidence-based education,” Ann
Sefton (Australia); “Integrative vs. disciplinary curricula: a debate,” Joel
Michael (USA) and Arif Siddiqui (Pakistan). Posters were also displayed, but
most of the activity was concentrated into ten intensive hours of small
group work. The four “tracks” were:
-
“Laboratory resources,” was led by Dee Silverthorn and Joel Michael (USA).
The group initiated a major project to develop online access to a database
of good quality experiments that require only simple equipment and
resources. It updates an earlier book of “Simple Experiments” which is now
dated and unobtainable;
-
“The use of information technology in teaching physiology” is a
challenging issue for most teachers. The group was facilitated by Tom Nosek
(USA) and Usha Nayar (Bahrein);
-
“Curriculum planning and design” was led by Bill Galey (USA) and Beatriz
Ramirez (Chile). The discussion focused on effective strategies for
developing educationally effective curricula; and
-
“Issues in classroom teaching” was facilitated by Barb Goodman (USA) and
Kirsten Farrand (Australia). They produced many practical ideas to assist
teachers in face-to-face encounters.
Informal sessions in the evenings included a memorable final event in which
the wearing of national dress was encouraged. (That always poses something
of a challenge for the Americans and the Australians!) It was a colorful
affair, with a wonderful variety of costumes. In particular, those present
will never forget the Sumo wrestler facing up to his much more formidable
Turkish friend.
The overall response from the participants was that the workshop was very
effective in stimulating their thinking about educational ideas. They valued
the truly international nature of the event; many new links were made and
older relationships renewed. Undoubt-edly the discussions led to a greater
understanding of aspects of teaching physiology in different environments
across the world, and new links were forged. The ratings from participants
were exceptionally good. Perhaps the high point, however, came when we awoke
one morning to find the site blanketed in snow (new to some of the
participants from tropical areas), with bear prints clearly visible close to
the lodge.
Many of the previous workshops had been held prior to the congress, allowing
participants to meet in a smaller setting. Those present often developed
mutual support, since the main congresses can be overwhelming to newcomers
and those with few local or national colleagues present. Participants,
however, considered that the format worked well and it is likely that the
same pattern will be used at the next congress. Perhaps our Japanese hosts
might like to think about providing a specially colored name tag, a bright
dot or some similar device to identify those at the main congress who will
be going on to the workshop. The inclusion of some educational sessions in
the program will also assist newcomers.
At the Congress
For the first time, a series of sessions at the main Congress provided
opportunities for those interested in aspects of education to participate.
We hope that the tradition will be continued into future congresses, as the
quality of the sessions was high, and they attracted lively and interactive
audiences. The pattern was similar to that well established at Experimental
Biology meetings, and it is certainly a tradition that should continue into
future congresses.
Many individuals were, therefore, able to submit abstracts into an
“education” section, and to display their posters at the main Congress
before taking them on to the workshop, something that had happened only for
the first time in Christchurch. Previously, posters had been shown and
discussed only at the workshop. Some used a “table-top” presentation from
their own computers, again something that should be encouraged in future
congresses. We would certainly recommend including an “education section”
for all future congresses.
The symposia and featured topics at the main congress were very well
attended; discussion was both lively and well-informed at all sessions. We
urge the inclusion at future congresses of similar opportunities for general
discussions of important questions in physiology education.
The first event from the education section was a refresher course on
genomics led by Dan Lemmon and Anna Kwitek (USA); other speakers came from
UK and Germany. The course was particularly well received and much praised
by those who attended.
Two educational symposia were held at the main congress: “Effective uses of
information technologies in education,” with Simon Carlile (Australia),
Thomas Nosek (USA) and David Dewhust (UK) and “Research in physiology
education from the classroom to the teaching community,” led by Harold
Modell, with speakers Mary Pat Wenderoth, Stephen DiCarlo and Joel Michael
(all USA). The audience was very keen to participate in both sessions; the
discussion was particularly lively and stimulating.
Two featured topics were programmed, both again well-attended. The first was
“The many faces of problem-based learning: A framework for integrative
physiology education,” with Usha Nayar (Bahrein) and Antonio Rendas
(Portugal), chaired by Penny Hansen (Canada). The second was chaired by Dee
Silverthorn (USA) and Maria Jose Alves da Rocha (Brazil): “The role of
student practical laboratories in teaching physiology.” The speakers were
Dee Silverthorn and Norberto Garcia-Cairasco (Portugal). Both topics
generated interest and lively discussion.
I was delighted and honored to be offered the opportunity to deliver the
Claude Bernard Distinguished Lecture on the topic “Charting a global future
for teaching physiology.”
My overall impression of the joint meeting is that despite some earlier
anxieties, the program came together very well. Of course some who suggested
topics or issues that were not included will inevitably be disappointed,
but, after a somewhat tense start to the planning discussions, the overall
program was outstanding. It included something of interest to all, but of
course it is very frustrating when an individual cannot be in two sessions
at once. The venue is excellent, if a bit dauntingly large to someone from a
smaller population base. Having the IUPS activities clustered made it easier
to move between sessions and helped to retain a sense of identity. Certainly
I met few who were disappointed in any aspect, and that was usually because
of a serious clash in personal interests or an inability to take in
simultaneous oral and poster sessions, given the richness on offer. There
had been some concerns that IUPS might be lost in the larger environment of
EB, but to me the international flavour came though very clearly. It is the
people who make these events, and the opportunity to meet so many from all
over the world remains a great privilege.
The social program and the hospitality were almost as daunting as the
congress itself! Those events were very well organized and memorable, from
the beach party to the symphony. The sense of international friendship and
mutual support was very clear. It is always wonderful to catch up with
friends and colleagues from so many countries in a stimulating intellectual
environment. San Diego is a wonderful location, and the weather obliged us
nicely.
 |
| Participants in the IUPS
Teaching Workshop. |
|
 |
| D. Neil Granger
presenting plaque to Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen Award recipient Christin
Carter-Su. |
|
