This document describes the development and evaluation of an interactive stem cell workshop for A-Level biology students. The workshop was designed to provide a broad overview of stem cells, their properties, potential uses, and ethical issues. It was implemented using cooperative and problem-based learning strategies. Students worked in groups on a research task about potential stem cell applications. The workshop was tested in two settings - a museum and a classroom - and received positive feedback, though some changes were recommended. The goal was to improve student understanding of stem cells in an engaging way and contribute to stem cell education resources.

1. Development & evaluation of an
interactive stem cells workshop in two
different educational settings.
8425961
B.Sc. (Hons) Biology
Plusa, Berenika

2. 1
Abstract Resources available at: http://tinyurl.com/pga4jr9
Education represents one of the most importance ways that scientific research is communicated to the
public. One area of science that has received much attention in the past decades is stem cell
research. Stem cells have shown enormous potential as a technology that may bring huge benefits to
fields such as medicine and food production. Nonetheless, there remain major technical and political
obstacles to the use of stem cell technologies. It is vital for educators teaching this topic to highlight
both the huge range of applications, as well as these considerable challenges, in order for students’ to
gain a thorough understanding of current research. Here we designed and produced an interactive
workshop for A Level biology students, entitled ‘Stem Cells: What are they and what can we use them
for?'. This workshop aimed to give a broad outline of the topic of stem cells, focusing on their
properties, sources, potential uses and associated technical and ethical issues. The learning
objectives were achieved principally through the instructional practices of cooperative and problem-
based learning, with a group research and presentation task as the core component. An original
animation was also produced to be used as a teaching resource. The workshop was implemented in
two different educational settings: an open day at the Manchester Museum and an ordinary classroom
lesson at Rickmansworth School. Its success in each setting was evaluated using team-based
assessments and feedback obtained from teachers and students. Results of this investigation gave a
clear indication that the workshop was broadly successful in both settings – albeit, slightly more in the
school setting – fulfilling its aims of improving students’ understanding of the subject in a unique and
engaging way. Nevertheless, a number of key changes were recommended to produce an optimal end
product. It is hoped that this workshop will make a valuable contribution to the body of resources
available to educators for teaching the topic of stem cells.
Introduction
Public engagement is an essential part of modern science. As well as performing the research that
makes new discoveries and creates new technologies, scientists must ensure that their findings are
communicated to the public in a manner that is both accurate and understandable. Doing so ensures
that the public appreciates the vital role of science in society, and understands the contribution it
makes to their everyday lives. Science should be considered, as Research Councils UK guidelines
argue, “part of the fabric of society” (2002). For people outside of academia, the education system is
one of the most important means of science communication. The education system provides a means
of engaging with children from all backgrounds in a highly controlled environment: where the principal
objectives are to facilitate pupil’s learning and personal development. Children and young people in
education represent the future taxpayers and consumers who will be indirectly funding scientific
research, as well as the future voters who will ultimately influence policy decisions made about such
research. It is therefore vital that they receive the knowledge and skills necessary for forming
educated opinions and making informed decisions about science. This knowledge must include an
understanding of both the potential benefits and possible risks of new research and technologies, in
order to ensure that public expectations are kept realistic. Today’s children and young people
furthermore represent the talent pool from which future generations of scientists, doctors and
engineers will be recruited. As such, it is important that they be inspired by science and motivated to

3. 2
explore it further, to encourage them to pursue science-based careers. One area of science that has
captured the public’s imagination in recent years is stem cell research, often presented (rightly or
wrongly) as something that will revolutionise the whole field of medicine.
The Science of Stem Cells
Stem cells are undifferentiated cells, typified by a capacity to differentiate into a range of specialised
cell types – known as potency – and an ability to divide and produce new stem cells – known as self-
renewal (Melton, 2009). Stem cells are commonly defined by their level of potency, or: how many
different cell types they may give rise to. Pluripotent stem cells are those with the capacity to
differentiate into any of the cells found in an adult organism. They cannot, however, generate the cells
of extraembryonic tissues – such as the mammalian placenta (Mitalipov & Wolf, 2009). Multipotent
stem cells are those with the capacity to differentiate into a limited subset of cells (Geraerts &
Verfaillie, 2009). This is commonly the range of cells found within one particular organ or tissue. For
example, a multipotent hematopoietic stem cell (or ‘HSC’) is capable of differentiating into all of the
cellular components of the blood, including: erythrocytes, lymphocytes, macrophages etc. (Gunsilius
et al, 2001). It cannot, however, differentiate into cells of other tissues, such as the brain. A third
category of potency exists, known as ‘totipotency’. Totipotent cells can differentiate into any of the
cells found in an organism, including – importantly – the cells of extraembryonic tissues like the
placenta (Mitalipov & Wolf, 2009). However, in mammals, it would be incorrect to refer to them as
stem cells, since they have not been shown capable of self-renewal.
Stem cells may be derived from a variety of different sources. Perhaps the most famous, and
indeed, controversial, of these is from embryos. A lineage of pluripotent cells, known as embryonic
stem cells (‘ESCs’, or ‘hESCs’ if of human embryonic origin), may be derived from the inner cell mass
of the blastocyst stage embryo in mammals (Evans & Kaufman, 1981). For a long period, ESCs were
the only pluripotent stem cell lines available to scientists. However, in 2006, a pioneering study by
Takahashi and Yamanaka demonstrated that it was possible to induce pluripotency in previously
differentiated adult cells. By introducing genes for particular transcription factors into mouse
fibroblasts, they were able to cause the cells to acquire many of those characteristics typical of ESCs.
These included – crucially – the capacity for unlimited self-renewal, and ability to differentiate into any
of the cells of the adult organism. Scientists have since successfully replicated this process with
human cell lines (Takahashi et al, 2007), using progressively more efficient techniques (Okita et al,
2007; Zhou et al, 2012). Induced pluripotent stem cells (or ‘iPSCs’) are now widely used throughout
the field of stem cell research. Multipotent stem cells can be found at numerous sites within the adult
organism, where they carry out vital roles in day-to-day tissue maintenance throughout life, and as
such are termed ‘adult’ stem cells (Young & Black, 2003). HSCs, for example, are routinely harvested
from bone marrow, but can also be extracted from the blood found within the discarded placenta and
umbilical cord (known as ‘cord blood’) (Gunsilius et al, 2001; Wagner & Kurtzberg, 1997).
The potential therapeutic applications of stem cells have sparked enormous interest, from both
the scientific community and general public. A flurry of research within the last two decades has led to
extraordinary advancements across the field, and new stem cell therapies may be a reality for patients

4. 3
within the very near future. While transplantation of multipotent, bone marrow-derived HSCs has been
practised as a treatment for cancer since the 1950s (Thomas et al, 1956), virtually no other stem cell
therapy has achieved widespread usage. However, this may all change in the coming years, with a
multitude of innovative therapies now progressing through the clinical trials phases. In 2014, results of
a phase 1 clinical trial, using hESCs to treat macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness),
showed significant improvements in vision in a majority of patients, and provided no evidence for
adverse side effects (Schwartz et al, 2014). This was a strong indication of the safety and efficacy of
the therapy, and this will hopefully translate into continued success in further trials, leading to eventual
widespread usage. Elsewhere, the ‘PiSCES’ study is aiming to repair the brains of stroke victims using
stem cells; in 2010, its researchers injected neural stem cells into the brain of a human stroke victim
for the first time ever (Wise, 2010). Early results from the trials in which this took place have reportedly
yielded promising results (Forsyth, 2013). Yet the benefits of stem cell technologies need not be
limited purely to the field of medicine. In 2013, scientists unveiled the world’s first laboratory-grown
beef burger, which they cultured from stem cells obtained from cow muscle (Post, 2013). Their method
of growing meat was vastly more efficient than traditional livestock rearing, and devoid of animal
welfare problems. This ground-breaking technology could have major implications for food production
in future, particularly given the ever-rising demand for food – especially protein – as the global
population expands, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2011).
It must be stressed that stem cell technologies are not without problems, and these problems
are likely to represent significant obstacles to their widespread usage within medicine and food in
future. Looming large amongst these, as with virtually any sophisticated technology, is cost. For
example, the cost of developing the prototype lab-grown beef burger discussed above ran to £215,000
(Post, 2013). Cost can be especially problematic if a technology should fail later on. These costs
therefore need to be weighed against the possible benefit to society and realistic chances of success.
Another major issue is safety, which is by far the biggest reason why stem cell therapies might fail
during the clinical trials phases. Stem cell therapies can induce a number of undesirable responses in
patients that may render them unsafe. Common safety problems include stem cell-derived transplant
tissues being rejected by the recipient’s immune system (Nauta et al, 2006), or mutating and
developing into tumours (Amariglio et al, 2009), with dire consequences for the patient’s health.
Another significant issue is the continuing controversy surrounding the origin of hESCs. Harvesting
hESCs involves the destruction of human embryos, and many conservative religious groups regard
this act as tantamount to murder (de Wert & Mummery, 2003). These groups view human embryos as
‘persons’ that should be accorded the same rights as living humans. This debate has had a major
impact on government policy: in 2001, then President of the United States George W. Bush
announced a ban on federal funding for research on new hESC lines, a ban that was only lifted in
2009 by his successor Barack Obama. While iPSCs could present a way of avoiding these ethical
issues, lingering uncertainties over whether they are functionally equivalent to ESCs (Kim et al, 2010)
mean they are unlikely to fully replace ESCs in medical research, at least within the near future.
Given the rapid recent advances in stem cell research, the imminent prospect of new stem cell
therapies coming to market, and the contentious political and ethical debate that remains, it is clear

