Preparing Future Academics portfolio

8/3/2019 Preparing Future Academics portfolio

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/preparing-future-academics-portfolio 1/66

PFA Reflective Portfolio

Candidate: Jason S. Reich

Supervisors: Dr Christine Skinner and Dr Karen Clegg

June 30, 2011

Submitted in fulfillment of the Preparing Future Academics programme.





Acknowledgements

I would like to take the opportunity to thank; Dr Christine Skinner, Dr Karen Clegg and DrJennifer Winter for their support, experience and advice throughout the programme, Christo-pher Poskitt and Dr Chris Fewster for their time and feedback and my PFA tutor group fortheir discussions and opinions.

3





Contents

1. Introduction 7

1.1. Experience gathered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2. Workshop attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.3. Portfolio structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Learning outcomes 10

2.1. Learning outcome 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2. Learning outcome 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13



3. Conclusions 23

A. Session plans 25

A.1. Session plan for Functional Programming practical, AUT/Wk8 . . . . . . . . . 27

A.2. Session plan for Mathematics for Computer Scientists practical, AUT/Wk8 . . 29A.3. Session plan for Code Generation and Optimisation guest lecture, SPR/Wk5 . 32

B. Reflective logs 35

B.1. Reflective log for an MFCS practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

B.2. Reflective log for an MFCS formative assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39B.3. Reflective log for a CGO practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B.4. Reflective log for a CGO guest lecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42B.5. Reflective log for an LSA practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

C. Peer and sta observations 47

C.1. Peer observation of my teaching, performed by Christopher Poskitt . . . . . . . 49C.2. Peer observation of Christopher Poskitt teaching, performed by me . . . . . . . 51

C.3. Sta observation of Dr Chris Fewster, performed by me . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

D. PFA symposium submission 55

D.1. Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55D.2. Symposium slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

E. Skillsforge points summary 62

F. Student feedback 65

F.1. General feedback from Mathematics for Computer Science . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5



Contents

F.2. General feedback for Code Generation and Optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68F.3. Specific feedback for Code Generation and Optimisation guest lecture . . . . . 69

6



1. Introduction

Teaching is an essential component of academic life. If our aim is to push back the frontiers of human knowledge and understanding, it is a wasted e ort to merely develop new ideas. Thecompetency must be passed on to others.

I developed an interest in learning styles and strategies to compensate for my own specificlearning diculties. Throughout my education, I have had to adapt given learning activitiesto maximise, or even just gain any, benefit. The Preparing Future Academics programme hasallowed me to consolidate this latent knowledge and leverage it towards teaching others.

This portfolio represents a fixed point in my evolving interpretations of the learning expe-rience. I attempt to draw on experience as a student and as a facilitator to evaluate my ownteaching and seek to improve it.

1.1. Experience gathered

During the PFA registration period, I have facilitated learning in the modules listed in Ta-ble 1.1. The experience and feedback gained from these will form the evidence supporting myclaims of meeting the learning outcomes.

The peer observation requirements have been met through Christopher Poskitt observingmy guest lecture in Code Generation and Optimisation (Observation C.1) and my observationof his guest lecture in Mathematics for Computer Scientists. (Observation C.2)

The sta observation requirement was fulfilled through the reviewing of a lecture by Dr ChrisFewster of the Department of Mathematics. This lecture was part of the Further QuantumMechanics module. (Observation C.3) The reports from these observations can be found inAppendix C.

1.2. Workshop attendance

In fulfilment of the PFA requirements, I have participated in the two introductory sessions,symposium, the five core workshops and two of the optional workshops, summarised in Ta-

ble 1.2. Appendix E contains the output from SkillsForge, demonstrating my registration andattendance.

1.3. Portfolio structure

This portfolio is structured as follows;

Chapter 2 — This chapter enumerates each of the Preparing Future Academics programmelearning outcomes. For each outcome; evidence of fulfilment is provided, the evidence andexperience is reflected upon and engagement with professional standards is highlighted.

7



1. Introduction

Table 1.1.: Experience gathered during PFA registration period.

Code Generation and Optimisation

8x Two hour computer lab sessions6x Two hour pen and paper sessions1x One hour guest lecture (Peer observed)

Evidence: Session plan A.3. Reflective logs B.3 and B.4. Peer observation C.2.Student feedback F.2 and F.3.

Lexical and Syntactic Analysis of Programming Languages

8x Two hour computer lab sessions

Evidence: Reflective log B.5.

Functional Programming

14x One hour computer lab sessions

Evidence: Session plan A.1.

Mathematics for Computer Science

6x Two hour pen and paper sessions

2x Closed formative assessment invigilation and marking

Evidence: Session plan A.2. Reflective logs B.1 and B.2. Student feedback F.1.

Table 1.2.: Workshop attendance.

