Evaluating teaching: guidelines and good practice

Evaluation of teaching involves collecting evidence, from various stakeholders, for the
purpose of improving the effectiveness of the teaching-learning process. A successful
evaluation generates outcomes that are valid, reliable and indicate directions and action
for improvement.
There is much more to an evaluation than `putting out a questionnaire'.
These guidelines suggest five key questions to be addressed when considering the
practical issues of evaluating teaching. They stop short of engaging in the wider issues
of how such evaluations relate to the educational aims of the taught programme, or to
the total experience of the student; these are issues for attention through the Peer
Teaching Observation scheme.
1. What is the purpose of the evaluation?
It could be an evaluation of
the quality of the educational provision (the product) - which could be the
whole programme, a course (module), a class (lecture, seminar, laboratory, etc)
the performance of the provider(s) - the academic staff, tutors, support staff,
involved in the delivery of this programme/course/class
the experience of the students as partners in the process - their experience of
what is provided, and of the providers their motivation and approach to learning
a combination of these things - provided that the various purposes are made
absolutely clear to those asked to make the evaluation
Good practice: make clear to all those involved the purpose, or purposes, of the
evaluation.
2. What is the focus of the evaluation?
For example, you might want to know about
the clarity of the stated educational aims and learning outcomes
the realism of stated pre-requisites/prior knowledge
curriculum and content - perceptions of relevance/usefulness
the way in which the curriculum was presented or delivered
the development of subject-specific skills
the development of non-subject specific (personal and/or transferable) skills
the appropriateness of the methods of assessment
the appropriateness of the style of teaching, and the performance of teacher
the quality of feedback to the student on the performance of the student
the motivation/attitudes of the student
the educational challenge presented to the students the workload, how reasonable, how
realistic
the support available to students/coursebooks/resources for independent
learning
the effort made by the student, and the take-up of support/guidance
the overall experience of the student of the teaching and support for learning
but a string of questions with such a wide range of foci makes it difficult for the person
giving the evaluation to recall, reflect and give a careful response.
Good practice: make clear to all those involved the focus of an evaluation - if
there are multiple foci organise the questions into clusters, identifying the focus

of each cluster - help the evaluator to concentrate and make a reflective response
3. Who will be asked to make the evaluation?
An evaluation of teaching will normally be designed for students as the primary
evaluators, but there is advantage in also seeking evaluation by all the partners in the
process. The responses of the different participants in the process - students and staff permit a correlation that adds greatly to the reliability and validity of the outcomes of the
evaluation. Such correlation provides insight into the level of harmony, or disharmony, of
perceptions between the partners in the teaching-learning process. Internal and/or
external academic peers can also be invited to participate in the evaluation, to introduce
a wider perspective on, for example, the academic standards of the educational
provision.
Good practice: correlate outcomes of evaluation from different viewpoints
wherever possible.
4. Who will see the outcomes of the evaluation; who will act upon them?
Before designing an evaluation it is necessary to define
how, and by whom, the raw data will be processed to generate outcomes
to whom the outcomes will be reported, and in what detail
who bears responsibility for taking action in the light of the outcomes
The evaluators, and the evaluated, must have access to the outcomes of the evaluation.
So too must the person(s) responsible for the management of the quality of the
educational provision, such as a Head of Department, programme leader (or equivalent)
or chair of a departmental teaching committee. However, not all of these need have
access to the same level of detail.
Good practice: make clear, from the outset, to all involved in the evaluation
process who will have sight of the outcomes, and who will be responsible for
taking action, and monitoring the effectiveness of action. (Note: there is little point,
and potential harm, in seeking evaluation of matters where there is no realistic prospect
of any action following the outcomes of evaluation.)
5. What methods of evaluation are available?
Only when the purpose of evaluation, its focus, reporting and responsibility for
action have been determined can the method of evaluation properly be addressed. There
is always advantage to be gained by using several methods of evaluation
and correlating their outcomes.
a). Questionnaire
This familiar method of seeking feedback from students has the potential advantage of
speed (in administration), anonymity (of response) and standardisation (for purposes of
comparison between cohorts). It can suffer from poor response rate and validity of
outcomes if not designed with care (for purpose and focus), and if over-applied (the
effect of "questionnaire-fatigue").
Points to consider:
Who should design the questionnaire? The answer is determined by the purpose of the
evaluation, and is, most commonly, the person(s) responsible for the delivery of the
education under evaluation, but it is good practice to seek the views of the intended
evaluators of its suitability for the purpose. The Education Enhancement team can
provide help with questionnaire design.
Should the questions be designed for response on a rating scale (eg. a positive