5. 4
the public needs to be kept appropriately educated on this subject. A 2014 Ipsos MORI poll found that
only 34% of people in the UK aged 16+ felt they were well-informed about stem cells. A well-informed
public will be better placed to judge what funding, support, and regulation this research deserves, and
to demand these from policy-makers accordingly. Both the public and funding bodies are furthermore
less likely to develop unrealistic (or even impossible) expectations of the results of research. Such
expectations of ‘magic bullet’ solutions are inevitably disappointed, generating disillusionment and
mistrust in science and damaging its reputation with the public (Kimmelman, 2006). These perceptions
can cloud proper scientific and ethical debate, and become a barrier to scientific progress. This study
therefore aimed to produce an intervention (in the form of a workshop) aimed at educating school
pupils on the subject of stem cells, putting emphasis on the wide range of potential applications, as
well as current issues and limitations.
Teaching Stem Cells
Communicating information about stem cells to school-age students in a way that is both accurate and
engaging represents a significant challenge for educators. The first in-depth look at the topic of stem
cells within the science curriculum in England and Wales comes at Key Stage 5 level (ages 16-18),
within the GCE A Level Biology course operated in most schools. Most recent specifications for three
of the largest A Level Biology examination boards all feature stem cells in varying detail at some point
in the AS or A2 year (AQA, 2013; Edexcel, 2013; OCR, 2013). Frequently covered areas include basic
properties, types of potency, applications in medicine, and ethical issues – broadly similar to the
information discussed above. Students studying AS/A Level Biology were therefore deemed an
appropriate target audience for a workshop on the topic of stem cells, as it would both contribute to
and enrich their curricular learning. This would hopefully benefit subsequent examination results and
academic performance. Furthermore, students at this age are actively thinking about future career
paths and preparing university applications. It is hoped that students might be inspired by this
workshop to consider careers in stem cell or other medical research.
Educating students using up-to-date teaching practices is of vital importance if learning is to
be achieved in the most effective way possible. ‘Cooperative learning’ is a pedagogy that may be
defined as students working together in small groups to accomplish a collective task (Cohen, 1994).
Davidson and Worsham (1992) describe an ideal cooperative learning process as one that involves
students actively taking part in inquiry and discussion with their peers, with the aim of benefitting the
learning of the entire group. Within this process, students are expected to share ideas and resources,
reason as a group to answer questions or solve problems, and assist peers who may be struggling to
understand content. Equal participation by all students in a group is essential. As well as being a
valuable method for teaching academic information and concepts, team-based cooperative learning
also develops students’ interpersonal and teamwork skills (Michaelsen et al, 2014). These skills will be
highly important throughout students’ future careers. There is a wide body of experimental evidence
for the benefits of cooperative learning, in comparison with traditional individualist learning (i.e.
‘lecturing’) (Johnson et al, 2000; Springer et al, 1999), and as such it is referred to as an “evidence-
based instructional practice” (Davidson et al, 2014). Since it is clearly a highly effective strategy,
activities for the workshop were designed to employ the principles of cooperative learning for studying

6. 5
the topic of stem cells. Students completed all tasks set for them in small groups (3-5 per group), with
each task designed to require input from the whole group for successful completion.
Another learning strategy commonly used across the field of education is known as ‘problem-
based learning’. Problem-based learning (or ‘PBL’) is the pedagogy of learning about subjects in the
context of trying to address a particular theoretical or practical problem, based on authentic, real-world
scenarios (Barrows, 1986). This is in contrast to traditional teaching methods, based on an instructor
simply telling students information for them to memorise (as in the case of lecturing). Students must
collaborate to identify both the nature of the problem, and the skills and principles required to form a
solution (Major & Eck, 2000). It is up to them to conduct the necessary research and then apply the
knowledge they have gained to the problem at hand. PBL not only allows students to gain new
knowledge but allows them to directly apply this knowledge in a meaningful context. It furthermore
develops a wide range of highly beneficial academic skills, including: the ability to think critically,
conduct research, use and analyse resources, and engage in self-directed learning (Duch et al, 2001).
Like cooperative learning, the benefits of PBL are rigorously documented by a range of educational
studies, as reviewed in Dochy et al (2003). PBL had its origins in the field of medical education, where
it is now widely used as a method for teaching skills and knowledge in the context of clinical problems,
such as disease (Neville, 2009) – directly relevant to the uses of stem cells. PBL was therefore
deemed the most appealing strategy for informing students about the range of potential applications of
stem cells. This came in the form of a group research and presentation task: where the ‘problems’ to
solve were diseases, the ‘solutions’ they had to find were in stem cell technologies, and the research
materials for them to use were relevant scientific news articles.
Integrating new and innovative technologies into learning programmes has been a strong
trend throughout the history of modern education, as educators seek to keep both content and delivery
methods up-to-date and relevant to modern life (Martin et al, 2011). The role of digital multimedia in
science education (especially the use of video clips) has greatly increased in recent years, particularly
since the advent of the free video-sharing platform YouTube, and its growth as a major channel for
science communication (Kay, 2012). A huge variety of educational videos (including animations, films,
presentations etc.) can be sourced from Youtube, providing a wealth of scientific information that is
accessible to everyone, and may make a more exciting and engaging alternative to standard lecture
notes. YouTube videos (watched in class or at home) have thus become a widely used educational
tool, and studies have demonstrated that they can yield clear benefits to students’ performance when
integrated into learning materials (Jaffar, 2012; Fulton, 2012). It was therefore decided that a short
YouTube-style video clip, taking the form of an original animation, would be produced for the purposes
of educating students about certain knowledge and concepts within the topic of stem cells (in those
areas less suited to the cooperative/problem-based learning activities – such as key properties).
Different Learning Environments
School-age education need not be exclusively restricted to the classroom setting. Museum visits are
one alternative to regular classroom teaching, typically arranged by schools as approved educational
activities to supplicate students’ learning. The museum setting is a unique learning environment that