Date Module

20/10/2010 PFA Introduction27/10/2010 Meet your PFA supervisor

13/12/2010 E ective Lecturing (Core)20/01/2011 Structuring and Designing Courses (Core)26/01/2011 Planning Assessment Methods for Student Work (Core)14/02/2011 Introduction to Pedagogic Research (Core)28/02/2011 Learning Styles & Student Motivation (Optional)15/03/2011 PFA Symposium 201127/04/2011 Evaluation and Quality Enhancement (Core)10/06/2011 Maintaining Innovation and Enthusiasm in University Teaching (Optional)

8



1.3. Portfolio structure

Chapter 3 — The conclusion of this portfolio consolidates my reflections on the learning out-comes and discusses how these will inform my future practice.

Appendices — The appendices contain evidence collected for the Preparing Future Academicsprogramme. Evidence is grouped by its form (e.g. session plans, reflective learning logs,feedback forms) and indexed to aid lookups.

9



2. Learning outcomes

2.1. Learning outcome 1

Choose appropriate teaching strategies to meet particular student needs and con-texts.

2.1.1. Claim

Students have a variety of learning needs and preferences. Strategies exist for targeting these

learning styles but, unless teaching one-on-one, a balance must be struck to enable learning forall. Furthermore, some of these strategies are not suited to all learning contexts. Throughoutmy teaching, I aim to balance strategies to maximise opportunities for learning.

2.1.2. Evidence

Courses Attended the following courses to improve my knowledge of strategies and theirapplications: (See Appendix E, Skillsforge points summary , on page 63 .)

• E ective Lecturing,

• Structuring and Designing Courses,

• Planning Assessment Methods for Student Work,

• Introduction to Pedagogic Research, and • Learning Styles & Student Motivation.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA5 and CK2-5.

MFCS In Mathematics for Computer Science practicals, we encouraged group working anda relaxed ‘chatty’ atmosphere between students and teachers. That said, we ensured this wasnot forced on those who work better individually. See session plan A.2, p29.

Feedback for MFCS (feedback mechanism F.1, p67 and reflective log B.1, p37) indicates thatthe relaxed atmosphere did break down barriers and make the teaching team approachable.Unfortunately, the increased load on the team may have caused some (response 3) to becomedisgruntled with waiting times.

It would appear that more could be done to keep track of struggling students (reflectivelog B.1, p37) and helping them to catch up on content that do not understand. With theselarge classes, better record keeping appears to be the key.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA2, AOA4, AOA6, CK2-3,CK5, PV1 and PV3-4.

CGO lecture For my Code Generation and Optimisation guest lecture (session plan A.3,p32), I weaved discussion breaks throughout to help engage students with a theoretical topic.

10




The energy during the discussion breaks and generally positive feedback (feedback F.3,p69 and observation C.1, p49) appears to indicate that gain a deeper understanding of thecontent as a result. Furthermore, I found the breaks useful for controlling the pace of thelecture. (reflective log B.4, p42) It would be interesting to see if it applies as well to other, less

theoretical topics.This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA1-2, AOA4, AOA6, CK2-

5, PV1 and PV3-4.

Peer observations In my peer observation of a lecture by Christopher Poskitt (C.2, p51),I discussed my opinion that he was mainly targeting read/write learners (under the VARKmodel) at the expense of visual and kinaesthetic.

Similarly, I commented that Chris Fewster could use visual cues to help signpost the class.For more information, see observation C.3, p53.

The observations did highlight that teachers will often naturally target their own learningstyle. It is very useful to use a learning style model (such as VARK) and interim studentfeedback to break free from this restriction.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA6, CK2-5, PV1 and PV3-4.

Symposium and CGO practicals My symposium presentation (Appendix D) discusses ex-isting teaching strategies for programming, highlights their deficiencies and suggests somealternatives. A subset of the suggestions were implemented in CGO. (See reflective log B.3,p41.)

The new strategies were derivable from the original learning outcomes. The overall mes-sage, that teaching problems can often be solved by innovating around the existing learning

outcomes, appears to apply in many contexts.This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA1, AOA4, AOA6, CK2-5,

PV1 and PV3-4.

2.1.3. Reflection

As a dyspraxic/dyslexic, my preferred learning styles would often di er from those targeted bymy teachers. My personal interest in learning styles has, not only been to improve my teachingcapabilities but, to develop strategies for my own study needs.

Through the observations C.2, p51, and C.3, p53, I discovered that lecturers will often target

their own preferred learning style. I had previously assumed that choices were made based onthe preferences of the majority or some standard pedagogy.

While the learning models introduced in “Learning Styles & Student Motivation” should notbe used to pigeon hole students, they serve as useful guides to escape assumptions and ensurethat activities are targeting a broad range.

Group discussion, as used in MFCS and my CGO lecture, creates an interactive environ-ment that enables students to apply their own natural learning styles. Of course, discussionenvironments will not suit particular students, such as mutes and autistics. I always try toencourage, but not force, all to participate and will immediately back o from anyone showingdiscomfort.

11




The structure of the discussion breaks in my CGO lecture also allowed everyone to participatewith the whole class by first contributing ideas with their adjacent peers and the more confident,activist students sharing their findings.

Continuing with this theme, my symposium presentation (D, p55) suggested quantitative

techniques for monitoring the success of teaching strategies so that they can be adjustedaccordingly.

My experiences will hopefully allow me to teach to a wide range of learning styles withoutdiluting the content. I believe the key to this balance is enabling the students themselves toutilise their natural preferences, not just in personal study, but during contact sessions.

