Hanna, John Connor (1871-1947)

Profile and biography entry of John Connor Hanna, early film censor

Retinal pigment epithelial cell multinucleation in the aging eye - a mechanism to repair damage and maintain homoeostasis

Retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells are central to retinal health and homoeostasis. Dysfunction or death of RPE cells underlies many age-related retinal degenerative disorders particularly age-related macular degeneration. During aging RPE cells decline in number, suggesting an age-dependent cell loss. RPE cells are considered to be postmitotic, and how they repair damage during aging remains poorly defined. We show that RPE cells increase in size and become multinucleate during aging in C57BL/6J mice. Multinucleation appeared not to be due to cell fusion, but to incomplete cell division, that is failure of cytokinesis. Interestingly, the phagocytic activity of multinucleate RPE cells was not different from that of mononuclear RPE cells. Furthermore, exposure of RPE cells in vitro to photoreceptor outer segment (POS), particularly oxidized POS, dose-dependently promoted multinucleation and suppressed cell proliferation. Both failure of cytokinesis and suppression of proliferation required contact with POS. Exposure to POS also induced reactive oxygen species and DNA oxidation in RPE cells. We propose that RPE cells have the potential to proliferate in vivo and to repair defects in the monolayer. We further propose that the conventionally accepted 'postmitotic' status of RPE cells is due to a modified form of contact inhibition mediated by POS and that RPE cells are released from this state when contact with POS is lost. This is seen in long-standing rhegmatogenous retinal detachment as overtly proliferating RPE cells (proliferative vitreoretinopathy) and more subtly as multinucleation during normal aging. Age-related oxidative stress may promote failure of cytokinesis and multinucleation in RPE cells.

Improving E-Assessment Systems With A focus On Adaptive Feedback And Marking

Institutions involved in the provision of tertiary education across Europe are feeling the pinch. European universities, and other higher education (HE) institutions, must operate in a climate where the pressure of government spending cuts (Garben, 2012) is in stark juxtaposition to the EU’s strategy to drive forward and maintain a growth of student numbers in the sector (eurostat, 2015).

In order to remain competitive, universities and HE institutions are making ever-greater use of electronic assessment (E-Assessment) systems (Chatzigavriil et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012). These systems are attractive primarily because they offer a cost-effect and scalable approach for assessment. In addition to scalability, they also offer reliability, consistency and impartiality; furthermore, from the perspective of a student they are most popular because they can offer instant feedback (Walet, 2012).

There are disadvantages, though.

First, feedback is often returned to a student immediately on competition of their assessment. While it is possible to disable the instant feedback option (this is often the case during an end of semester exam period when assessment scores must be can be ratified before release), however, this option tends to be a global ‘all on’ or ‘all off’ configuration option which is controlled centrally rather than configurable on a per-assessment basis.

If a formative in-term assessment is to be taken by multiple groups of
students, each at different times, this restriction means that answers to each question will be disclosed to the first group of students undertaking the assessment. As soon as the answers are released “into the wild” the academic integrity of the assessment is lost for subsequent student groups.

Second, the style of feedback provided to a student for each question is often limited to a simple ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ indicator. While this type of feedback has its place, it often does not provide a student with enough insight to improve their understanding of a topic that they did not answer correctly.

Most E-Assessment systems boast a wide range of question types including Multiple Choice, Multiple Response, Free Text Entry/Text Matching and Numerical questions. The design of these types of questions is often quite restrictive and formulaic, which has a knock-on effect on the quality of feedback that can be provided in each case.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) are most prevalent as they are the most prescriptive and therefore most the straightforward to mark consistently. They are also the most amenable question types, which allow easy provision of meaningful, relevant feedback to each possible outcome chosen.
Text matching questions tend to be more problematic due to their free text entry nature. Common misspellings or case-sensitivity errors can often be accounted for by the software but they are by no means fool proof, as it is very difficult to predict in advance the range of possible variations on an answer that would be considered worthy of marks by a manual marker of a paper based equivalent of the same question.

Numerical questions are similarly restricted. An answer can be checked for accuracy or whether it is within a certain range of the correct answer, but unless it is a special purpose-built mathematical E-Assessment system the system is unlikely to have computational capability and so cannot, for example, account for “method marks” which are commonly awarded in paper-based marking.

From a pedagogical perspective, the importance of providing useful formative feedback to students at a point in their learning when they can benefit from the feedback and put it to use must not be understated (Grieve et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012).

In this work, we propose a number of software-based solutions, which will overcome the limitations and inflexibilities of existing E-Assessment systems.