statement with response on a scale of `agree' to `disagree')? Rating scales lend

themselves to rapid processing and ease of comparability across cohorts/years,
especially when using online survey tools, but they limit the range of response.
Should the questions be designed for freeform response (eg. "what did you find most
challenging about ...")? Freeform responses allow a more subtle range of responses,
and for the raising of issues beyond those set out in the questionnaire, but they take
longer to complete, longer to process and much longer to report. It is good practice for
the processing and reporting to be done by someone not closely involved with the
subject of the evaluation. A good compromise is a questionnaire that is mainly of
rating-scale format (for speed and consistency) with some opportunities for freeform
response.
How long should the questionnaire be? In order that the purpose and focus remains
clear it is good practice to keep a questionnaire short - about 20 questions would be
about right for a rating-scale format, but much less if all the questions allow freeform
response.
When should it be administered? The answer to this depends entirely on the purpose.
For example, evaluation after the end of a module gives a more complete picture, but
too late for that cohort to benefit from the information - evaluation part-way through the
module, or after individual classes, gives an incomplete picture, but would enable some
adjustment of the remainder of the module to benefit that cohort. The purpose and focus
also determine the best frequency of administration, but it is unwise to overload to the
extent that questionnaire fatigue sets in. It is good practice for a department to have a
planned schedule of evaluation, with higher frequency of evaluation where there is
cause for concern, and lower frequency where evaluation gives stable positive
outcomes.
b). Structured group interview (nominal group technique)
This is a meeting with students at which they are asked to give their views about a
programme, course or class. It must be structured with care to generate constructive
debate, and so that students feel free to express their views without personal risk.
Typically, students are asked to work in small groups to reflect upon good and bad
features of the educational provision (eg. programme, course or module), its delivery,
and their own performance and experience. A spokesperson from each group is asked
to relay the considered views of the group to the meeting. The role of the member of
staff leading the meeting is to compile a summary of such views, to validate them at the
meeting, and, later, to produce a short report of the main outcomes.
The structured group interview allows students to have greater freedom of expression
than a questionnaire, and more opportunity to make constructive suggestions for
improvement. It typically requires a meeting of about an hour, but the processing is done
during that hour and the time needed for producing a report is short. It is good practice
for a group interview to be led by an experienced leader who is not involved in the
delivery of the educational provision that is being evaluated, and preferable not in the
same department. Education Enhancement can provide guidance on the operation of
structured group interviews, and members of EE have experience of leading and
reporting such meetings.
c). Student-staff liaison committee
Every academic department has a staff-student liaison committee. While this is neither

the right venue, nor necessarily the right group, to conduct evaluation, it is an
opportunity for students and staff as partners in the teaching/learning process to
identify priorities for scheduling evaluations
propose particular purposes and foci of evaluation
comment on the outcomes of evaluations, their validity and reliability
It is good practice for every meeting of a liaison committee to include a default agenda
item on evaluation of teaching, so that it is a legitimate topic to raise at any meeting.
Points raised at student-staff liaison committees can provide useful correlation with
outcomes of evaluations made by other methods (see also the Code of Practice for
student-staff liaison committees).
d). Self-evaluation and peer evaluation
A simple but effective form of self-evaluation by a course/module team is for them to
undertake the same form of evaluation undertaken by the students, ie. to complete the
same questionnaire, or to conduct a self-evaluation using the same format of a
structured group interview. The degree of harmony between the staff responses and the
outcomes of the students' evaluation is a good indicator of staff awareness of student
perceptions. Items of disharmony suggest that staff understanding of students' needs
and concerns needs to be addressed before attending to issues of detail that arise from
the evaluation.
Peer evaluation, by external examiners, to support self-evaluation of teaching in relation
to the maintenance of academic standards is a familiar and routine activity. Less
familiar, but equally valuable, is regular peer evaluation of the teaching/learning process.
A colleague, focusing on the process that is taking place, adds a dimension of
evaluation that may escape the member of staff and the students, who are generally too
busy with the business of teaching and learning to observe the process itself. However,
casual `dropping-in' on a class is not the best approach to peer evaluation. It is good
practice for peer evaluation to be a planned and structured process, involving
the separate stages of
briefing, to set context and identify aims and learning outcomes of the process
that is to be observed
observation, with a checklist of key features to look for, agreed at the briefing
de-briefing, to give feedback on the observation and to compare the perceptions
of the observer and the observed
Examples of observation checklists and features to look for in the teaching/learning
process are available from the Education Enhancement. Again, both self-evaluation and
peer evaluation provide correlation with, and add value to, other forms of evaluation of
teaching.
Evaluating Your own Teaching