2.1.4. Professional standards

In fulfilling this learning outcome, I have interacted with the Professional Standards Frameworkthrough:

AOA1 Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study.AOA2 Teaching and/or supporting student learning.

AOA4 Developing e ective environments and student support and guidance.

AOA6 Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development.AOA5 Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and sup-

porting learning.

CK2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme.

CK3 How students learn, both generally and in the subject.CK4 The use of appropriate learning technologies.CK5 Methods for evaluating the e ectiveness of teaching.

PV1 Respect for individual learners.PV3 Commitment to development of learning communities.PV4 Commitment to encouraging participation in higher education, acknowledging diversity

and promoting equality of opportunity.

12





Construct session plans including learning outcomes, content and feedback mech-anisms for a range of undergraduate teaching sessions at the University of York.

In cases where you are involved in demonstrating (i.e. sciences) the session plansshould involve a retrospective commentary on the session.

2.2.1. Claim

Session plans are useful for allocating time to content, ensuring coverage of learning styles andcommunicating teaching methodology to colleagues. I produce session plans with these aimsin mind.

2.2.2. Evidence

Courses Attended the following courses to learn about designing and structuring teaching

sessions and courses: (See Appendix E , Skillsforge points summary , on page 63.)

• E ective Lecturing,


• Planning Assessment Methods for Student Work, and • Evaluation and Quality Enhancement.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA6, CK2-3 and CK5.

Session plans Session plans for three styles of teaching are provided:

• Session plan A.1, p27, covers a computer laboratory practical for a third year program-

ming module.• Session plan A.2, p29, refers to a pen-and-paper exercise class for first year mathematics.

In these sessions, group working is highly encouraged. Feedback F.1, p67 was collectedfor the entire module.

• Session plan A.3, p32, outlines a guest lecture I performed for a third year a compulsorymodule, relating the topic to my specific research. Student feedback F.3, p69 for thelecture was collected.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA1, AOA3-6, CK1-3, CK5 and PV1-3.

2.2.3. Reflection

Sessions plans, to varying degrees of formality, form the basis of most of my academic in-teractions. I plan research meetings to ensure that objectives are known and met. Researchseminars are planned to allocate time to specific points and ensure a narrative. Creating ses-sion plans for teaching are a natural extension. However, I am interested in planning for classdynamics such as student engagement, pace of progression and tangential topics.

In my guest lecture, (CGO lecture session plan A.3, p32) I compensated for an unpredictablepace of delivery by planning in student discussion breaks. The length and scope of these breakscould be adjusted to bring me back to the planned timetable.

13




Fluid session plans are more time consuming to construct. It would be interesting to de-termine whether the additional resources required outweigh the benefits, such as encouragingdeep learning but following topics that the class is interested in.

In practicals and problem sessions, this can be enabled far more easily by increasing the

volume of exercises and the range of diculties. If exercises are explicitly ‘graded’ with theirdiculties and a recommended threshold is determined, strong students need not get boredwhile weaker students need not feel left behind. In my symposium presentation (D) I describean automated system through which this could be administered more easily.

My sta observation of Dr Chris Fewster (see C.3, p53) introduced me to providing thestudents with part of the session plan as a handout. This helps students to know what thespecific learning outcomes are and track their progression through them.

My guest lecture incorporated a lightweight representation of this, where topics and progres-sion where displayed on a timeline at the top of each slide. This was well regarded in response5 of feedback F.3, p69. I intend to augment this with a paper handout to supply further, butstill summary, information.



AOA1 Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study.AOA5 Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and sup-

porting learning.AOA6 Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development.CK1 The subject material.


CK3 How students learn, both generally and in the subject.

CK5 Methods for evaluating the e ectiveness of teaching.PV1 Respect for individual learners.PV2 Commitment to incorporating the process and outcomes of relevant research, scholarship

and/or professional practice.PV3 Commitment to development of learning communities.

14





Use pedagogic theory and research to inform your own teaching practice.

2.3.1. ClaimWhile one’s own experiences should guide teaching styles and strategies, there is a wealth of professional experience and evidence to draw upon. I use pedagogic literature to support myown observations and to discover techniques for improving the learning experience.

2.3.2. Evidence

Courses Attended “Introduction to Pedagogic Research” to gain a basic understand of ped-agogic theory and a range of other RDT courses which have referred to research. (See Ap-pendix E , Skillsforge points summary , on page 63 .)

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA5, CK3-4, PV2 and PV5.

Citations I have cited the pedagogic literature directly in the appropriate evidence.

• In reflective log B.1 (page 37), I refer to Bloom’s taxonomy (1956) to support my thoughtson why students struggled more with a particular learning outcome.

• Reflective log B.2 (page 39) uses Cowie and Bell’s (1999) definition of formative assess-ment to ensure that the aims are matched by the results.

• Peer observation C.2 (page 51) cites Fleming and Baume’s VARK model of learningstyles to help discover why the teaching strategy used conflicts with my own preferences.

I also refer to literature to discover evidence supporting my claim that broad signpostinginspires deep learning.