7. 6
differs from the classroom in a number of ways. A museum visit is generally regarded by teaching staff
as an ‘enrichment’ activity, which may complement the curriculum but does not need to directly link to
it (Griffin, 2004). An enrichment activity would ideally give students unique experiences and
knowledge not encountered in normal schooling. As such, museum activities can place more
emphasis on the ‘fun’ aspect, promoting themes of discovery and student interaction (Tal & Morag,
2007). Classroom lessons, on the other hand, are inherently constrained by the requirements of a
comprehensive, formal education, where promoting these aspects is not always possible. With
regards to the role of instructors/teachers, museum educators obviously have no prior knowledge of
the students visiting a museum (including their individual abilities and behaviours). Furthermore, the
role of an educator within a museum is understood to be to facilitate students’ learning, encouraging
them to investigate and enquire on their own, perhaps by posing questions that stimulate their thought
processes (Peck & Travers, 2013). This approach is central to the overarching aim of discovery
presented in museum learning. In contrast, school teachers possess a pre-existing relationship with
(and comprehensive knowledge of) their students, which teachers may use to their mutual benefit by
tailoring work to the varying abilities of different students. In addition, the role of a teacher is of course
usually understood to be to teach students, guiding their learning within a more rigid, instructional
framework. The Institute for Museum and Library Services argues that museum education can assist
the needs of schools, by both covering and expanding on curricular learning in a more exciting and
engaging environment than a school could offer (Hirzy, 1996). It was therefore decided that this
workshop would be carried out in both the museum and classroom settings, with a comparison made
to determine what setting it was best suited to.
Study Aims
To summarise, the aim of this study was to produce a unique workshop for A Level Biology students
on the subject of stem cells: what they are, where we can get them from, what we might use them for,
and what problems we might encounter using them. The workshop was titled: ‘Stem Cells: What are
they and what can we use them for?’. This workshop focused on the techniques of cooperative and
problem-based learning as the means of delivery, with a group research and presentation task as the
central component. There was an additional, originally-produced multimedia element designed for
teaching certain aspects of the material. As well as being highly informative, this workshop aimed to
facilitate development of other skills such as problem-solving, analysis, teamwork and presentation
skills. The success of the workshop was then evaluated in two different learning environments: a
museum, and an ordinary school classroom. This study aimed to determine if the workshop was
successful as a learning intervention, and in which learning environment (the museum or school) it
was more successful. It was hoped that the resources from this workshop would be seen as valuable
tools for other educators tackling the topic of stem cells with their students.
Methods & Materials
Settings
The workshop was conducted in two different educational settings. The first setting was an A Level
science open day taking place at the Manchester Museum – a natural history museum run by the

8. 7
University of Manchester. Located in Manchester city centre, the museum acts as an important centre
for academic research and teaching within the university, as well as being a major visitor attraction for
the general public. The open day in question involved students in classes of no more than 15 taking
time out of their regular school timetable to visit the museum, where they attended a series of five
different workshops. The workshops were 45 minutes in length and spread throughout the day, with
gaps of 5 minutes between each, plus one 45 minute lunch break midway. Each independent
workshop (of which the workshop presented here constituted one) covered a unique topic connected
to research areas at the University of Manchester, and was run by a final year undergraduate Faculty
of Life Sciences student. The open day was targeted at sixth-form students aged 16-18 studying AS
Level Biology, coming from three local colleges: Xaverian College, Holly Cross Sixth Form College,
and Manchester Grammar School (with one class attending from each). The second setting was an
ordinary AS Level Biology lesson at Rickmansworth School Sixth Form, located in Croxley Green,
Hertfordshire. The workshop was run twice for two separate, mixed-ability classes, and was intended
to support their regular curriculum, occurring in close proximity to lessons on related topics. As in the
museum, classes were to contain no more than 15 students. Normal lessons at this school ran for an
hour, as opposed to 45 minutes. To ensure reliable comparison, the workshop ran for 45 minutes, with
the teacher allowed to resume normal teaching for the remaining 15 minutes at the end. However,
there is no reason why teachers employing this workshop in future could not extend it to fill longer
lessons.
Xaverian College and Holy Cross College are both Roman Catholic sixth form colleges, and
were both rated as ‘outstanding’ in all areas in their most recent Ofsted inspections (2008; 2007).
Xaverian College was noted in the report to draw 64% of its pupils from areas described as
‘disadvantaged’. Holy Cross has meanwhile been consistently rated among the top ten sixth form
colleges in the country (Hooton, 2013). The Manchester Grammar School is an independent fee-
paying day school for boys, and was deemed ‘excellent’ overall in its most recent inspection (ISI,
2013). Rickmansworth School Sixth Form is a sixth form college attached to a secondary school, and
was ranked ‘good’ in all areas at its last Ofsted inspection (2013).
Workshop Structure:
The workshop conformed to the following plan: 1) a starter assessment activity, lasting two minutes, 2)
a short video presentation and talk by the workshop instructor, lasting approximately 6 minutes, 3) the
main activity – a group research and presentation task, lasting around thirty minutes and comprising
the bulk of the session, and 4) the final assessment activity, lasting two minutes. Instructions for each
activity were delivered orally by the instructor in conjunction with slides produced on Microsoft Office
PowerPoint 2010. Upon arrival at the session, classes were immediately told to divide amongst
themselves into groups of up to 5 students each, sat around separate tables. Assuming each class
contained up to 15 students, this would have produced a maximum of three groups, or ‘teams’. If
significantly less than this number attended, two groups would have been sufficient. Students were to
remain in these teams for the duration of the session, completing all work as a team. This facilitated
the cooperative learning strategy (as outlined in the introduction) and provided a competitive element
to the session (and thus an additional motivation to work harder).

9. 8
Figure 1 Answ er sheets for the starter activity: questions
are w ritten at the centre of each ‘bubble’, w ith answ ers to
be w ritten by students w ithin the ‘bubbles’; these sheets
are reused during the final activity. See also the photo
prompt for the main activity (labelled) indicating w hat
tissue the team are studying.
Starter Activity
The starter activity involved a set of 4 different
questions about the topic of stem cells posed
to the teams of students. These questions
were: 1) to name key properties of stem cells,
2) to list potential uses of stem cells, 3) to
name possible sources of stem cells and 4) to
list conceivable issues associated with their
use. The questions were broad in scope,
designed to cover all the content to be
delivered in the workshop. These four
questions essentially set out the learning
objectives of the workshop – which were to
discover the answers to each question.
Working in their teams, students were invited to write as many answers as they could think of for each
question within a timed two minute period. Answers were to be written on a set of sheets given to each
team (fig. 1). Students were expected to discuss ideas with their fellow team members and ‘bounce’
ideas off each other. However, they were advised not to overthink answers, as this activity was
intended as more of a ‘brainstorming’ session with open ended aims (as opposed to a ‘test’ with
correct or incorrect answers). At the end of the two minutes, students were instructed to stop writing
and leave the question sheets alone until told otherwise. They were informed that they would revisit
them later on in the session – hinting to them to keep thinking about the questions as the session
progressed. The purpose of this activity was, first and foremost, to get pupils actively engaged with
and thinking about the subject straight away. Museum staff advised against starting the session with
students merely passively listening to content, as this could make maintaining their full attention
difficult. This activity also served as a means of assessing pupil’s prior knowledge on the topic of stem
cells – crucially important information when evaluating the effectiveness of the workshop, as will be
presented later.
Video Presentation/Talk
The first component of the presentation section was a one minute video titled ‘Stem Cells in the
News’. This video is a montage of clips from a variety of news channels such as the BBC, Fox News
and CNN, as well as segments of speeches from political leaders such as Barack Obama and George
W. Bush, and a few educational videos. These all concerned recent advances in stem cell
technologies, or the controversies associated with certain types of stem cells. All clips were sourced
from YouTube and edited together using Windows Live Movie Maker (version 11, Microsoft). As well
as revealing some of the uses and controversies of stem cells, this video highlighted the various, often
dramatic ways they have been depicted and discussed in the media and by politicians. The attention-
grabbing aim of news headlines, combined with the slightly humorous nature of some of the clips, was
designed to keep students engrossed and excited by the workshop content. It also served to ‘set the
scene’ for the theme of stem cells appearing in the news – a central element of the main activity, as
Answer sheets
Photo Prompt
Questions

