Igniting children’s enthusiasm for microbes with an origami paper microscope
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for microbiology literacy in society. Microbiology knowledge, and its dissemination, can help inform and increase the objectivity of important decisions, such as treatment or vaccination. A microbiology learning experience, titled “What you can’t see can hurt you” was delivered as part of a larger outreach event (Medventure) where children were exposed to various aspects of medicine and health care fields. The activity involved an introduction to and a discussion of bacteria of clinical importance, and the use of a smartphone-attachable paper-based foldable microscope. To explore the impact of this activity on participants’ interest in science and microbiology, a pre- and post-activity survey of 5 questions in an emoji-based Likert scale was completed by the participants. A statistically significant increase in their interest in microbes and where to find them, as well as in microscopy, was observed after the event. Making microbes visible to children and allowing them to capture images of microbes exposes them directly and personally to microscopy and microbiology. An affordable low-cost paper-based microscope can become an alternative approach to teaching and learning to deliver clinical microbiology information to a wide audience range.
Article activity feed
-
Comments to Author
The manuscript is describing an interesting origami-based activity for improving microbiology literacy in society. The methodology is sound and well-described. Overall, the manuscript is a bit short and some sections can be expanded: Introduction, Results, Discussion. Abstract: provide values and stats at line 22 Introduction: are there any similar activities in the literature? Expand the paragraph (lines 42-44) Results: describe the results in figure 3 in the text too. Provide stats. Discussion: lines 100-101, expand this section by describing the findings of similar studies and comparing your results with theirs.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
Comments to Author
The manuscript is describing an interesting origami-based activity for improving microbiology literacy in society. The methodology is sound and well-described. Overall, the manuscript is a bit short and some sections can be expanded: Introduction, Results, Discussion. Abstract: provide values and stats at line 22 Introduction: are there any similar activities in the literature? Expand the paragraph (lines 42-44) Results: describe the results in figure 3 in the text too. Provide stats. Discussion: lines 100-101, expand this section by describing the findings of similar studies and comparing your results with theirs.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community.
-
Comments to Author
This is a small but interesting study of the use of the foldscope in outreach work to engage students about microbiology and microscopy. It is clear that the authors have tried to address the comments from the previous reviewers but I still feel the more detail could be provided in the introduction and methods section in particular. The introduction would benefit from more discussion about similiar pedagogical studies. I know you have included further detail about why ethics was not required but the part about why it is exempt is missing. In my institution ethics would be required for a study such as this if the results were to be published. What were participants told about the survey? Were they provided with information about how their data would be used? Further clarification is needed about the …
Comments to Author
This is a small but interesting study of the use of the foldscope in outreach work to engage students about microbiology and microscopy. It is clear that the authors have tried to address the comments from the previous reviewers but I still feel the more detail could be provided in the introduction and methods section in particular. The introduction would benefit from more discussion about similiar pedagogical studies. I know you have included further detail about why ethics was not required but the part about why it is exempt is missing. In my institution ethics would be required for a study such as this if the results were to be published. What were participants told about the survey? Were they provided with information about how their data would be used? Further clarification is needed about the lack of ethics and a statement added to the manuscript about this. Please could you add in the age range of the participants as a UK audience would not understand the ages of grade 6-8. I also think it would be helpful to include the county/country the study was performed in. I would also suggest including the foldscope company in the methods section. I would suggest removing the photograph with participants and microscope in unless you have permission from those photographed to include it. I have one concern about the study design in that the participants had both the pre and post surveys printed on the same page. My concern is this would allow the participants to look back at their pre survey scores and ensure they scored it higher in the post survey therby biasing the results. It would have been better if the survey were blind and participants couldnt check back on their pre score. On L67 please add in that this was a 5-point likert scale. I'm a little confused as you say there was a statistically significant increase in Q1 and Q4 but figure 3 shows a statistically significant increase in Q1, 4 and 5 if using p
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Satisfactory
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
-
The work presented is clear and the arguments well formed. This study would be a valuable contribution to the existing literature. This is a study that would be of interest to the field and community. Please address all comments made by the reviewers. The reviewers have highlighted major concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments.
