Using photovoice to engage students in a non-major microbiology course

  1. Bridget G. Kelly

Reviewed by

Read the full article

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

In the past decade, it has become increasingly difficult to engage and encourage critical thinking and deeper learning in students who participate in higher education, particularly in non-major subjects. Photovoice is a participatory action research methodology that has been used in community-based research in many different areas including social science, health science and education. In this study, photovoice was used as a pedagogical tool in a third-year BSc Bioscience non-major microbiology module at Dundalk Institute of Technology. In order to ascertain if photovoice was an effective way of engaging these students, a qualitative descriptive methodological approach, in the form of a focus group, was employed. Six of the 13 students who took the module participated in the focus group, reporting a positive experience overall of using photovoice. Further analysis of the focus group data resulted in the overarching theme of choice, with creativity and critical thinking and research skills as sub-themes to emerge. These findings suggest that photovoice is an effective way to engage students in microbiology as a non-major subject. However, as it was a small sample size, future research would need to use a larger cohort of students to provide further evidence of using photovoice as a pedagogical engagement tool for non-major subjects.

Article activity feed

  1. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Thank you for making the suggested changes. I think the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Satisfactory

    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

  2. Access Microbiology

    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.

  3. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Thank you for making the suggested, minor amendments. The manuscript in my opinion, can now be accepted for publication.

    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

  4. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000784.v3 on Access Microbiology
  5. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000784.v2 on Access Microbiology
  6. Access Microbiology

    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. The reviewers have highlighted minor concerns with the work presented. Please ensure that you address their comments.

  7. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    This is an innovative use of PhotoBox in an assessment in a Microbiology module to encourage student engagement with the content. I think this would be of interest to many readers who are involved in teaching and assessment. However, I think a case study format which showcases the innovative use of photobox for assessment rather than a research article may be a more appropriate format for the manuscript. I feel the information could be provided more concisely. I also feel it would be beneficial for the researcher to perhaps repeat this study and evaluate it using more data as at the moment the numbers in the focus group were quite small (6 participants) and it was a short focus group (16 minutes). The researcher includes discussion about the focus participants being quite quiet and so therefore I think thematic analysis on this small amount of data is limited. Further additional comments are provided below: Introduction * L 1- I think you need to explain what a non-major subject is and what a third level institution is. * L40- missing a word, should it be lacked connection "with" the course * L43- could you be more specific here about the improved results, is this in the particular module or overall results. * L46, I found it a little confusing about whether you are referring to your current study or the Federici study? I think it's the latter. * L73 can you clarify whether these are optional modules or compulsory microbiology modules? I think the introduction could be written more concisely especially the sections about photobox and its use for engagement. Many of the studies cited and described provide similar information. I think this could be condensed to show the key benefits of photobox Methods L178, what do you mean by the exam being corrected? Marked? L179, not sure we need to know that two students were erasumus and so couldn't participate, I think the reader just needs the total number on the module and those which participated in the focus group. I think in the methods section you need to state whether ethical approval was obtained, and the date/number of the ethical approval. I think it would be helpful to make the rubric available to the reader either as supplementary material or discussing the main sections on the marking rubric. Focus group methods The length of the focus group was quite short at 16 minutes. Did all 6 participants speak? And answer all 6 questions. I have concerns about whether there is enough data for a research article and would encourage the researcher to repeat the focus group with another group to collect more data. Results I think it would be helpful to have table showing the main themes, sub themes and examples of representative quotes. L226 - additional discussion needed to explain why after reflection you moved from 3 major themes to 1 theme and 2 sub themes. L295, this appears to be quite a leading question and therefore its likely the students will have agreed with it. I am not sure I agree with the discussion that says that deeper learning may have taken place.

    Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour

    Good

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

    Satisfactory

    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

  8. Access Microbiology

    Comments to Author

    Thank you for your submission. Below, i have addressed the 5 criteria considered in the review of your manuscript and below that, a list of corrections to be addressed. 1. Methodological rigour, reproducibility and availability of underlying data The methodology used is a familiar approach in this type of qualitative pedagogical study. It is clearly described as is the analysis of the data and is reproducible. Within the limitations of the existing ethics approval for this project, would it be possible to compare either engagement and/or attainment of the students in this assessment vs. other types of assessment in this module? 2. Presentation of results Generally clear although table titles need to be consistently positioned 3. How the style and organisation of the paper communicates and represents key findings Very good. Does [P1], [P2] etc. refer to participant numbers? 4. Literature analysis and discussion Both excellent. Good reference to similar, recent studies and synthesis of findings into an engaging discussion. I think it would benefit the manuscript to comment on the inclusivity of the photovoice approach, considering both the easy access to cameras and presumably reduced requirement for assessment adjustments. Also, it would be interesting to read a bit more about visual learning aids, such as a photo, and how this approach contributes further variety and opportunity in terms of different assessment types but also different learning styles. 5. Any other relevant comments None Minor corrections Introduction Line 34: what is meant by 'third level institution'? For wider audiences, elaborate or clarify with HEI Line 62: should be Mullen et al. Line 68: can another word instead of transversal be used here to make this sentence a bit clearer? Line 70: higher education institutes (can be abbreviated to HEI once clarified in line 34) Line 98: invited to use photography Line 114: can this sentence starting 'Students' be better linked to the sentence above it? What were they students in? This helps to highlight the usage of this approach for non-science students and link in with the rest of the description in this section. Line 134 - not much expansion into visual learning - see if this comes up in discussion. Also no mention of inclusivity of this approach - everyone has a camera on them most of the time Methods Line 173 - 'Participant third year students…' Line 178 - what do you mean by corrected? Perhaps confirmed? Results Some tables have titles at the top, others at the bottom. Please refer to journal guidelines to correct this. I presume [P1], [P2] etc., are participant numbers? Discussion Mark range in comparison with other assessments in module? Engagement, application for extensions or mitigating circumstances? Line 332: single comma after '10' References Reference 17 - space needed between initials and year

    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

  9. Version published to 10.1099/acmi.0.000784.v1 on Access Microbiology