Introduction

Methods for Evaluating Your Teaching

Web References and Resources

Introduction
Courses need to be continuously monitored, reviewed and renewed to ensure the teaching
(including the teaching and learning activities and the assessment) and course (objectives,

learning outcomes and contents) quality are up-to-standards and up-to-date. This is the core duty
of any teacher regardless of being a new or an experienced staff.
Evaluating teachers own teaching is a way to identify the strong aspects of their practice, as well
as their weaknesses which may need to be changed and improved. Teachers should take
initiatives and responsibility to evaluate their teaching and make improvements over time. It is
important to understand that evaluating your teaching does not mean you are a bad teacher, in
fact, it means quite the opposite.
A good teacher teaches and learns.
You could be the best teacher with the best course materials, course activities, learning outcomes
and assessments. But as time changes, course needs to revise to suit the needs of the society,
the employers and the diversity of students. A good teacher will take in criticism, initiate
evaluation and learn from their students.
The Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (SETL) Questionnaire is one of the ways
courses and teachings in HKU are evaluated. HKU places significant importance on student
learning and on the continuous enhancement of teaching and learning outcomes. For more
information on SETL, please contact the Centre CETL.

Methods for Evaluating Your Teaching

1.

Self-monitoring: Teachers monitor their own performance as they teach. Teachers

should monitor themselves while teaching. After each teaching session, teachers should ask
themselves (or complete a brief self-evaluation form) on whether they have met their determined
goals and objectives, and evaluate the good and the to-be-improved aspects of the session.
Teachers can keep a log (i.e. a teaching portfolio, or video log as described in the next section) to

track their own progress and improvement over time.

Self-monitoring is a meaningful source of information for evaluating teaching.
Teachers would take special notice of (and record) those information which are particularly
important to them, like a customized profile for individual teachers.

However, self-monitoring involves self-judgment. It is often difficult to be totally

fair and objective. Personal biases and misinterpretations of students' reaction by the teachers
themselves may interfere with the effectiveness of the evaluation.

2.

Audio and video recording: Teachers can audio- or video-tape their teaching sessions,
which allows them to keep record of and investigate their actual teaching performance in detail.

Teachers can review the records with other colleagues to discuss the areas for improvements.
Audio and video recording provide teachers with objective information that
reflects what was actually happening in the class. It is always easy for people to monitor others
and notice their weaknesses, but it is rather difficult for them to monitor themselves, especially

during teaching when teachers are devoting most of their attention in instructing and explaining to
students.
o

Recording reflects the actual teaching performance, but it is meaningless by

itself. For example, it does not tell teachers whether speaking at a particular pace is good or bad.
Teachers have to discuss with their fellows to obtain opinions to identify the strengths and
weaknesses in their teaching, as well as possible room for improvements.

It is a good idea to arrange several recording sessions throughout the semester

(e.g. one at the beginning, one in the middle and one at the end of semester) to check with the
progress and improvement of specifically targeted areas. But it is important to obtain the consent
from students and the faculty before doing the recording.

Furthermore, keeping a log of class video records can help teachers track their
own progress, and it is also a useful reference material for new teaching staff to learn from.

3.

