CeMEB Advanced course Marine Evolution under Climate Change

Transcription

1 CeMEB Advanced course Marine Evolution under Climate Change [The Sven Lovén Centre for Marine Sciences, Kristineberg, Sweden, November 2012] Summary & Evaluation Organizers: Piero Calosi (University of Plymouth, UK) Sam Dupont (CEMEB, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) Jenn Sunday (Simon Fraser University, USA) Teachers: Yuri Artioli (Plymouth Marine laboratory, UK) Pierre de Wit (CEMEB, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) Narimane Dorey (CEMEB, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) Marian Hu (CEMEB, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) Meike Stumpp (CEMEB, University of Gothenburg, Sweden) Mike Thorndyke (CEMEB, University of Gothenburg, Sweden)

2 1. Description This course gathered 9 teachers from 3 different countries (UK, USA and Sweden) and 28 students from 12 countries (see List of Participants). The selection of the candidates (total of 48 applications) was done based on their CV, motivation letter and in an attempt to have as much diversity (e.g. research interest, methods) as possible. Applications All applications (48) Selected (30 [28]) Countries Link to CeMEB Sex ratio 28 fem (58%) / 20 mal 17 [15] fem (57% [54]) / 13 mal Interest Evolution (only) 5 4 [3] Climate change (only) [14] Both Education Master 3 2 PhD [19] Post-doc 14 7 The course was organized as an interactive workshop combining (see Program): - Lectures (13, see lectures in pdfs) - An experiment: The potential for adaptation in sea urchin larvae exposed to ocean acidification was assessed using a cross-breeding design. The lab-based experiment was followed by a session of data analysis using a similar dataset collected by Sunday et al.(2011). - A group assignment: students were divided in 6 groups and were asked to write a research proposal combining marine climate change and evolution. Outcome of the group discussion was presented on the last day as a 10 minutes presentation (see presentations in pdfs). The best presentation was awarded with a 1000 euros prize that should be used to collect preliminary data.

3 All course material is available online on the course website: One of the main goals of the course was to create a community with both interests in climate change in evolution. A facebook page ( was created in an attempt to keep contact, post relevant information and stimulate exchanges and discussion. Most students and teachers are now members. 2. Evaluation At the end of the course, all students filled an evaluation (see Evaluation form). General aspects The course lived up the expectations of all but one student and a vast majority of the students thought that the course was extensive enough. - Did the course live up to your expectations? - Do you think that the course content was good/extensive enough to give you sufficient knowledge about the subject at this level? The general comments were highly positive: it fits my expectation, I learned a lot, I learned about both evolution and climate change and how to put these 2 big topics together which the other workshops can t provide, it was very inspirational and engaging. Many students mentioned that they liked the format: It was the perfect combination of science and networking, good combination of lectures, discussion and group work, good flow and workshop type structure, good format, it was well organized and structured. Some students appreciated the fact that the course was run by young researchers, facilitating the dialogue between students and teachers. It was also mentioned that they liked the fact that teachers did not hesitate to contradict each other in order to stimulate discussions and critical thinking.

4 Logistic A vast majority of the students were satisfied with travel arrangements, location ( the location was perfect ), accommodation and meals. It was however suggested to improve vegetarian food and to provide snacks for the evening. - How was your travel arrangement to reach Kristinenerg (1= very bad, 5 = excellent) - How was the location (Kristineberg, Fiskebäckskil) (1= very bad, 5 = excellent) - How was your accommodation? (1= very bad, 5 = excellent) - How were the meals? (1= very bad, 5 = excellent) Teaching The course was highly interactive and most of the students were actively participating during the lectures (asking or answering questions). Most students considered that lectures were relevant and facilitate the understanding of the subject. I had no problem following the lectures, even though certain specifics were sometimes out of my reach, I liked the case studies, I liked that the content was so diverse, for example the talk on communication was great. - Have you been actively participating (asked questions or discussed) during the lectures or seminars? - Did you find the lectures relevant for the subject? (1= never, 5 = always) - Did the lectures facilitate your learning of the subject? (1= not

5 at all, 5 = a lot) Laboratory assignment Most of the students liked the laboratory assignment ( I thought the exposure to crossbreeding logistic was useful ), thought that it was not too difficult to conduct and that there was enough of this activity. The level of learning from this activity was highly dependent on the students as expected for such a diverse group. - What do you think about the amount of laboratory assignments? (1= too few, 5 = too many) - What do you think about the degree of difficulty? (1= easy, 5= hard) - How much did you learn from the assignments? (1=little, 5 = much) Group assignment The group assignment was the favorite activity of many students: it was difficult but I learnt a lot from it, Group work was a great idea, the most engaging component of the course. On average, students considered that there was enough group assignment and that the difficulty level was average. A vast majority learned a lot from this assignment and was satisfied by the quality of the supervision. - What do you think about the amount of group assignments? (1= too few, 5 = too many) - What do you think about the degree of difficulty? (1= easy, 5= hard) - How much did you learn from the assignments? (1= little, 5 =

6 much) - What did you think about the quality of the supervision? (1= low quality, 5 = high quality) Course members and work load The atmosphere between students and the teachers was excellent ( nice peoples ) and students did not report major stress issues during the course. The course was considered as easy but highly informative. It has been a lot of work but not in a stressful way ; it has not been hard in the sense hard to understand. - How do you think the atmosphere among the course members has been? (1= bad 5 = good) - How do you think the atmosphere among the course members and the teachers has been? (1= bad 5 = good) - How much stress have you felt during the course? (1= a little 5 = a lot) - How stressed have you been feeling it you compare to others courses that you have taken? (1= less 5 = more) - How hard do you think this course has been compared to other courses? (1= easier 5 = harder) 3. Suggestions for improvements The course was held for 5 days and the general feeling was that the course could be extended in time: - This would allow including other topics and more in depth discussions on experimental approaches and methods (e.g. how to prepare material, tissue amount required, etc.) Suggested topics included: grant and manuscript writing,

7 conservation genetics, time series analysis, more focus on multiple stressors and their interactions, ecosystem responses, climate science, paleo, etc. - More time could be dedicated for the poster session. - More time dedicated for laboratory assignment with several options/levels of difficulty to fit students with different backgrounds. - More group assignments (e.g. literature discussion). In general, the course was considered as well organized but it was suggested to improve the structure to avoid overlaps between the lectures. For example, some students suggested providing pdf of the lecture and reading suggestions before the course.