10. 9
will be discussed shortly. This ‘framing’ of the subject context by use of news reels drew inspiration
from a course produced by Cox (2011), which featured a YouTube news clip embedded in a
presentation to highlight the wider context of the scientific topic being discussed.
The second component of the presentation was another video, 4 minutes in length, designed
to cover the basic science of stem cells (to a level appropriate to AS Level Biology students). Titled,
‘What is a Stem Cell?’, this video takes the form of a stop-motion animation, following cartoon-style
words and images progressively drawn on to paper. The animation was filmed on an Apple iPhone 4
using the iMotion Pro app (version 2.2.5, Fingerlab). The animation covered the knowledge outlined in
the introduction regarding the three key properties of all stem cells, (self-renewal, undifferentiated
state and potency), the different classifications of potency (totipotent, pluripotent and multipotent), and
where stem cells can be obtained from (including adults, embryos and iPSCs). The animation was
presented with the instructor speaking alongside it, explaining and elaborating on what was being
shown. The animation and accompanying speech were designed to provide students with the scientific
knowledge and terminology necessary for understanding the materials presented in the main activity
to follow, as well as to answer some of the questions asked in the starter activity.
Main Activity
The main activity was a group research and
presentation task based on cooperative and problem-
based learning theories, as proposed in the
introduction. For this task, each team of students was
given a specific tissue that could be made by scientists
using stem cells, in order to solve a medical (or
nutritional) problem. Students were to investigate their
assigned tissue (which was indicated by the photo
prompts given to each team – fig. 2) before presenting
their findings to the rest of the class. This task was
characterised in the style of the comical children’s
electronic board game ‘Operation’, produced by Hasbro
– in which players acting as ‘doctors’ attempt to remove
and replace toy organs from a man on an operating
table, without making him ‘buzz’ (by hitting the
electrified sides). This popular game was likely to be
familiar to most students of this age range. To this end,
the centrepiece of this task was a life-size cardboard
cut-out ‘Patient’ standing at the front of the class, with
specific organs on its body highlighted (being the site of each tissue under investigation) (fig. 2).
Students were told that their task was to find out how they could ‘heal’ the patient (who it was
assumed was suffering from various afflictions of his organs), using stem cell technologies.
Figure 2 ‘The Patient’ display used in the main
activity, w ith organs under investigation in pink
card (see labels), and several posters as visual
aids positioned around the sides. See also the
post-it notes, attached to organs by students
during their presentations.
Blood
Heart
Eyes
Brain
Lab-grown
meat
Skin
Pancreas

11. 10
Each team was given a set of several news articles, detailing recent advances in stem cell
technologies pertaining to the tissue/organ they had been assigned to. The organs/tissues featured in
this workshop were heart muscle, brain tissue, lab-grown meat, retinal cells, blood, skin and
pancreatic cells, providing seven options in total for teams to look at. Over the next 10-20 minutes
(depending on their ability level), their task was to read through these articles, and as a team try and
ascertain: 1) what the new technology or treatment being reported was, 2) what diseases it could be
used to treat, 3) where the scientists involved had obtained the stem cells from (embryos, bone
marrow etc.) and 4) any issues or problems with the technology/treatment (i.e. ethics, cost, safety). At
the end of the time period, each team performed a brief oral presentation of their findings to the rest of
the class, covering each of these four key points. This should have lasted around two minutes, but
could be lengthened or shortened depending on time constraints. They were also given a set of post-it
notes on which to write summaries of each of these four points, which they were to attach to the
appropriate organ on the body of the ‘Patient’ during their presentations. This produced a fully-labelled
‘Patient’ at the conclusion of the workshop (fig 2.), which could be retained as a permanent
educational display. The purpose of the group research and presentation task was to introduce
students to some of the wide variety of possible applications of stem cells, both within medicine, but
also in less obvious fields such as food production (as is the case for lab-grown meat). In addition,
students learnt more about the diversity of stem cell sources being used currently, and gained an
appreciation of the issues and problems with this technology that still exist. It thus directly addressed
three of the four learning objectives posed in the starter activity – specifically sources, uses and issues
of stem cells.
For each organ or tissue, there was a set of printed news articles, ranging in quantity from two
on blood to five for lab-grown meat. These covered recent discoveries or developments in using stem
cells to treat diseases of the organ or tissue (or in the case of lab-grown meat, using them to culture
meat for consumption). The articles were drawn from a broad spectrum of internet media sources,
including news agencies such as Reuters and BBC News, newspapers like The Guardian and The
Independent, and popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Harvard Health Publications.
Articles were selected from publications deemed to be scientifically reputable (tabloid newspapers, for
example, would not be appropriate), and were checked by the instructor against the original scientific
literature to ensure they were factually correct. It was important that all content be understandable to
students who could be as young as 16, so an effort was made to find articles that were clearly written
and did not contain excessive use of jargon or overly complex scientific details. Inclusion of eye-
catching images was considered a beneficial aspect, likely to stimulate students’ interest. For clarity
and ease of reading, any unnecessary information (such as details about research funding or
scientists’ backgrounds) was edited out. It was vital that the instructor be on hand throughout the
duration of the activity: to give students assistance as necessary if they were struggling with the
content of the articles or nature of the task, and also to ask questions about the content and their
progress, in order to stimulate discussion and keep the students focused.
To clarify instructions for the students, an example case was presented by the instructor at the
start of the activity. In this investigation, the pancreatic cells option was used as the example. Images

12. 11
of the associated news articles were shown on screen, with the relevant pieces of information
highlighted, and an oral presentation in the style expected of the students was given by the instructor.
Heart muscle, brain tissue and lab-grown meat were to be given to the anticipated three teams as the
initial options for them to study and present to the class on. The main activity furthermore featured an
integrated extension task, in the form of the opportunity for teams to investigate and present on a
second tissue option. On advice of both museum and school staff, it was necessary to provide some
kind of extension activity, for students of higher ability levels to attempt, should they complete work
early. Retinal cells, blood and skin were used as extension options, coming with only two associated
news articles each and covering relatively easier subjects. Thus, it was hoped they would require less
time for the students to study than the more in-depth heart muscle, brain tissue and lab-grown meat
options given initially.
Final Activity
The final activity constituted a repeat of the starter activity, with students reattempting the questions in
light of any new learning acquired from the workshop. Each team was handed back its set of answer
sheets from the starter activity and given a timed two minute period, in which to write down any new
information they had learnt that answered the questions asked in each ‘bubble’ (fig. 1). All materials
(such as news articles from the main activity) and any notes made were removed from their
desks/tables, and the ‘Patient’ was placed out of view. This was to prevent students ‘cheating’ and
using them for answers; instead they had to rely on their own memory and understanding that they
had hopefully acquired during the session. These sheets were marked by the instructor after the
session to establish quantities of correct answers given at both the start (henceforth known as before)
and conclusion (henceforth known as after) of the workshop. Before answers represented students’
baseline knowledge, i.e. what they knew on the subject prior to the workshop. This prior knowledge
could then be distinguished from new knowledge gained during the session – hopefully presented in
the after answers. Quantities of correct after answers (that did not also feature in the before answers)
thus stood as a measure of students’ performance in the assessment, which in turn indicated how
much the students had learnt – our measure of the effectiveness of the workshop. Students in the
school environment could receive marks back from this assessment during their next lesson (delivered
by their regular teachers), something not possible in the museum environment. The performance of
the students in this assessment was compared between the museum and school settings, in order to
assess if there was any difference between the two. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to indicate if
any differences were significant. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in
performance between the two settings. As well as serving our own evaluation purposes, this activity
also allowed students to recap and reflect on everything they had learnt during the session. It was
hoped this would help them retain their new knowledge on the subject of stem cells following the
workshop, and benefit their future learning.
Feedback Questionnaires
Evaluating the success of the workshop in both environments required a determination of not just its
effectiveness (in terms of benefit to students’ learning), but its functionality – in terms of usability, pupil