• My sta observation C.3 (page 53) makes brief reference to research discussing the di-culty with student engagement in teaching mathematics.

• My symposium presentation (Appendix D) draws on a wide variety of literature to defineconcepts and support some of the strategies suggested.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA4-6, CK2-4, PV1-2 and PV4-5.

2.3.3. Reflection

While I often use pedagogic research to provide supporting evidence for my own strategies, Igain most benefit from the basic models of learning, teaching and behaviour.

Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al, 1956) of cognitive domains appears to have a strong relationto the variety of learning outcomes that appear in my subject. It provides a common languageto describe objectives and gives an indication of which ones are likely to cause diculty forcertain students.

The Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic, or VARK, (Flemming and Baume, 2006)model attempts to characterise student learning preferences. It must be applied carefully as

15




reality is rarely this simple and students would not react well to being pigeonholed. How-ever, it does seem to adequately represent the broad spectrum of available teaching strategies.I, personally, find it useful for overcoming my natural bias towards visual and kinaestheticlearning.

While I cite several related papers in my evidence, I have yet to discover as strong models of student engagement. A characterisation of the path between surface and deep learning wouldbe of great benefit. This is a topic I shall research further as I am given increased responsibilityfor session design.

Bibliography

• Bloom, B. S. and Engelhart, M. D and Furst, E. J. and Hill, W. H. and Krathwohl, D. R.Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I:Cognitive Domain , Longmans, Green, 1956.

• Fleming, N. and Baume, D. Learning Styles Again: VARKing up the right tree! Educa-

tional Developments, SEDA Ltd, November 2006.



AOA4 Developing e ective environments and student support and guidance.

AOA5 Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and sup-porting learning.

AOA6 Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development.


CK3 How students learn, both generally and in the subject.CK4 The use of appropriate learning technologies.PV1 Respect for individual learners.

PV2 Commitment to incorporating the process and outcomes of relevant research, scholarshipand/or professional practice.

PV4 Commitment to encouraging participation in higher education, acknowledging diversityand promoting equality of opportunity.

PV5 Commitment to continuing professional development and evaluation of practice.

16





Evaluate the alignment between the design, teaching and assessment used in theprogramme on which you teach.

2.4.1. Claim

Constructive alignment appears to be natural concept: select intended learning outcomes,teach to achieve those learning outcomes and assess whether those learning outcomes havebeen achieved. I discuss how this process can be leveraged further to improve the learningexperience.

2.4.2. Evidence

Courses I attended the following courses to improve my knowledge of programme design andevaluation: (See Appendix E , Skillsforge points summary , on page 63.)


• Planning Assessment Methods for Student Work, and • Evaluation and Quality Enhancement.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA5, CK2, CK5-6, PV2 and PV5.

Symposium I use my symposium presentation (Appendix D) to evaluate computer program-ming courses and suggest improvements. These improvements are derived from the originalintended learning outcomes, reinforcing the constructive alignment.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA1-5, CK2, CK5-6, PV2 and PV5.

MFCS Reflective log B.2 (page 39) discusses alignment within the first year Mathematics forComputer Science module. It specifically focuses on how a formative assessment reflects boththe intended learning outcomes and the final summative assessment.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA3-4, CK5-6 and PV2.

LSA Reflective log B.5 (page 44) highlights the alignment of intended learning outcomes topractical exercises.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA2, CK2 and PV2.

2.4.3. Reflection

As an undergraduate, I was often left perplexed by modules that contained content that wasnever assessed. One, in particular, had a practical series that, while enjoyable and informa-tive, had almost no bearing on any summative assessment in the programme. While I hadthought my proficiency in the exercises reflected my achievement of the learning outcomes,apparently these were not the learning outcomes that were to be assessed. My final marksu ered accordingly.

17




Biggs (2003) discusses “constructive alignment” where “students construct meaning throughrelevant learning activities” and the teacher sets up “a learning environment that supports thelearning activities appropriate to achieving the desired learning outcomes”. These two conceptsare constructivism and alignment, respectively.

Relating these concepts to my previous example, it would appear the module leader hadattempted to introduce some constructive elements, through a practical series. However, theyfailed to align the taught learning outcomes with the assessed learning outcomes.

I attempt to align practical classes and problem sessions by linking them to specific lecturematerial and ensuring that the exercises are similar to those that might appear in the exam.This is a lower abstraction than just ensuring that every learning outcome appears in lectures,practicals and examinations. The two techniques are equivalent if every learning outcomeappears in the lecture series.

In the MFCS formative assessment (reflective log B.2, p39) we take these concepts furtherand ensure that it is clear which content is covered by each formative assessment and detail therelationship between the formative problems and those that would appear in the summative

assessment.My symposium presentation (Appendix D) details a new course design for teaching program-

ming, where constructive alignment has been used to solve issues with student engagement andtracking progression. I would be interested to see how these proposals work in practice.

Bibliography

• Biggs, J. B. Aligning teaching for constructing learning. The Higher Education Academy ,http://www.heacademy.ac.uk , 2003.



AOA1 Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study.

AOA2 Teaching and/or supporting student learning.AOA3 Assessment and giving feedback to learners.AOA4 Developing e ective environments and student support and guidance.