Students feedback on teaching: Students' perception of learning experience in class is

sometimes the most direct way to weigh how effective a teacher delivers his teaching. After all,
the goal of education is to make students learn and understand. Therefore, what students
perceive and experience in class would directly determine how effective they are learning.
Collecting students' perception of teaching should be carried out several times in the semester (at
least once at mid-term and once at the end of term), to allow opportunities to correct poor
practices rather than leaving them till the end of course. Two common methods to collect

information about students' perception towards teaching are questionnaires and interviews.
Questionnaires: This is a common method to collect students opinion about
teaching, and it has been used widely across universities as a standard practice. Standardized
questions on the questionnaires collect information about students' background, general opinions
about the course (e.g. the topics are interesting, course materials are difficult, too many
assignments, comments given on assignments are helpful etc.), and an overall evaluation on the
effectiveness of the course and the teacher, using predefined scales of quantitative scores (e.g. 1
Strongly Agree, ..., 5 Strongly Disagree). Some general open-ended questions such as "What
do you think can be improved in this course?" and "What do you like most about this course?" are
usually included in the questionnaires. Of course, teachers can put down some specific topical

questions in which they particularly would like to know about.

Questionnaires can collect responses from a large number of students
simultaneously, which provide a comprehensive picture that reflect the opinions of the whole
class (i.e. good representativeness), and can be efficiently administered in terms of time and
resources. Responses in questionnaires are given anonymously, so students are more willing to
freely express what they actually think and perceive about the course.

However, the limitation of questionnaire lies at its standardized

organization of questions. Questions on the questionnaires are fixed, and therefore the teachers
cannot probe further information of their interests immediately base on the respondents
responses as in interviews.

Also, questionnaire survey is better to be administered by someone who

is not in charge of the grades of students, so that students would feel more comfortable to
express themselves.
Questionnaire survey must be careful designed to avoid confusion and

negative effect from the students (e.g. students may think that this is a way to test how much they
have learnt).
Interviews: Focus-group interviews with students can be conducted by the

teachers themselves (if trust has been built among the teacher and students) or an outside
person (if greater level of objectivity is required). Teachers can set the questions that they are
interested to know about with their faculty's colleague and consultants in advance, and probe
more detailed information and clarifications from students during the interview. It is obviously a

more flexible option compared to large class questionnaire surveys.

Directly interviewing students can usually reveal students' thoughts on
some unanticipated aspects, which can generate lots of useful information.
But interviews can usually only be conducted with a small portion of

students in the class, which may not necessary be reflecting the whole picture of thoughts of the
entire class.
Besides the above methods, teachers can also deduce how well the students are

learning and acquiring knowledge from the class by looking at their assignments and test results.
Provided that the assignments and tests are well-designed and have high validity in measuring
students' learning achievements, they can be good indicators of how effective the goal of helping
students to learn is achieved by the teaching delivered. However, teachers cannot infer from
assignments and test results about what is good or bad about their teaching, and what causes
students to learn better or worse.
One general limitation of assessing teaching quality based on students feedback is that their
opinions can be very biased to their own perspectives. Many students may not actually know
what they should know and learn from the course. Also, students usually do not possess enough
knowledge about how the course can be taught, including the possible pedagogies and course
contents.
It is also very important that teachers should tell students that they are aware of and are
genuinely interested in the opinions given. After receiving students' feedback, teachers should
describe to the students what changes are made in response to their opinions, and also explain
the reasons why they choose not to change the other practices as requested by students.
Students would question the usefulness of collecting their opinions if teachers do not let them
know their opinions are heard.
4.

Feedback from observation by other colleagues and experts: Teachers can invite
other colleagues or experts to sit in their classes and directly observe how the teaching is

conducted (including teaching style, contents, pace etc.), to give feedback and constructive
criticisms. Similar to video recording, observation by other people allows teachers to become
aware of many things that they are too busy to notice while conducting their teaching. Teachers
can negotiate with the observers before the class observation regarding the areas of focus, and
o

discuss the important points in a debriefing meeting afterwards.

Peer-observation: Junior teachers can invite other junior peers to observe and
give feedback to their teaching. This would be free from any political risk and peers would be

willing to exchange and share their ideas freely and honestly.

Observation by senior colleagues: Teachers can also invite experienced
senior teachers to be their observers. Senior teachers who have experiences in teaching can
often provide useful opinions for new teachers to get started smoothly. Nevertheless, political
risks can be a concern since some teachers behave differently when being observed by seniors

who make decisions about their promotion and tenure.

Observation by professionals from an outside party: Teachers may consult
their universitys teaching support center or similar organizations to arrange a teaching consultant
to observe their classes. These consultants do not necessarily need to possess adequate
knowledge about the subject being taught, but they can provide objective comments to teachers
on general presentation skills, skills of facilitating student discussions, and ideas for active and
interesting learning approaches.