13. 12
Figure 3 Student feedback questionnaire; business-
card sized, w ith an eye-catching illustration of stem
cells undergoing mitosis for the background. Ratings
w ere given by marking in the relevant box. ‘Group
w orksheet task’ refers to the starter and final activities,
w hich ultimately constituted a single task repeated.
engagement, difficulty level etc. This required
obtaining opinions and feedback from both
attending students and their accompanying
teachers, using questionnaires filled out at the
end of the session. Museum staff advised that
any questionnaires for pupils be short (taking not
more than a few seconds to complete) and of a
visually exciting design, so as not to bore them
and detract from the fun element of the open day.
A concise pupil feedback questionnaire was thus
produced (fig. 3), asking them to anonymously
rate how useful they found each of the principal
components of the workshop, as well as the
workshop as a whole. ‘Useful’ in this context can
be considered an umbrella term broadly encompassing all aspects of functionality. Another, more in-
depth feedback questionnaire was produced for the observing teachers to complete. This
questionnaire collected opinions on the usefulness of constituent activities (as in the student
questionnaire), while also asking them to rate the workshop for how enjoyable, interesting, engaging
and informative they deemed it, and judge whether the difficulty of the material was appropriate. It
furthermore asked teachers to detail any prior coverage of the topic in previous lessons, and provided
space for comments and suggested improvements.
Data from both student and teacher questionnaires were used to assess the functionality of
the workshop, and identify any strengths or weaknesses. Observational notes were also made about
how each session proceeded, focusing on issues such as use of time, how engaged the students
appeared with the work, whether the extension task was reached, and how well students performed
the oral presentations during the main activity. The data from both museum and classroom settings
were compared to determine if the workshop (and its constituent components) was better received in
one setting or the other. The percentages of students who gave each possible rating on the student
questionnaires were calculated and compared to see if students tended to rate differently in the
museum or classroom. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if any differences were
significant. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in how students rated the
workshop between the two settings.
Results
The purpose of this investigation was to produce a new resource for educators, and to evaluate its
effectiveness and functionality in two different learning environments. Effectiveness (in terms of how
much students learnt) was measured by the before and after assessments, while functionality (in
terms of the overall quality of the resource) was measured using the feedback questionnaires and
general observations. A total of 63 students (and 5 teachers) were involved in this investigation,
including 33 students at the Manchester Museum (split into three classes of 10, 10 and 13) and 30
students at Rickmansworth School (split into two classes of 15).

14. 13
Assessments
When marking the before and after assessments, marks were only awarded for answers that were
both factually correct and directly relevant to the question written on that particular sheet. For example
“blastocyst” as an answer to ‘What key properties of stem cells can you name?’ was not awarded a
mark, since this is not a property of stem cells (it is, in fact, a source that they are derived from). It was
sometimes deemed acceptable to award teams marks for answers that could be construed as correct,
even if they did not totally address the question as intentioned. A common example of this was when
students listed “pluripotent” and “multipotent” as key properties. While these are properties of certain
types of stem cell, they would not apply to all stem cells, and so would not truly be classed as ‘key’
properties for all stem cells. Refinement of the question, by referring specifically to all stem cells, might
be necessary in future to avoid this confusion. However, mentioning these terms was a clear indication
of relevant subject knowledge. In light of the slight ambiguity of the question, it was felt they were
deserving of marks. Marks could not be awarded twice for the same material. An answer awarded a
mark for the before assessment could not gain an additional mark if it was repeated in the after
assessment, as this was considered repetition and did not indicate any new learning. The same
applied for repetition within the same assessment stage, and included rewording or rephrasing of
answers, or answers which otherwise covered the same information. For example, “allogenic
differences” and “rejection” as answers to ‘What issues with stem cells and their applications can you
think of?’ only gained one mark, as they were considered to be referring to the same issue. A degree
of specificity within answers (judged at the marker’s discretion) was furthermore expected if marks
were to be awarded, in order to indicate more than a superficial level of understanding. For example,
“ethics”, as an answer for the question on issues with stem cells, was considered too vague to be
deserving of a mark. In this case, specific reference to the use of embryos would have been required
to qualify for a mark. Another example of an overly vague answer was: “curing diseases” in response
to ‘What uses (and potential uses) of stem cells can you think of?’. While technically true, this is more
a statement of the obvious that could easily have been guessed, and does not indicate any in-depth
knowledge. Reference to specific diseases or medical ailments, for example, “regain colour vision” or
“cure Parkinson’s”, was required to gain marks.
Answers to the assessments that were awarded marks are henceforth referred to as ‘positive
answers’. Average scores in the two assessments before and after the session are presented in Table
1. All teams of students involved clearly possessed some degree of prior knowledge on the subject,
with the number of positive answers given in the before assessment ranging from 3 for one team at
the museum to 11 for one of the classroom teams. All teams succeeded in adding new answers in the
after assessment, with the quantity of new positive answers ranging from 4 in two of the museum
teams to as high as 23 in one of the classroom teams. This improvement suggests acquisition of new
knowledge by the students. In both the museum and school settings, results were considerably more
variable in the after assessment compared to the before assessment, as shown by the larger figures
for standard error. At the museum, Holy Cross did the best, achieving the highest average after score,
as well as the highest total score (18.5). Xaverian College did worst overall, achieving the lowest
mean scores in both the before and after assessments. In the museum, Manchester Grammar School

15. 14
Table 1 Mean no. of positive answ ers given in the before and after assessments for each class, w ith the means for
each educational setting and the overall (museum + school) means given as w ell.
Setting Class N Before After
Museum
1 2 7 15.5
2 2 9 9.5
3 3 5.7 6
Total 7 7 (0.8) 9.7 (1.8)
School
1 3 8.7 15
2 3 8.7 18.7
Total 6 8.7 (0.9) 16.8 (1.7)
Overall 13 7.8 (0.6) 13 (1.6)
Table 1 Mean no. of positive answers given in the before and after assessments for each class, with the
means for each educational setting and the overall (museum + school) means given as well.
Figure 4 Bar chart comparing the mean number of positive answ ers in the before and after assessments for the
museum and school educational settings, w ith standard error bars overlaid. Before is intended to represent prior
know ledge, w hile after is intended to represent new learning from the w orkshop.
Figure 4 Bar chart comparing the mean number of positive answers in the before and after assessments for
the museum and school educational settings, with standard error bars overlaid.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Museum School
No. of positive
answers
Setting
Before
After
N = Number of teams within the class. Standard error figures are shown in brackets.
achieved the highest before scores, indicating the greatest prior knowledge of the subject, but
achieved middle-of-the-range after scores. In the school, both classes achieved the same before
scores, indicating a similar level of prior knowledge. This is to be expected, since these classes share
the same curriculum and thus will have studied the same material in previous lessons. Class no. 2
achieved the highest average after scores, not just in the school setting but across both settings.
A comparison of the before and after assessment results for the museum and school setting is
illustrated in figure 4. Interestingly, both school classes managed to achieve approximately double the
mean number of positive answers in the after assessment compared to the before assessment. This is
in contrast to the museum, where only one class managed to achieve this. The other two classes
produced virtually the same mean number of positive answers in the after assessment compared to
the before assessment. Prior knowledge (as measured by the number of before answers), appeared
to be slightly higher in the school than the museum. However, this difference was not statistically
significant (P value = 0.2013). Newly acquired knowledge from the workshop (as measured by the
number of after answers) appeared to be considerably higher in the school than the museum. This
difference was indeed statistically significant (P value = 0.0303). Standard error figures are almost
identical for both settings, indicating that variance in performance was approximately equal. Based on
this evidence, it would be prudent to reject the null hypothesis, therefore deducing that there was
indeed a difference in the amount of new knowledge learnt during the workshop between the museum
Setting Class N Before After
Museum
Holy Cross 2 7 15.5
MGS 2 9 9.5
Xaverian 3 5.7 6
School
1 3 8.7 15
2 3 8.7 18.7
Overall 13 7.8 (0.6) 13 (1.6)

16. 15
and school settings. In summary, students seemed to learn more in the school setting than the
museum, but students in both settings clearly demonstrated learning.
Feedback and Observations
Results for each question in the student feedback questionnaires are displayed in figure 5. Each part
of the workshop was rated separately, and a rating for the whole session was given as well. The ‘What
is a Stem Cell?’ animation appears to have been the best received part of the workshop by students,
receiving the largest percentage of ‘very useful’ ratings, as well as no ratings below ‘fairly useful’. The
group research and presentation task (‘’Operation’ Group Activity’) came in a close second. The
assessment tasks (‘Group Worksheet Task’) appear to have been the least well-received elements of
the workshop, scoring the lowest number of ‘very useful’ ratings and the highest number of ‘a bit
useful’ ratings. However, all parts of the workshop, including the workshop as a whole, were generally
given very strong ratings. ‘Very useful’ was the modal answer for all four questions, and not a single
‘not useful at all’ rating was given by any of the students.
There were considerable differences in the ratings given by students between the two
settings. A general trend of students in the school awarding the workshop a higher rating of usefulness
than students in the museum was observable, as illustrated in figure 6. This difference was statistically
significant (P value = 0.0220). The null hypothesis (no significant difference between the two settings)
can thus be rejected: there was a significant tendency for students to rate the workshop higher in the
school than the museum. This trend was replicated across the board, occurring for all of the
constituent parts of the workshop. For example, 80% of school students rated the worksheet task as
useful, with 20% rating it as ‘fairly useful’. This is in stark contrast to the museum, where only 42.4% of
students rated the task as ‘very useful’, with 30.3% putting ‘fairly useful’ and 27.3% putting ‘a bit
useful’. No ‘a bit useful’ responses were recorded for any of the questions in the school setting,
compared to 18 such responses in the museum. Nevertheless, ‘very useful’ remained the most
common single rating in every class surveyed.
Figure 5 Pie
charts displaying
the percentage
of students that
gave each
possible rating
of usefulness for
each part of the
w orkshop in the
feedback
questionnaire.

