Reflections on the Teaching Symposium at the Microbiology Society Annual Conference 2023

  1. Melissa M Lacey
  2. Kirsty L Jones
  3. Monika Gostić
  4. Victoria Easton
  5. Georgios Efthimiou
  6. Bridget G Kelly
  7. Alison I Graham

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

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.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

The Microbiology Society Education and Outreach Network (EON) recently hosted the Teaching Symposium at the Microbiology Society Annual Conference, sponsored by Access Microbiology. The presence of the Symposium as an established parallel session within the wider Annual Conference reflects the importance of high-quality, contemporary microbiology education and outreach delivered in an enthusiastic and inclusive manner.  At the 2023 Symposium, a variety of pedagogical research projects in higher education learning, teaching and assessment, as well as public engagement projects, were showcased through flash talks, offered talks, invited talks and posters. The event was attended by up to 70 delegates. Several themes were noted throughout the day: engaging with GenZ, active learning, art in science, and engaging with non-HE audiences. Inclusivity was a key driver in the organisation of the Symposium; the room was set up to encourage discussion and participants could ask questions using an online platform as well as speaking in the room. We now encourage all speakers to consider publishing their work as a peer-reviewed article for further dissemination and impact.

Article activity feed

  2. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000676.v2 on Access Microbiology
  3. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000676.v3 on Access Microbiology
  4. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data No data was generated during the research or was required. 2. Presentation of results Reflections were presented in clearly headed sections, that reflected the different themes of the symposium and short overviews. Sections were brief, but discussed the aim, delivery and success of each part of the symposium. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings The reflections on the symposium were well presented, but could have been supported with demographic data and feedback collected from the participants to provide evidence that the perceptions of the authors on the 'friendly, inclusive and interdisciplinary' aims of the symposium had been met and were appreciated by all participants. This would then have also given greater direction to the considerations for planning the next year's symposium, especially regarding the engagement with key groups and what the challenges and interests of the participants are. 4. Literature analysis or discussion Literature cited was mainly used to support the content presented at the symposia. 5. Any other relevant comments A clearly presented reflection of the Teaching Symposium and the Microbiology Society Anuual Conference, but could have been more balanced in the discussion of whether the aims of the symposium had been met through the use of participant feedback.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Very good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Very good

    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?

    Yes

  5. Access Microbiology

    Three reviewers have shared opinions and comments on how this article might be improved prior to publication. Please consider each point. I look forward to receiving the resubmission.

  6. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Overall this symposium sounds like an amazing event- providing inclusive opportunities for discussing the importance of pedagogical tools (particularly interdisciplinary ones) in science is really crucial and exciting. These tools can serve both to promote the science and improve the inclusivity to wider audiences. The good practice included in this manuscript is excellent and very worthwhile to share, making it a valuable and interesting contribution both to scientific and pedagogical research. 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data This manuscript is not one based around a data-driven question, so a concrete methodological approach may not be applicable here. Given the reflective focus, there is appropriate inclusion of good practice examples and links with pedagogical concepts in the literature. 2. Presentation of results Very few results were presented, as this was a reflective account of the symposium. Any questionnaire data or participant quotes would be helpful to have included, provided ethical approval was in place. 3. How the style and organization of the paper communicates and represents key findings Overall, this is the area of the work that needs the most improvement. The key elements and most exciting content about this symposium were less obvious because of the somewhat 'play-by-play' account of the session. Also, there are neither evaluation data or author reflections included- there is a little bit in the final paragraph about inclusivity, but the majority of this manuscript is a descriptive account of what happened, which obscures its real strengths- the aims of encouraging inclusive practice and highlighting best practice in pedagogy and outreach. In order to improve this, I would like to see more reflective content about the session- not just a descriptive account of the talks/presentations that were given as it currently is. Restructuring this (or refocusing the final sections in particular) would really improve it, starting with the key drivers and purpose of creating the session and then concluding with what was learned from it. What decisions were made in advance of the session to promote your aims, and what would you change for the future? Did everything that you set out to achieve happened? Are there particular resources that someone could take away from the session & apply to their own practice? In particular, I think the last two sections ("Extending the Reach of the Symposium' and 'Focus for Next Year') are admirable, but they are very vague and speak to the wider context of the society & journal rather than the symposium. These sections lose the focus of the symposium & pedagogy event, instead commenting on the wider aims of the EON & Society (which are fine, very admirable and useful objectives, just not well connected with the manuscript's focus). If the word count is limiting, perhaps those two sections could be refocused to include reflections on what happened or suggestions for future improvements. Also, if more space is needed, some of the list of presentations could be condensed into a table, with those most transferable elaborated on in the main text. 4. Literature analysis or discussion There are links to the literature that are helpful, however these could be strengthened with a restructuring of the overall manuscript- (i.e. more clearly laid out aims, achievements and then action to take forward in the future). 5. Any other relevant comments On more minor notes, it would be interesting to see how likely folks that were encouraged to submit manuscripts on their conference presentations actually do (so monitor the results of this initiative). Also, having rough numbers of participants for the different sections of the symposium might be nice, but not essential. Can any of the content that connects with potential evaluation activities be supported by data? I'm assuming this has been left out because ethical approval for human participants was not in place. However, even the reflections from the contributing authors (i.e. session organisers) might be helpful. Things like, what was the response from participants in the main conference? was this accepted as a legitimate/equal session to the scientific ones?

    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?

    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?

    Yes

  7. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    The review of the teaching symposium is an accurate reflection of the session. I attended as a participant, and very much enjoyed the breadth of talks and posters, as well as the diversity of speakers involved. The session ran smoothly, to time, and covered current topics in microbiology teaching and outreach practices. No data was collected, which could be something for future reviews/publications to measure the anticipated impact of the session in the self-assured shorter and longer-term, and for qualitative approaches of what specific aspects attendees took from the sessions.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Very good

    Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript

    Very 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

  8. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000676.v1 on Access Microbiology