-
Comments to Author
The foldscope activity described by Gardner et al. seems to be an excellent outreach activity, and one that increases children's interest in microbiology. However, the paper is let down by the failure of the authors to describe the activity in enough detail that readers can 1)clearly understand what was done, 2)reproduce the outreach event if they wished to. 1. The introduction is rather bare-bones - suggest that the authors might consider providing additional context for their readers (e.g., outreach activities that have previously been shown effective with this age group; other demonstrated uses of microscopy in outreach; pedagogical literature about the effectiveness of microscopy/visualisation in learning) 2. Methods do not go into enough detail to allow the reader to understand the study. a. …
Comments to Author
The foldscope activity described by Gardner et al. seems to be an excellent outreach activity, and one that increases children's interest in microbiology. However, the paper is let down by the failure of the authors to describe the activity in enough detail that readers can 1)clearly understand what was done, 2)reproduce the outreach event if they wished to. 1. The introduction is rather bare-bones - suggest that the authors might consider providing additional context for their readers (e.g., outreach activities that have previously been shown effective with this age group; other demonstrated uses of microscopy in outreach; pedagogical literature about the effectiveness of microscopy/visualisation in learning) 2. Methods do not go into enough detail to allow the reader to understand the study. a. What organisms did the students view? How many? How were the slides prepared? b. What context was given - were the students told what the organisms were, whether they were linked to diseases/etc.? c. What other materials were the students given? Link to the YouTube tutorial? d. How many students participated? What age range? Any criteria for inclusion/exclusion? e. Participants were encouraged to submit their own images - how and where? What information were they given? How many submitted? 3. Figure 2 - suggest that the authors include the test of survey questions, so that the reader does not need to refer to the appendices in order to understand this figure 4. Figure 3- it is not clear what is being presented here: were these the prepared slides given to the participants, or the images that they submitted? What organisms are shown here? 5. Discussion is likewise very short, does not really place the study in the context of the literature or relate to other outreach/education studies. Vague in places (e.g., "a smartphone app" - which one? Accessed how?) that makes it difficult for the reader to understand.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
Comments to Author
This manuscript is very, very brief and currently not of a standard acceptable for publication. The authors need to rewrite the manuscript (details below) and ensure their paper builds upon the large amount of public engagement literature and is of value to the scientific community. Introduction The introduction needs to be greatly expanded to include: *Why public engagement is undertaken by the scientific community *What type of events already exist - from on campus events to pubs, festivals etc * What is the benefit to those attending of public engagement events *microscopy in public engagement including other events / activities using microscopes, e.g. https://pure.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/16583381/7ec0d103_ff85_46e4_9c98_4eb858e6f9eb_12841_Paul_Dalgarno_1_.pdf *what the aim of the study …
Comments to Author
This manuscript is very, very brief and currently not of a standard acceptable for publication. The authors need to rewrite the manuscript (details below) and ensure their paper builds upon the large amount of public engagement literature and is of value to the scientific community. Introduction The introduction needs to be greatly expanded to include: *Why public engagement is undertaken by the scientific community *What type of events already exist - from on campus events to pubs, festivals etc * What is the benefit to those attending of public engagement events *microscopy in public engagement including other events / activities using microscopes, e.g. https://pure.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/16583381/7ec0d103_ff85_46e4_9c98_4eb858e6f9eb_12841_Paul_Dalgarno_1_.pdf *what the aim of the study is (this needs to be backed up by pedagogy literature in the introduction *Information in the discussion about previous use of the microscopes should be in the introduction Methods Include what the event was, how many days, how attended? How many people? How many people did your activity and how did you ask to fill in the questionnaire - what is the n number? Annex 5 - I think this should be supplementary material 1 Please include a link to the YouTube folding video How did you pair the questionnaires before and after? What type of average was used? Data should be a median with bar between 1.5 times the interquartile range as data are ranked. Results Needs to include a summary of what the experiment was and written description of results. Figure 2: questions should be shown on the x axis and the pre and post colours be shown in a figure key. Need to include the n number. Figure 3 should be in the results, a long with the description of what these are and the competition, include information about this? How many submissions did you have? If these images that the public took, do you have permission to publish them? Discussion The discussion should have: *an overview of the results *was the research question answered? *put the results into context of the field, both low cost microscopy and public engagement.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Very poor
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: we have spoken about the ethics. I've read the exemption through and I still don't think its OK to not have ethics in place when you are asking the public (and children) questions
-