17. 16
Numerical data from the feedback questionnaires given to teachers are displayed in table 2.
Ratings on the usefulness of each activity within the workshop appeared to be marginally higher for
the school than the museum. This was also true for ratings on how informative the teachers deemed
the workshop. Conversely, ratings on how enjoyable, interesting and engaging they deemed the
workshop appeared to be slightly higher for the museum than the school. However, the very small
sample size makes it hard to draw reliable conclusions over whether teachers gave better feedback in
the school or the museum. Nonetheless, it is clear that the response to the workshop was
overwhelmingly positive in both settings, with all ratings falling towards the upper end of the scale.
Only one rating of less than 4 was given (a 3 for ‘informative’, given in one museum class). All
teachers surveyed agreed that the difficulty level was ‘about right’, and responded ‘yes’ when asked if
they would recommend the workshop. Both teachers in the school indicated that students had been
introduced to some of the types, sources and issues of stem cells. One museum c lass (Xaverian
College) had covered stem cells previously in an AS Level module, while the other two had done
some basic coverage at GCSE level. A common theme under ‘suggested improvements’ was the
need for more direction and clearer instructions in the main activity. One respondent recommended
assigning specific roles or question to individual students in order to achieve this. The pace of the
animation was also commented on as being slightly fast – making it difficult for students to absorb all
the information. One interesting recommendation was that students each be given their own miniature
‘Patient’ for them to label during the presentations in the main activity. General comments included: “a
very impressive session”, “excellent resources”, “well designed and targeted well to age group”.
Characteristic Museum (N=3) School (N=2) Overall (N=5)
Useful Introductory talk & animation 4.3 (0.3) 4.5 (0.5) 4.4 (0.2)
‘Operation’ group activity 4.7 (0.3) 5 (0.0) 4.8 (0.2)
Group worksheet task 4.3 (0.7) 5 (0.0) 4.6 (0.4)
Enjoyable 5 (0.0) 4.5 (0.5) 4.8 (0.2)
Interesting 4.7 (0.3) 4.5 (0.5) 4.6 (0.2)
Engaging 5 (0.0) 4.5 (0.5) 4.8 (0.2)
Informative 4 (0.6) 5 (0.0) 4.4 (0.4)
Figure 6 Pie charts
displaying the percentage
of students that gave
each rating of usefulness
for the ‘w hole session’
option on the feedback
questionnaire, for the
museum and school
settings. Note how
students in the school
tended to give higher
usefulness ratings than
their counterparts in the
museum.
Figure 6 Pie charts
displaying the
percentage of students
that gave each rating of
usefulness for the
‘whole session’ option
on the feedback
questionnaire, for the
museum and school
settings separately.
Table 2 Mean ratings aw arded to each aspect of the w orkshop by teachers in the tw o settings, on a scale of 1 to 5
(1=not at all, 5=very).
Characteristic Museum (N=3) School (N=2) Overall (N=5)
Useful Introductory talk & animation 4.3 (0.3) 4.5 (0.5) 4.4 (0.2)
‘Operation’ group activity 4.7 (0.3) 5 (0.0) 4.8 (0.2)
Group worksheet task 4.3 (0.7) 5 (0.0) 4.6 (0.4)
Enjoyable 5 (0.0) 4.5 (0.5) 4.8 (0.2)
Interesting 4.7 (0.3) 4.5 (0.5) 4.6 (0.2)
Engaging 5 (0.0) 4.5 (0.5) 4.8 (0.2)
Informative 4 (0.6) 5 (0.0) 4.4 (0.4)
Table 2 Mean ratings aw arded to each aspect of the w orkshop by teachers in the tw o settings, on a scale of 1 to 5
(1=not at all, 5=very).
N = Number of teachers. Standard error figures are shown in brackets.

18. 17
The workshop made appropriate use of the 45 minute timeframe available, with activities filling
the time without being rushed or dragged out. All but one of the classes involved managed to progress
on to the extension task. Student engagement with the tasks (as estimated by monitoring levels of
discussion and writing) generally appeared relatively good throughout in both settings. Students were
very attentive and appeared highly engrossed during the news montage and animation components.
Students asked regular, well thought-out questions, and in most cases seemed aware of what they
needed to do. Nonetheless, students in the school seemed substantially more engaged in the final
assessment activity than their counterparts in the museum. It was noticed – particularly in the museum
setting – that some students would contribute less than others during the main activity, taking a
somewhat ‘backseat’ role towards completing the research and presentation task. Furthermore,
certain teams of students seemed less engaged with this task than others and would tend to get
distracted as the time moved on. One issue that arose during the team presentations was a tendency
for students to go into unnecessary detail, particularly when describing the nature of the
technology/treatment being presented.
In summary, feedback results from teachers and students were generally very positive in both
the museum and school settings. Students in the school rated the workshop significantly more useful
than students in the museum. However, feedback from teachers was fairly similar in both settings.
Observational notes support this positive outlook, notwithstanding a few issues remaining to be
addressed.
Discussion
This study aimed to produce an innovative teaching resource for educators on the topic of stem cells,
aimed at A Level Biology students, and to compare its usage in two different learning environments.
This resource took the form of a 45 minute interactive workshop, featuring activities based on
cooperative and problem-based learning strategies, with an added original multimedia element. It was
hoped this resource would contribute to wider public awareness about stem cell issues, as well as
directly benefiting the needs of the modern science curriculum.
Based on the assessment results, it seems clear that the workshop was successful in its aim
of being an effective teaching tool, which increased students’ knowledge and understanding of the
subject area. In all the classes involved, the teams of students demonstrated they had learnt lots of
new information. The workshop’s functionality as a useful and usable set of resources is in turn
strongly supported by results from the feedback questionnaires and observations of the sessions. As a
whole, students generally indicated they found the workshop to be a very useful session. This was a
view strongly supported by their teachers. Furthermore, feedback from teachers indicates that the
workshop met the various key qualities of a good learning experience – specifically the need to be
enjoyable, interesting, engaging and informative. This was a view supported by observations made
during the workshop. Teachers also deemed the difficulty of the workshop well suited to the students’
ability levels, making it an appropriate resource for this age group. From results for the assessments,
feedback and observations, we may conclude that the workshop was both effective and functional as
a resource for teaching students the topic of stem cells – in both the museum and classroom