CK2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of

the academic programme.CK5 Methods for evaluating the e ectiveness of teaching.

CK6 The implications of quality assurance and enhancement for professional practice.PV2 Commitment to incorporating the process and outcomes of relevant research, scholarship

and/or professional practice.


18

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/





Apply the principles of good marking and feedback to your teaching.

2.5.1. Claim

Assessment is a key component of the learning process. It tracks success in reaching learn-ing outcomes and guides future activities for both students and facilitators. I discuss myexperiences and intentions for formative assessment.

2.5.2. Evidence

Courses I attended the “Planning Assessment Methods for Student Work” course to improvemy competency. (See Appendix E , Skillsforge points summary , on page 63.)

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA5, CK4-6 and PV2-5.

MFCS Reflective log B.2 (page 39) contains my reflections on a formative assessment for thefirst year Mathematics for Computer Science module. We use this opportunity to introducestudents to the style of the final summative assessment in addition to monitoring their progress.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA3, CK5 and PV3.

Symposium My symposium presentation (Appendix D) discusses the use of automated andpeer assessment techniques to increase opportunities for feedback to students. These systemscan be closely aligned with professional engineering practice, reinforcing existing learning out-comes.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA1, AOA3-5, CK4-6,PV1-2, PV3 and PV5.

2.5.3. Reflection

There is a common perception that feedback in our programme is not as good as it couldbe. Either student expectations are not being adequately managed or teaching sta are unable(possibly, unwilling) to alter their processes. I will use statistics from the 2010 National StudentSurvey1 to guide my reflection.

Assessment criteria

65% of respondents feel “the criteria used in marking have been clear in advance.”

As discussed in Learning Outcome 4, misaligned modules can give the appearance thatassessment criteria is unclear. Even if past papers and revision guidance does not include thenon-assessed content, there is an expectation that proficiency with taught material will bereflected in the summative assessment. To avoid this issue, all activities must be aligned to thelearning outcomes except for tangential topics which explicitly marked as beyond assessment.

1http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/

19

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/

http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/




Assessment feedback

45% of respondents agree that they “have received detailed comments on [their] work.” and 44% say that “feedback on [their] work has helped [them] clarify things[they] did not understand.”

Our programme involves a large amount of practical- and exercise-based learning. Facilita-tors can directly observe and comment on student progression. However, in my experience,students often do not include informal, ad-hoc, discussion in their definition of ‘feedback.’ Un-fortunately, frequent formal formative assessment is resource intensive and can unduly addstress learners and facilitators alike.

A slight increase the amount of formal formative assessment could give students the feedbackthey crave without overtaxing those involved. In MFCS, a number of closed formative assess-ments are conducted, on subsets of the topics but in the style the final summative assessment.(Reflective log B.2, p39)

An alternative proposal, outlined in my symposium presentation in Appendix D, is to use

automated and peer assessment to increase the opportunities for and validity for feedback.However, the key will be demonstrating the mapping between this feedback and the finalassessment criteria.



AOA1 Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study.AOA3 Assessment and giving feedback to learners.

AOA4 Developing e ective environments and student support and guidance.AOA5 Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and sup-

porting learning.AOA6 Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development.

CK4 The use of appropriate learning technologies.CK5 Methods for evaluating the e ectiveness of teaching.CK6 The implications of quality assurance and enhancement for professional practice.

PV1 Respect for individual learners.PV2 Commitment to incorporating the process and outcomes of relevant research, scholarship

and/or professional practice.

PV3 Commitment to development of learning communities.


20





Evaluate an aspect of academic practice (teaching, demonstrating or assessment)that you have found di cult and reflect on how you have overcome this.

2.6.1. Claim

This year, I gave my first lecture-style teaching session. I was concerned about pacing thelecture (with respect to timing and diculty of content) and student engagement. I will usethis learning outcome to reflect on this experience.

2.6.2. Evidence

Courses Attended “Evaluation and Quality Enhancement” to learn how to evaluate academicpractice. I also attended “E ective Lecturing,” “Learning Styles & Student Motivation” and“Maintaining Innovation and Enthusiasm in University Teaching” to address perceived defi-

ciencies. (See Appendix E , Skillsforge points summary , on page 63 .)This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA5, CK2-3, CK5, PV2

and PV5.

CGO Guest Lecture I was asked to give a guest lecture in the third year Code Generationand Optimisation module on a topic related to my area of research. This lecture is describedin session plan A.3 (page 32) and reflective log B.4 (page 42).

As lecturing is an area in which I have little experience, I requested specific feedback fromthe students involved (see feedback mechanism B.4, p42) and asked for a peer observation.The report from the observation can be found in C.1, p49.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA1-2, CK2-3, CK5, PV1-3 and PV5.

Peer observations To gather more experience of lecturing practice, I observed those given byChristopher Poskitt and Dr Chris Fewster. Reports of these can be found in observation C.2(page 51) and observation C.3 (page 53) respectively. I gave special attention to their pacingand targeting of learning styles.

This relates to the HEA Professional Standards Framework at AOA5-6, CK2-3, CK5, PV2 and PV5.