Immunization:This schedule may vary depending upon where you live, your child's health, the type of
vaccine, and the vaccines available. Some of the vaccines may be given as part of a
combination vaccine so that your child gets fewer shots. Ask your doctor which vaccines your
child should receive.

Birth

HBV: Hepatitis B vaccine; recommended to give the first dose at birth, but may be
given at any age for those not previously immunized.

1-2 months

HBV: Second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose.

2 months

DTaP: Diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine

Hib: Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine

IPV: Inactivated poliovirus vaccine

PCV: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine

Rota: Rotavirus vaccine

4 months

DTaP

Hib

IPV

PCV

Rota

6 months

DTaP

Hib

PCV

Rota: This third dose may be needed, depending on the brand of vaccine used in
previous immunizations.

6 months and annually

Influenza: The vaccine is recommended every year for children 6 months and older.
Kids under 9 who get a flu vaccine for the first time will receive it in two separate doses at
least a month apart. Those younger than 9 who have been vaccinated in the past might
still need two doses if they have not received at least two flu vaccinations since July 2010.
Kids 6 months to 5 years old are still considered the group of kids who most need the flu
vaccine, but updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
now recommend that all older kids and teens get it, too.
It's especially important for high-risk kids to be vaccinated. High-risk groups include, but
aren't limited to, kids younger than 5 years old, and those with chronic medical conditions,
such as asthma, heart problems, sickle cell anemia, diabetes, or human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV).
It can take up to 2 weeks after the shot is given for the body to build up immunity against
the flu.

6-18 months

HBV

IPV

12-15 months

Hib

MMR: Measles, mumps, and rubella (German measles) vaccine

PCV

Chickenpox (varicella)

12-23 months

HAV: Hepatitis A vaccine; given as two shots at least 6 months apart

15-18 months

DTaP

4-6 years

DTaP

MMR

IPV

Varicella

11-12 years

HPV: Human papillomavirus vaccine, given as 3 shots over 6 months. It's

recommended for both girls and boys to prevent genital warts and certain types of cancer.

Tdap: Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis booster. Also recommended during each
pregnancy a woman has.

Meningococcal vaccine: And a booster dose is recommended at age 16.

College entrants

Meningococcal vaccine: Recommended for previously unvaccinated college students

who will live in dormitories. One dose will suffice for healthy college students whose only
risk factor is dorm living.

Special circumstances

HAV is recommended for kids 2 years and older who have not received the vaccine
and are at increased risk of developing hepatitis A. This includes kids who live in states or
will travel to countries where the disease is common.

Meningococcal vaccine can be given to kids as young as 2 months old who are at
risk of contracting meningococcal disease, such as meningitis. This includes children with
certain immune disorders as well as those who live in (or are planning to travel to)
countries where meningitis is common. This vaccine also should be given to teens 13 and
older who did not receive it in childhood.

Pneumococcal vaccines also can be given to older kids (age 2 and up) who have
immunocompromising conditions, such as asplenia or HIV infection, or other conditions,
like a cochlear implant.

Current Immunisation Schedule

The National Immunisation Program (NIP) Schedule
(0 - 4 Years)
Valid from 1 July 2013
Age
Birth

Disease immunised against

Hepatitis B

2 months Diphtheria
Tetanus
Pertussis
Polio
Hib
Hepatitis B
Pneumococcal
Rotavirus
4 months Diphtheria
Tetanus
Pertussis
Polio
Hib
Hepatitis B
Pneumococcal
Rotavirus
6 months Diphtheria
Tetanus
Pertussis
Polio
Hib (refer to note 1)
Hepatitis B (or at 12 months)
Pneumococcal
Rotavirus (refer to note 2)
12 months Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Hib

Hepatitis B (or at 6 months)

Meningococcal C
18 months Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Varicella
Pneumococcal (refer to note 3)
4 years

Diphtheria
Tetanus
Pertussis
Polio
Measles (refer to note 4)
Mumps(refer to note 4)
Rubella (refer to note 4)