19. 18
environments. All teams of students demonstrated significant increases in knowledge and
understanding, successfully addressing the four learning objectives outlined in the starter activity
(specifically regarding properties, sources, uses and issues of stem cells). Response to the format of
the workshop and the structure of tasks was decidedly positive, notwithstanding a few concerns within
specific activities (detailed below). The overriding aim of producing a successful and original workshop
on the topic of stem cells may therefore be considered accomplished.
The results indicate that students found the animation to be a particularly useful element,
while the news montage appeared to captivate their interest very effectively. This runs in concordance
with the wide body of literature supporting the value of video clips (such as those sourced from
YouTube) as both an attention-grabbing and instructional tool in education (Jones & Cuthrell, 2011;
Berk, 2009). However, it is clear from comments left by teachers that the pace of information being
presented in the animation needs to be reduced, in order to maximise its usefulness. Feedback for the
group research and presentation task (from both students and teachers) was generally very positive.
Getting teams of students to investigate independently and then present their findings to other teams
proved to be a very useful approach, which effectively highlighted the various potential applications of
stem cell technologies. It is unlikely that traditional lecture-style learning could have delivered this
learning in an equally engaging and interactive way. For the purposes of this study, the group
research and presentation task included seven tissue options that students could investigate.
However, this need not be considered a definitive or exhaustive selection. Educators employing this
workshop in future could easily use a different selection of tissues and organs for students to
investigate, and would be free to choose a different set of articles to go with each. This produces a
high degree of versatility to this activity. Educators could easily match the activity to different student
ability levels by altering the choice of articles given to each team. More simplistically written articles,
probably taken from mainstream, non-scientific news outlets (and thus written to be understandable to
the lay public), would be ideal for teams of lower-performing students, while more complex articles
(potentially even original research papers taken from scientific journals) could be given to teams of
more able students. This represents a major strength of this task. However, it is clear from the
feedback that some refinement of the task is needed, to ensure that all students are clear of their
instructions, and remain fully focused and engaged for the duration of the task. Davidson & Major
(2014) identify “individual accountability and responsibility” as essential aspects of all cooperative and
problem-based learning strategies, stressing the importance of each individual making a contribution
to the group effort. Ensuring equal involvement of all team-members in completing the aims of this
activity is therefore one issue that needs to be addressed.
The worksheet tasks (the starter and final activities) were positively received by teachers and
students. However, they were the least well-received components of the workshop, based on the
student feedback. This may simply relate to the fact they are a form of assessment. Assessments, by
nature, tend not to be viewed especially positively by students. One potential issue with the mode of
assessment employed within this workshop is the lack of any individual assessment. Since the
assessment tasks were completed in teams, they only show the cumulative learning of the group as a
whole. It is possible that students who were less engaged with the workshop activities learnt less than

20. 19
others in their team. However, this reduced learning would not have been noticed by the assessments,
as these students could have simply relied on their team-mates to put down what they didn’t know
(Michaelsen et al, 2014). To resolve this issue, teachers with more time available after the final activity
might consider asking questions on the material to individual students who they feel might have
contributed less. This would allow them to check over individual learning and ensure all members of a
group are progressing. Such a strategy was not possible in this study given the limited timeframe.
One potential limitation of the feedback data presented here is the natural tendency of survey
respondents to give positive feedback. This so-called ‘social desirability bias’ (essentially a desire to
give responses that are most beneficial to others) (Fisher, 1993) has the potential to distort results,
skewing them towards the positive end of opinion spectrums. For the purposes of this study, it may
have meant students and teachers giving higher ratings (e.g. on how useful a particular activity was,
or how interesting the sessions was) and writing more positive comments in the questionnaires than
was truly reflective of their feelings. While the anonymity of questionnaires and design of individual
questions was intended to minimise this bias, it is impossible to discount it completely. Nevertheless,
even if a large skew as a result of this bias was assumed, it is likely the underlying results would still
be giving a tangibly positive outlook.
Based on these results, we can conclude that the workshop tended to be substantially more
successful in the school classroom setting than the museum open day. Assessment results and
feedback from student questionnaires were significantly better for the two school classes, although
feedback from teachers did not appear to differ significantly between the school and the museum.
These differences in student feedback may relate to a number of facets particular to each educational
setting. We believe the best explanation here was the ability, within the school setting, to give students
marks and feedback on their assessment tasks in the next lesson. The nature of a museum open day
meant the same was not possible in that setting. Providing frequent opportunities for feedback on
performance is seen as an important practise in education, vital for facilitating students’ academic
development (Cauley & McMillan, 2010). As well as allowing students to reflect and identify areas
needing improvement, feedback acts as a major motivation for performing to the best of their abilities.
Poor feedback in certain areas may act as a drive to put extra work in, while the feelings of satisfaction
and achievement from getting good feedback may act as a reward for students (Weaver, 2006). By
providing students in the school with feedback on their performance, they may have been additionally
motivated on the assessment task. This may explain why students in the school performed better than
their museum counterparts. Ability to give students feedback on their performance is once advantage
of the classroom environment. Museum education on the other hand is generally less focused on
academic performance, and more centred on stimulating students’ interests (Gammon, 2003).
One factor, which may have contributed to the difference in results between the museum and
school settings, was the level of prior coverage of stem cells by students. As indicated in the teacher
questionnaires, both school classes had already done significant coverage of stem cells in their A
Level courses (whereas only one museum class had done so). Students with in-depth prior knowledge
of a subject would be better placed to understand and absorb new information, and less likely to get
confused. Conversely, confusion and failure to understand tasks may cause other students to become

21. 20
disengaged from their work, with detrimental consequences for assessment results. Thus, classes of
students with greater prior knowledge may have had a cognitive advantage in how well they achieved
in the assessment tasks. This advantage may have also influenced how well the students perceived
the workshop – as measured in the feedback questionnaires – as more engaged pupils are likely to
have given more positive feedback. This factor may explain some of the advantage seen in the school,
independent of any features of that particular educational setting. Interestingly, however, the class in
the museum that performed worst (Xaverian College) had done a recent A Level module on stem
cells, so this may not be the explanation after all. Further studies are clearly needed to ascertain if the
workshop is truly better suited to the classroom setting, or if this is merely the result of differing pupil
ability levels. However, the workshop resources can clearly be successful in both environments.
Ideally, the school featured in the classroom study would have been approximately on par with
the schools involved in the museum open day (in terms of inspection results, league table positions
etc.), but it was simply not practical to control this. In addition, all classes (and the teams of students
within them) would ideally have been of identical size, to allow for a more reliable comparison of
results. However, student numbers and attendance are controlled by the schools and students
themselves, and so controlling this was beyond the remit of the study. It would furthermore have been
ideal to use a larger sample size and feature a wider range of schools, reflecting a greater diversity of
backgrounds and ability levels, in order to produce results more representative of the whole
population. Future studies might seek to achieve this. However, given the fixed, annual nature of the
museum open day, combined with the logistical difficulties of arranging schools to run the workshop in
– especially given the limited timeframe available – this was simply not feasible here.
In conclusion, it is hoped that the workshop developed by this study may be considered a
useful, versatile resource for educators to consider when tackling the topic of stem cells. As the first
piece of evidence for this, the suite of materials developed for this workshop have been left in the
possession of Rickmansworth School, where teaching staff intend to use them again for future
lessons. The animation produced for this workshop may also show potential as an independent online
resource, available on YouTube as a tool for educators teaching this subject. However, based on
feedback obtained in this investigation, we recommend a number of key modifications to the
workshop, should it be used in future. Firstly, it might be advisable to present a slowed down version
of the animation, or to feature regular pauses during its presentation, in order to allow students time to
take in the information and make notes if necessary. Alternatively, they could be directed to watch it
independently online, prior to the lesson, with a teacher recapping the information at the start of the
lesson. The questions in the assessment activities could be refined to be more specific, to prevent
issues of ambiguous phrasing encountered when answering them. Most importantly, instructions for
the main activity could be altered, to ensure students are clear on the task and fully engaged. For
example, each member of a team could take on one particular question to answer with regards to the
news articles (e.g. one student put in charge of identifying the issues and problems with the
technology/treatment). Alternatively, each team-member could be given one news article to look at
during the task, and be charged with analysing it for all the relevant information. Implementation of
these various changes should hopefully result in a more refined and more successful end-product.