2.6.3. Reflection

A common observation from students is that engagement is more to do with delivery than theactual topic. A well-delivered lecture of fundamental principles will grasp the imagination farbetter than a badly delivered seminar on cutting edge ideas. However, what are the qualitiesthat contribute to good delivery? This was a personal concern as I gave my first lecture tothe undergraduates, on my area of interest. It was hoped that my own enthusiasm would becommunicated.

As shown in my session plan (A.3, p32), I briefly introduce the theoretical and practicalmotivations for the topic. This pattern, of theoretical and practical concepts, was repeatedthroughout to attempt to target multiple learning preferences.

21




Interestingly, this was not widely mentioned in the feedback collected from the students (F.3,p69) or the peer (C.1, p49) observer. I can either infer that this balance is not a concern formany or that the balance was correct such that it did not irritate the students into commenting.Next time, I will request specific feedback on this point.

I attempted to control the speed of delivery through planned group discussion breaks, dis-tributed through the lecture. These helped me regain awareness of my timing and allowed thestudents to form their own opinions of the material. Both the students and my observationhighlighted these as successful.

Many students used the feedback to describe the lecture as engaging. This would suggest Isucceeded in my goals. Furthermore, I received applications from several enthusiastic attendeesfor a summer internship on a related topic and supervised by myself.



AOA1 Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study.

AOA2 Teaching and/or supporting student learning.AOA4 Developing e ective environments and student support and guidance.



CK1 The subject material.CK2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of

the academic programme.

CK3 How students learn, both generally and in the subject.CK5 Methods for evaluating the e ectiveness of teaching.PV1 Respect for individual learners.

PV2 Commitment to incorporating the process and outcomes of relevant research, scholarshipand/or professional practice.

PV3 Commitment to development of learning communities.


22



3. Conclusions

I was once a pupil and student who struggled with specific learning diculties. Pedagogicliterature showed me that these were only ‘diculties’ because my learning preferences werenot matched with the teachers’ strategies. I assumed that my preferences were an anomaly.Using the knowledge gained from the related modules, my observations of other teachingsta indicates that teachers were targeting their own learning preferences, blinded by theirassumptions.

Models of student learning styles and behaviours are an e ective tool for escaping theseassumptions and ensuring adequate coverage of a class’s preferences. Facilitators must be

careful to avoid the overzealous application of learning models. Many students are still discov-ering their learning style and this can be hindered by labelling them at a fixed point in theirdevelopment.

Increasing interactive elements in lectures and providing open-ended learning activities en-ables students to leverage their learning preferences as they see fit. These opportunities forengagement can only inspire deep learning, especially if a student-led learning community isformed. I am keen to investigate whether there are similar models for which activities stimulatedeep learning in di erent classes of students.

The interactive elements in my guest lecture helped me control my own pacing with arelatively small amount of prior planning. I think these may be a useful technique for dynamicteaching sessions without the resource intensive planning.

However, interactive techniques can cause unease with students that su

er from impairedsocial and communication capabilities. I take care to observe student reactions and maintaina balance of welcoming, but not forcing, contributions.

The Preparing Future Academics programme has given me the knowledge and skills toevaluate and analyse both my own teaching and the teaching I have received. Through myown experiences of misaligned module design and the pedagogic theory to which I have beenintroduced, I hope to ensure that this does not happen in any course that I design or influence.

Furthermore, I have discovered that constructive alignment can be used to solve issues withstudent engagement and feedback quality. I look forward to implementing the concepts of automated assessment, peer assessment and reusable results in future teaching sessions.

Learning styles and student engagement have been a running theme throughout my reflec-

tions on each learning outcome, resulting from a personal interest. The Preparing FutureAcademics programme has helped me consolidate this knowledge and use it to inform myteaching practice. I hope that this will help me enable learning for all and improve the studentexperience.

23





A. Session plans

Contents

A.1. Session plan for Functional Programming practical, AUT/Wk8 . 27

A.2. Session plan for Mathematics for Computer Scientists practical,AUT/Wk8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

A.3. Session plan for Code Generation and Optimisation guest lecture,SPR/Wk5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

25





A.1 .

2 7



2 8



A.2 .

2 9



3 0



3 1



A. 3 .

3 2



3 3



3 4



B. Reflective logs

Contents

B.1. Reflective log for an MFCS practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

B.2. Reflective log for an MFCS formative assessment . . . . . . . . . . 39

B.3. Reflective log for a CGO practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B.4. Reflective log for a CGO guest lecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

B.5. Reflective log for an LSA practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

35





B.1.

37



B. Reflective logs

38



B.2.

39



B. Reflective logs

40



B.3.

41



B.4.

42



B.4. Reflective log for a CGO guest lecture

43



B.5.

