Engaging Students With Critical Analysis Of Literature

Background Literature reviews are common assessment tasks designed to encourage engagement with current research literature, however these frequently fail to excite students. In 2017, we devised an alternate assessment with nuanced features for a newly created 3 rd year advanced physiology subject (HBS3AHP; N=109 students) at La Trobe University. We established a fictional review journal, with teachers taking on roles of journal editors. Student teams engaged in deep critical analysis of two related recent research papers. Teams wrote a review comparing the methodology, results and conclusions of these two papers – including justifications of their opinions and submitted it to the editors. Students were required to include a graphical abstract with their critique – an emerging requirement in some journals, and not a skill that our students have practiced before. The assessment task was explained to students early in semester. Students formed teams and elected their research topic from a list provided. Individual students then summarised the key features / findings of two provided papers for that topic. Feedback and a small proportion of marks (10%) were awarded at this point. Teams then collaborated to produce their critical analysis report, drawing on the comparisons made by the individual team members. The task was well scaffolded throughout (including with comprehensive guide, exemplars provided and frequent consultation periods with staff). Aim It was hoped that requiring a deeper analysis of literature papers than is traditionally required in a review of a single paper, plus the additional role play of journal manuscript submission, would make the task more engaging for students. Methods An extensive evaluation project was undertaken in 2019, with full human research ethics approval. A voluntary paper‐based questionnaire was conducted during class time in the last week of semester (response rate 46%). Students were also invited to participate in focus group interviews (7% response rate). Members of the teaching team provided observational feedback on both the level of student engagement and academic quality of the completed work. Results Students generally understood the new authentic tasks and appreciated the opportunity to practice post‐graduate skills. Popular aspects were the guidance and support offered, including access to helpful staff, and the opportunity to engage at a particularly fine‐grained level with the latest research in their chosen topic area. As expected, dynamics of the different groups played a major role in whether students reported favourably or unfavourably on their teamwork experience. Staff reported that students were more deeply involved in the process of analysing research and believed the academic standard was improved compared to previous cohorts. Future directions The team are currently trialling the same assessment task at the University of Denver with students undertaking the F2019 subject, BIOL 3250 (N=33 students). At the end of this course we will be using the same evaluation instruments to further inform our ongoing evaluation of this assessment task.