22. 21
References
Amariglio, N., Hirshberg, A., Scheithauer, B. W., Cohen, Y., Loewenthal, R., Trakhtenbrot, L., Paz, N.,
Koren-Michowitz, M., Waldman, D., Leider-Trejo, L., Toren, A., Constantini, S. & Rechavi, G.
(2009) 'Donor-Derived Brain Tumor Following Neural Stem Cell Transplantation in an Ataxia
Telangiectasia Patient', PLoS Med, 6(2), e1000029.
AQA (2013) 'Specification for exams from 2014 onwards', GCE AS & A Level Specification: Biology.
Barrows, H. S. (1986) 'A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods', Medical Education, 20(6),
481-486.
Berk, R. A. (2009) 'Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the
college classroom', International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1-21.
Bush, G., W. (2001) 'Remarks by the President on stem cell research', The White House: Office of the
Press Secretary.
Cauley, K. M. & McMillan, J. H. (2010) 'Formative assessment techniques to support student
motivation and achievement', The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 83(1), 1-6.
Cohen, E. G. (1994) 'Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups', Review of
Educational Research, 64(1), 3.
Cox, J. R. (2011) 'Enhancing student interactions with the instructor and content using pen-based
technology, YouTube videos, and virtual conferencing', Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 39(1), 4-9.
Davidson, N. & Major, C. H. (2014) 'Boundary Crossings: Cooperative Learning, Collaborative
Learning, and Problem-Based Learning', Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(4).
Davidson, N., Major, C. H. & Michaelsen, L. K. (Eds.) (2014) ‘Small-group Learning in Higher
Education: Cooperative, Collaborative, Problem-based, and Team-based Learning’, Journal
on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(4).
Davidson, N. & Worsham, T. (1992) Enhancing Thinking through Cooperative Learning, Teachers
College Press: New York.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. & Gijbels, D. (2003) 'Effects of problem-based learning: a
meta-analysis', Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568.

23. 22
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E. & Allen, D. E. (2001) The Power of Problem-based Learning: A Practical "how
to" for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline, Stylus Pub.
Edexcel (2013) 'Specification - GCE Biology: Issue 6’, GCE AS & A Level Specification: Biology.
Evans, M. J. & Kaufman, M. H. (1981) 'Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse
embryos', Nature, 292(5819), 154-156.
FAO (2011) World Livestock 2011 - Livestock in food security, Rome: FAO.
Fisher, R. J. (1993) 'Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning', Journal of
Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315.
Foreman-Peck, L. & Travers, K. (2013) 'What is distinctive about museum pedagogy and how can
museums best support learning in schools? An action research inquiry into the practice of
three regional museums', Educational Action Research, 21(1), 28-41.
Forsyth, S. (2013) ‘Encouraging data from stem cell trial in stroke patients as plans for Phase II
progress’ [press release], Media Relations Office: University of Glasgow.
Fulton, K. (2012) 'The Flipped Classroom: Transforming Education at Byron High School: A Minnesota
High School with Severe Budget Constraints Enlisted YouTube in Its Successful Effort to
Boost Math Competency Scores', Technological Horizons In Education, 39(3), 18.
Gammon, B. (2001) 'Assessing learning in museum environments: A practical guide for museum
evaluators', London: Science Museum.
Geraerts, M. & Verfaillie, C. (2009) 'Adult Stem and Progenitor Cells' in Martin, U., ed., Engineering of
Stem Cells, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 1-21.
Griffin, J. (2004) 'Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school
groups', Science Education, 88(S1), S59-S70.
Gunsilius, E., Gastl, G. & Petzer, A. L. (2001) 'Hematopoietic stem cells', Biomedicine &
Pharmacotherapy, 55(4), 186-194.
Hirzy, E. C. (1996) 'True Needs, True Partners: Museums and Schools Transforming Education'.
Institute of Museum & Library Services, Washington, DC.

24. 23
Hooton, B. (2013) 'A-level results 2012-2013 - Report: Holy Cross College', The Guardian, available:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/a-levels/2013/view/report/5275422430330880
[accessed. 14/04/2015]
Ipsos MORI (2014) Public Attitude to Science 2014: Main Report.
ISI (2013) The Manchester Grammar School: Integrated Inspection.
Jaffar, A. A. (2012) 'YouTube: An emerging tool in anatomy education', Anatomical Sciences
Education, 5(3), 158-164.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M. B. (2000) 'Cooperative learning methods: A meta-
analysis'.
Jones, T. & Cuthrell, K. (2011) 'YouTube: Educational Potentials and Pitfalls', Computers in the
Schools, 28(1), 75-85.
Kay, R. H. (2012) 'Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the
literature', Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 820-831.
Kimmelman, J., Baylis, F. & Glass, K. C. (2006) 'Stem Cell Trials: Lessons from Gene Transfer
Research', Hastings Centre Report, 36(1), 23-26.
Major, C. H. & Eck, J. C. (2000) 'Connecting goals, methods, and measures: A problem for problem-
based learning', Assessment Update, 12(1), 1-2.
Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M. & Peire, J. (2011) 'New technology trends in
education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence', Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893-
1906.
Melton, D. A. & Cowen, C. (2009) '“Stemness”: Definitions, Criteria, and Standards' in Wilmut, R. L. G.
H. M. P. D. T. T., ed., Essentials of Stem Cell Biology (Second Edition), San Diego: Academic
Press, xxiii-xxix.
Michaelsen, L. K., Davidson, N. & Major, C. H. (2014) 'Team-Based Learning Practices and Principles
in Comparison With Cooperative Learning and Problem-Based Learning', Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching, 25(4).
Mitalipov, S. & Wolf, D. (2009) 'Totipotency, Pluripotency and Nuclear Reprogramming' in Martin, U.,
ed., Engineering of Stem Cells, Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 185-199.

25. 24
Nauta, A. J., Westerhuis, G., Kruisselbrink, A. B., Lurvink, E. G. A., Willemze, R. & Fibbe, W. E. (2006)
'Donor-derived mesenchymal stem cells are immunogenic in an allogeneic host and stimulate
donor graft rejection in a nonmyeloablative setting', Blood, 108(6), 2114-2120.
Neville, A. J. (2009) 'Problem-based learning and medical education forty years on. A review of its
effects on knowledge and clinical performance', Medical principles and practice: international
journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 18(1), 1-9.
Obama, B. (2009) 'Executive Order: Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research Involving
Human Stem Cells', The White House: Office of the Press Secretary.
OCR (2013) 'AS/A Level GCE Biology Specification: Version 4 - September 2013', GCE AS & A Level
Specification: Biology.
Ofsted (2007) College Inspection Report: Holy Cross College.
Ofsted (2008) College Inspection Report: Xaverian College.
Ofsted (2013) School Inspection Report: Rickmansworth School.
Okita, K., Ichisaka, T. & Yamanaka, S. (2007) 'Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent
stem cells', Nature, 448(7151), 313-317.
Schwartz, S. D., Regillo, C. D., Lam, B. L., Eliott, D., Rosenfeld, P. J., Gregori, N. Z., Hubschman, J. -
P., Davis, J. L., Heilwell, G., Spirn, M., Maguire, J., Gay, R., Bateman, J., Ostrick, R. M.,
Morris, D., Vincent, M., Anglade, E., Del Priore, L. V. & Lanza, R. 'Human embryonic stem
cell-derived retinal pigment epithelium in patients with age-related macular degeneration and
Stargardt's macular dystrophy: follow-up of two open-label phase 1/2 studies', The Lancet,
385(9967), 509-516.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E. & Donovan, S. S. (1999) 'Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis',
Review of educational research, 69(1), 21-51.
Takahashi, K. & Yamanaka, S. (2006) 'Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and
Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors', Cell, 126(4), 663-676.
Tal, T. & Morag, O. (2007) 'School visits to natural history museums: Teaching or enriching?', Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 747-769.

26. 25
Thomas, E. D., Lochte, H. L., Lu, W. C. & Ferrebee, J. W. (1957) 'Intravenous Infusion of Bone
Marrow in Patients Receiving Radiation and Chemotherapy', New England Journal of
Medicine, 257(11), 491-496.
Research Councils UK (2002) Dialogue with the public: Practical guidelines.
Wagner, J. E. & Kurtzberg, J. (1997) 'Cord blood stem cells', Current opinion in hematology, 4(6), 413-
418.
Weaver, M. R. (2006) 'Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses',
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
Wert, G. d. & Mummery, C. (2003) 'Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics and policy', Human
Reproduction, 18(4), 672-682.
Wise, J. (2010) 'Stroke patients take part in “milestone” UK trial of stem cell therapy', BMJ, 341.
Young, H. E. & Black, A. C. (2004) 'Adult stem cells', The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in
Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, 276A(1), 75-102.
Zhou, T., Benda, C., Dunzinger, S., Huang, Y., Ho, J. C., Yang, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhuang, Q.,
Li, Y., Bao, X., Tse, H.-F., Grillari, J., Grillari-Voglauer, R., Pei, D. & Esteban, M. A. (2012)
'Generation of human induced pluripotent stem cells from urine samples', Nat. Protocols,
7(12), 2080-2089.