44



B.5. Reflective log for an LSA practical

45





C. Peer and sta observations

Contents

C.1. Peer observation of my teaching, performed by Christopher Poskitt 49

C.2. Peer observation of Christopher Poskitt teaching, performed by me 51

C.3. Sta observation of Dr Chris Fewster, performed by me . . . . . . 53

47





Preparing Future Academics (PFA) Form Obs/1

Observation of Teaching

(Depending on which observation (either peer or other teaching) not all questions below will

be appropriate for all sessions)

Title of teaching session: CGO Guest Lecture: Getting Compilers Right (Jason S. Reich)

Date: 17th February 2011

Observer: Chris Poskitt

1. What in your opinion went well in the session? Why?

• The lecture was very effectively structured – a lot of thought had gone into this. Jasonbegan with a clear set of learning objectives, then placed the lecture within the context of

both the CGO module, and previous modules that the students had taken. The main part of the lecture was organised into sensible sections, and “breadcrumbs” at the top of eachslide allowed students to clearly see where they were. The lecture closed with a summary

of what had been covered, and Jason was careful to relate this to the learning objectivesstated at the beginning.

• Jason ensured on multiple occasions to motivate the work by linking it to real examples. Asense of excitement was conveyed to students by linking the work to ongoing research.

• Humour was used effectively and made the lecturer appear approachable.

• The group discussions mid-lecture were an excellent feature. They broke up the lecture(avoiding information overload), and really did encourage students to think about the

issues with the people sat next to them. The students were asked to ponder over a number of open-ended questions; from what I could tell, they engaged with these questions verywell, and even challenged each other’s views.

• The pace of the lecture was good (initially it was quite fast, but this became steady veryquickly and then remained at a good pace).

2. What in your opinion could be improved or developed? How might this be achieved?

• Jason asked audience members (myself included) on a couple of occasions if what he had just said was correct. On all occasions, of course, he was right – but I suggest not to ask

for reassurance like this in the future, as it could potentially affect a student’s confidence inthe lecturer.

• For much of the lecture, Jason stood behind the AV Tower. This was not a problem for most of the students in the room, but I felt that potentially, students sat at the far right of

the room may not have had such a clear view of the lecturer. (This is speculation since Iwas not sat there – but nonetheless it remains very good practice to carefully consider where it is you stand when delivering a lecture.)

• I felt that the “code slides” had a bit too much information on them. It might be moreeffective to use overlays for these, introducing lines/blocks of code one-by-one. I suspectthat a student would find it much easier to focus on the code if presented this way, rather than presenting a lot of code all at once (it is easy for tired eyes to wander).

C.1.

49



3. What techniques did the lecturer use to encourage discussion? Did they work?

• The lecturer broke off from lecturing on two occasions for students to discuss some open-ended questions amongst themselves. As discussed earlier, this proved to be veryeffective, and clearly engaged the students with the material.

4. Please comment on areas in which the lecturer invited feedback

N/A

5. Any other comments or suggestions

• Did I see Comic Sans font in one of the diagrams?!?! :-)

• The lecturer handed out some very effective feedback forms, not dissimilar to those used

by the RDT. From what I could tell, students actually left some meaningful feedback, asopposed to the pleasant – but unhelpful – generic “good lecture” comments that other types of forms may have invoked!

• Overall, an excellent lecture – and I am not alone in thinking this! I hope that some of thesecomments are helpful.

C. Peer and sta observations

50



D. PFA symposium submission

Contents

D.1. Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

D.2. Symposium slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

D.1. Executive summary

I chose the topic, “Do you see opportunities for innovative assessment methods in modulesthat you have been involved in supporting or are the current methods still fit for purpose?”and applied it to the teaching programming within computer science and beyond.

The presentation; (section D.2)

• Highlighted the many departments were computer programming was taught.

• Described and explained the common intended learning outcomes from a programmingmodule.

• Discussed the existing teaching strategies.

•

Presented informal feedback from both students and teachers.• Used this feedback to motivate suggestions, based on research into the teaching of pro-

gramming skills.

• Demonstrated how these suggestions could have also been derived from the existingintended learning outcomes. In particular, these suggestions were related to professionalpractice.

• Briefly described real world results where the suggestions had be put into practice andindicated where further study was required.

“Constructive alignment runs deep. Going back to the beginning may give you the solutions

you need.”

55





D.2. Symposium slides


57



D. PFA symposium submission

58




59



D.PF A

s ym p o s i um

s u b mi s s i o

n

6 0




61



62



E. Skillsforge points summary

Points Summary (Green Card)

The name Green Card is taken from the professional development programme used in The

Department of Biology. The Green Card pulls together all of your completed courses and

development activities and sums up the points that have been awarded.

Points total to date: 37.0

10-

Jun-

2011

Maintaining Innovation and Enthusiasm in

University Teaching3.0

Researcher

Development

Team

26-

May-

2011

Research with Impact in Computer Science,

Electronics and the Physical Sciences3.0

Researcher

Development

Team

27-Apr-

2011Evaluation and Quality Enhancement 3.0

Researcher

Development

Team

15-

Mar-

2011

PFA Symposium 2011 5.0

Researcher

Development

Team

28-

Feb-

2011

Learning Styles & Student Motivation 3.0

Researcher

Development

Team

14-

Feb-

2011

Introduction to Pedagogic Research 3.0

Researcher

Development

Team

26-Jan-

2011Planning Assessment Methods for Student Work 3.0

Researcher

Development

Team

20-Jan-

2011Structuring and Designing Courses 6.0

Researcher

Development

Team13-

Dec-

2010

Effective Lecturing 3.0

Researcher

Development

Team

20-Oct-

2010PFA Introduction 5.0

Researcher

Development

Team

* Please allow 3 weeks from the end of the course for points to be awarded. If, after this time,

points still have not been awarded, please contact the department responsible.

