Search

Sperm small RNAs are implicated in intergenerational transmission of paternal environmental effects. Small RNAs generated by the cleavage of tRNAs, known as tRNA fragments (tRFs) or tRNA-derived RNAs (tDRs or tsRNAs), are an abundant class of RNAs in mature sperm and can be modulated by environmental conditions. The biogenesis of tRFs in the male reproductive tract remains poorly understood. Angiogenin, a member of the ribonuclease A superfamily (RNase A), cleaves tRNAs to generate tRFs in response to cellular stress. Four paralogs of Angiogenin, namely Rnase9, Rnase10, Rnase11, and Rnase12, are specifically expressed in the epididymis-a long, convoluted tubule where sperm mature and acquire fertility and motility. Here, by generating mice deleted for all four genes (Rnase9-12-/-, termed KO for Knock Out), we report that these genes regulate fertility and small RNA levels. KO male mice are sterile; KO sperm fertilized oocytes in vitro but failed to efficiently fertilize oocytes in vivo due to an inability of sperm to pass through the utero-tubular junction. Intriguingly, there were decreased levels of tRFs and rRNAs (rRNA-derived small RNAs or rsRNAs) in the KO epididymis and epididymal luminal fluid, although RNases 9-12 did not show ribonucleolytic activity in vitro. Importantly, KO sperm showed a dramatic decrease in the levels of tRFs, demonstrating a role of epididymis-specific Rnase9-12 genes in regulating sperm small RNA composition. Together, our results reveal an unexpected role of four epididymis-specific noncanonical ribonuclease A family genes in regulating fertility and small RNA processing.

This article considers the potential ways for coaching and mentoring practices in higher education to support the development of learner autonomy, a key espoused aim of university education. I argue that coaching and mentoring can foster self-regulated learning, critical thinking, and goal-setting among students, empowering them to take greater responsibility for their learning, and that higher education institutions should make greater use of coaching and mentoring practises, particularly for non-traditional learners [what in the UK are identified as 'widening participation' students]. The aim is to stimulate reflection and discussion among higher education practitioners.

This paper explores, from a theoretical basis, the difficulty in defining and assessing learner autonomy in higher education. Although the development of learner autonomy as a key aim of higher education, it is a vague and ill-defined term. As such, the assessment of learner autonomy within university programs of study is highly problematic. The author argues that the authentic assessment of genuine learner autonomy may not be possible within formal credit-bearing programs of higher education. The aim of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion so that university teaching staff may reflect and consider whether they can assess autonomy in the programs they are responsible for.

Background/purpose: British, European and American universities are increasingly adopting competency-based learning, yet, there are different and conflicting definitions of competence, competency, and competency-based learning. Consequently, multiple interpretations and understandings are held by educators in respect of what these terms mean, when applied to their own teaching and assessment practices. Therefore, unless informed and considered discussion has taken place amongst staff about their individual understandings and interpretations, any development of new, competency-based assessment processes and procedures, is necessarily problematic. The main purpose of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion, so that teaching staff can arrive at a common understanding and interpretation of what competency-based education is, so that they may develop appropriate, authentic and equitable assessment processes. Materials/methods: The methodology used was a systematic review of literature on competence, competency-based learning and the assessment of competency-based learning. Conclusion: This paper provides an overview of the main issues and tensions involved in clearly defining competency within higher education programmes and assessing competence, along with two clear recommendations for practice. The recommendations have significance for all higher education teaching staff involved in programmes of competency-based learning.

Masters and PhD student researchers in the social sciences are often required to explore and explain their positionality, as, in the social world, it is recognized that their ontological and epistemological beliefs influence their research. Yet novice researchers often struggle with identifying their positionality. This paper explores researcher positionality and its influence on and place in the research process. Its purpose is to help new postgraduate researchers better understand positionality so that they may incorporate a reflexive approach to their research and start to clarify their positionality.

This paper provides a critical analysis of the United Kingdom's higher education Key Information Set (KIS), which was implemented following the 2011 UK White Paper 'Students at the Heart of the System'. It argues that one of the central tenets of the KIS -- providing information that students within a free market can make an informed choice and, through this process of consumer choice improve the quality of teaching, is untenable because a central component of the KIS, the National Student Survey (NSS), is unreliable when used for comparing university courses. Further, it argues that the KIS reified a neoliberal perspective about the worth and value of higher education qualification, positioning it as a commodity of value only to the paying individual rather than being something of value to society as a whole. It will be of particular interest to academics and policy makers from outside of the United Kingdom, where governmental and regulatory agencies may be implementing similar policies.

Pre-specified, prescribed or intended Learning Outcomes have been in use throughout higher education programs for over two decades. There is an assumption amongst quality assurance bodies and university program approval and review processes that students engage with them. Yet, learning outcomes may constrain learning, they may not always be understood by learners and their relevance to learning has been questioned. There is anecdotal evidence from lecturers that some students do not understand them and do not use or refer to them. This paper reports on a small-scale research project investigating how university student's use prescribed learning outcomes in their everyday learning and when producing assessed work. No clear differences were found between higher and lower achieving students, yet there were differences between first- and third-year students. Surprisingly, some were able to achieve highly without referring to the outcomes against which they were assessed.

This conceptual paper provides an overview of constructivist education and the development and use of constructivist principles in contemporary higher education, outlining constructivism and some specific facets of student-centered learning. Drawing from first-hand experience and using two examples of current university assessment practice, reflective learning, and learning outcomes, the author argues that, despite claims constructivist pedagogical approaches have become normative practice when it comes to assessment processes, constructivism has not been fully embraced. The question 'is there clear evidence that constructivist principles have been applied to all aspects of university undergraduate study?' is considered. This is important and significant and should be of concern to all educators who espouse constructivist principles in higher education.

Learning outcomes are used throughout assessment processes in higher education. In many countries their use is mandatory, with a frequent assumption that they bring many positive benefits to educational processes. Yet, there are tensions associated with them and their current mode of use has far less flexibility than they should provide. This paper considers from a conceptual basis some of the tensions associated with the use of prescribed pre-articulated learning outcomes and the question of whether learning outcomes, as currently operationalized, provide the benefits they were meant to deliver. This is of significance to educators throughout higher education.