Note:
1.
Four doses of Hib vaccine are due at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age when 'PRP-T Hib'
containing vaccine is used.
2.
Three doses of Rotavirus vaccine are due at 2, 4 and 6 months of age when RotaTeq
vaccine is used.
3.
Four doses of Pneumococcal vaccine are due at 2, 4, 6 and 18 months of age when
Synflorix vaccine is used.
4.
MMR vaccine is only to be given at 4 years if MMRV vaccine was not given at 18
months.
mmunization, or immunisation, is the process by which an individual's immune
system becomes fortified against an agent (known as theimmunogen).
When this system is exposed to molecules that are foreign to the body, called non-self, it will
orchestrate an immune response, and it will also develop the ability to quickly respond to a
subsequent encounter because of immunological memory. This is a function of the adaptive
immune system. Therefore, by exposing an animal to an immunogen in a controlled way, its body
can learn to protect itself: this is called active immunization.
The most important elements of the immune system that are improved by immunization are the T
cells, B cells, and the antibodies B cells produce.Memory B cell and memory T cells are
responsible for a swift response to a second encounter with a foreign molecule. Passive
immunization is when these elements are introduced directly into the body, instead of when the
body itself has to make these elements.
Immunization is done through various techniques, most commonly vaccination. Vaccines
against microorganisms that cause diseases can prepare the body's immune system, thus
helping to fight or prevent an infection. The fact that mutations can cause cancer cells to produce
proteins or other molecules that are unknown to the body forms the theoretical basis for

therapeutic cancer vaccines. Other molecules can be used for immunization as well, for example
in experimental vaccines against nicotine (NicVAX) or the hormone ghrelin in experiments to
create an obesity vaccine.
Before vaccines, the only way people became immune to a certain disease was by actually
getting the disease and surviving it. Immunizations are definitely less risky and an easier way to
become immune to a particular disease. They are important for both adults and children in that
they can protect us from the many diseases out there. Through the use of immunizations, some
infections and diseases have almost completely been eradicated throughout the United States
and the World. One for example is polio. Thanks to dedicated health care professionals and the
parents of children who vaccinated on schedule, polio has been eliminated in the U.S. since
1979. Polio is still found in other parts of the world though so certain people could still be at risk of
getting it. This includes those people who have never had the vaccine, those who didn't receive
all doses of the vaccine, or those traveling to areas of the world where polio is still prevalent.
Active immunization/vaccination has been named one of the "Ten Great Public Health
Achievements in the 20th Century". [1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Passive and active immunization

1.1 Active immunization

1.2 Passive immunization

2 See also

3 References

4 External links

Passive and active immunization[edit source | editbeta]

Medical student participating in a polio vaccine campaign in Mexico

Immunization can be achieved in an active or passive manner: vaccination is an active form of

immunization.

Active immunization[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Active immunity

Active immunization can occur naturally when a person comes in contact with, for example, a
microbe. If the person has not yet come into contact with the microbe and has no pre-made
antibodies for defense, as in passive immunization, the person becomes immunized. The immune
system will eventually create antibodies and other defenses against the microbe. The next time,
the immune response against this microbe can be very efficient; this is the case in many of the
childhood infections that a person only contracts once, but then is immune.
Artificial active immunization is where the microbe, or parts of it, are injected into the person
before they are able to take it in naturally. If whole microbes are used, they are pre-treated.
The importance of immunization is so great that the American Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has named it one of the "Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century".
[1]
Live attenuated vaccines have decreased pathogenicity. Their effectiveness depends on ability
to replicated and elicits a response similar to natural infection. It is usually effective with a single
dose. Examples of live, attenuated vaccines include measles, mumps, rubella, MMR, yellow
fever, varicella, rotavirus, and influenza (LAIV).

Passive immunization[edit source | editbeta]

Main article: Passive immunity
Passive immunization is where pre-synthesized elements of the immune system are transferred
to a person so that the body does not need to produce these elements itself.
Currently, antibodiescan be used for passive immunization. This method of immunization begins
to work very quickly, but it is short lasting, because the antibodies are naturally broken down, and
if there are no B cells to produce more antibodies, they will disappear.
Passive immunization occurs physiologically, when antibodies are transferred from mother
to fetus during pregnancy, to protect the fetus before and shortly after birth.
Artificial passive immunization is normally administered by injection and is used if there has been
a recent outbreak of a particular disease or as an emergency treatment for toxicity, as in
fortetanus. Treatment of this sort is often the subject of case based learning in first year medical
curricula. The antibodies can be produced in animals, called "serum therapy," although there is a
high chance of anaphylactic shock because of immunity against animal serum itself.
Thus, humanized antibodies produced in vitro by cell culture are used instead if available.