Date Title of course / activity Points

Points

Awarded By

63





F. Student feedback

Contents

F.1. General feedback from Mathematics for Computer Science . . . . 67

F.2. General feedback for Code Generation and Optimisation . . . . . 68

F.3. Specific feedback for Code Generation and Optimisation guestlecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

F.3.1. Rating feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

F.3.2. Free-form feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

F.3.3. Keyword feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

65





F.1. General feedback from Mathematics for Computer Science

F.1. General feedback from Mathematics for Computer Science

All students were asked to complete a standardised feedback form during the last practicalsession of each module. The question relating to postgraduates who teach asked;

“Please comment on practicals and/or problem classes and/or case study sessions.For instance, were the Postgraduate Teaching Assistants (PTAs) helpful to you? If you can identify specific PTAs, that would be helpful.”

Example response 1 “PTA’s helpful as they explained it instead of just pointing to formulaslike Colin [, the module leader,] did. (Jason was very good)”

Example response 2 “Jason was very good, gave useful pointers or hints instead of fullanswers.”

Example response 3 “They were helpful, it was sometimes hard getting hold of them. Jasonwas particually good.”

Example response 4 “Jason was helpful. [The other PGWT] struggled to explain things.”

General themes Helpfulness, approachability , friendliness, knowledge, hints, di erence from lecturer style.

67



F. Student feedback

F.2. General feedback for Code Generation and Optimisation

All students were asked to complete a standardised feedback form during the last practicalsession of each module. The question relating to postgraduates who teach asked;

“Please comment on practicals and/or problem classes and/or case study sessions.For instance, were the Postgraduate Teaching Assistants (PTAs) helpful to you? If you can identify specific PTAs, that would be helpful.”

Example response 1 “Good support in lab practicals. Interesting tasks and good that eachlab builds on the previous one. Paper practicals not as enjoyable æ might be better if theywere weekly one-hour sessions.”

Example response 2 “PTAs in this module are far better than any other modules this year.They are approachable and helpful when you ask them questions. The problem classes were

good though reasonably challenging.”

Example response 3 “Both Jason and [the other demonstrator] were extremely helpful inboth lab and pen/paper practicals.”

General themes Helpfulness, approachability , friendliness, constructive and connected exer-cises, length of sessions.

68



F.3. Specific feedback for Code Generation and Optimisation guest lecture

F.3. Specific feedback for Code Generation and Optimisation guest

lecture

I collected written feedback for my guest lecture in the Code Generation and Optimisation

module using a custom form. This form, inspired by that used by the Researcher DevelopmentTeam, encourages respondents to supply structured but constructive feedback. Thirty-threeresponses were received.

F.3.1. Rating feedback

Figure F.1.: Chart of rating feedback

Participants were to rate three statements ona scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘no opin-ion’ to ‘strongly agree.’ The results are sum-marised in Figure F.1.

The statements used were:

Q1 I feel the knowledge/skills learned willhelp me in my work or study.

Q2 I found this session useful.

Q3 I found the facilitator was suciently en-gaging and informed.

F.3.2. Free-form feedback

Participants were asked to

“indicate one thing that the facil-iator should stop, start and con-tinue.”

Example response 1 “STOP: Asking the audience if you are correct. CONTINUE: Dicussionbreaks! START: ...”

Example response 2 “STOP: Writing on whiteboards. CONTINUE: Lecturing!”

Example response 3 “STOP: (nothing to say here!). START: Making questions more precise(unless the ambiguity is indended?) CONTINUE: With engaging style of presentation!”

Example response “STOP: (can’t think of anything sorry). START: Making people feelthey can ask questions (answering Fair Enough seems a bit negative) and more notes on slides.CONTINUE: Discussions and questions, sessions for consolidation of discussion.”

Example response 4 “START: Using a pointy stick for projector slides.”

Example response 5 “CONTINUE: Interactive aspect of lecture and top bar [breadcrumbs]on slides.”

69



F. Student feedback

Example response 6 “STOP: Interactive Q & A in lecture.”

General themes Most respondents enjoyed the discussion breaks. Only one specifically asked

for them to stop. A few comments on my visible nerves, either rushing parts and asking theaudience if I was correct. One response commented that I may have not been engaging withaudience questions.

F.3.3. Keyword feedback

Participants were asked to circle three keywordss (out of a selection of eighteen) that they feltbest described the lecture.

Keyword Frequency

Informative 19Relevant 16

Interesting 15Interactive 13Engaging 12Constructive 7Worth my time 5Helpful 4Theoretical 4

Keyword Frequency

Practical 2Too fast 2

Boring 0Irrelevant 0Too detailed 0Too slow 0Unfocused 0Unhelpful 0Waste of time 0

Table F.1.: Keyword feedback

Documents

Preparing Future Academics portfolio