Stage 2

PGCertHE: Stage 2
January 2014 – September 2014
Jessica Fletcher
School of Biological Sciences
Bangor University

Index
PGCertHE: Stage 2 _______________________________________________________
Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 2
Chapter 1: Teaching Advisor Reference_______________________________________
Dr David Pryce ______________________________________________________________________ 4
Chapter 2: Reflection on Stage 1 ____________________________________________
Reflective Statement _________________________________________________________________ 7
Chapter 3: Teaching Interventions __________________________________________
Introduction: ‘Shifting the Continuum’ ____________________________________________________ 9
Intervention 1 – Aiding Student Transition to Higher Education Behaviours in Biomedical Science
Section 3.1 Introduction_______________________________________________________________11
Section 3.2 The Module _______________________________________________________________11
Section 3.3 The Problem_______________________________________________________________12
Section 3.4 The Intervention ___________________________________________________________12
Section 3.5 Assessment of Impact _______________________________________________________14
Section 3.6 Outcomes of the Intervention_________________________________________________16
Section 3.7 Reflections on the Intervention and Future Implications ___________________________19
Intervention 2 – Introducing Active Participation in Lectures
Section 3.8 Introduction_______________________________________________________________20
Section 3.9 The Module _______________________________________________________________20
Section 3.10 The Problem______________________________________________________________21
Section 3.11 The Intervention __________________________________________________________22
Section 3.12 Assessment of Impact ______________________________________________________22
Section 3.13 Outcomes of the Intervention________________________________________________26
Section 3.14 Reflections on the Intervention and Future Implications __________________________30
Chapter 4: Residential Conference __________________________________________
Bangor University PGCertHE Annual Learning and Teaching Conference __________________________33
Reflective Statement____________________________________________________________________37

Chapter 5: Peer Observations & Session Plans _________________________________
Section 5.1____________________________________________________________________________
Session Plan: PHP3008 Theories of Therapeutic Counselling ________________________________40
Peer Observation: PHP3008 Theories of Therapeutic Counselling ____________________________43
Section 5.2____________________________________________________________________________
Session Plan: BSX1025 Human Physiology_______________________________________________48
Peer Observation: BSX1025 Human Physiology___________________________________________51
Section 5.3____________________________________________________________________________
Reflective Statement: Peer Observations _______________________________________________57
Chapter 6: Workshop Evaluations ___________________________________________
Section 6.1____________________________________________________________________________
‘Supporting Changing Assessment Methods’ by Sian Edwardson ____________________________59
Section 6.2____________________________________________________________________________
‘Teaching Small Groups’ by Dr Kate Exley _______________________________________________62
Section 6.3____________________________________________________________________________
‘Motivating Students to Learn’ by Dr Kate Exley __________________________________________65
Section 6.4____________________________________________________________________________
‘Removing the ‘Disability’: Inclusive Approaches to Teaching’ by Carolyn Donaldson-Hughes and Jane
Jones ____________________________________________________________________________68
Chapter 7: Meetings with Teaching Advisor ___________________________________
Section 7.1: Meeting One –Discussion of Intervention Proposal (Science Festival Project) __________72
Section 7.2: Meeting Two – Discussion of Assessment Criteria for Teaching Intervention (Science Festival
Project) ____________________________________________________________________________74
Chapter 8: Revised Learning Statement & Plan for CPD__________________________
Section 8.1: Revised Learning Statement__________________________________________________77
Section 8.2: Plan for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) _____________________________79
Chapter 9: References ____________________________________________________
References__________________________________________________________________________83
Appendix A _____________________________________________________________
Print out of end of module online student feedback form: BSX-1025 _________________________99
Full list of accomplishments _________________________________________________________105
Seminars/Conferences attended 2013/14 Academic Period _______________________________107
Appendix B _____________________________________________________________
Science Festival Project Assessment Criteria: Tutor Evaluation _____________________________109
Science Festival Project Assessment Criteria: Within-Group Evaluation ______________________111
Science Festival Project Assessment Criteria: Between-Group Evaluation_____________________112
Science Festival Project Assessment Criteria: Public Evaluation_____________________________114

Appendix C _____________________________________________________________
Submitted Comments for ‘Independent Learning’ Poll____________________________________116

2
Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCertHE)
Stage 2: Developing and Enhancing Academic and Professional Practice in Higher Education
The PGCertHE programme is comprised of two stages; this portfolio is submitted as representation of
Stage 2 of the programme. Successful completion of Stage 2 (60 hours), will permit Fellowship status
with the Higher Education Academy.
Successful completion of the programme indicates achievement of the following outcomes;
1. Demonstrate critical awareness of the core knowledge associated with planning for effective
learning and teaching.
2. Evidence their commitment to engagement in continuing professional development and how
their practice is informed by discipline specific pedagogy, research-informed teaching,
scholarly evaluation of practice in their discipline.
3. Critically reflect on their practice to show they understand and effectively use innovative
approaches to enhance student engagement in learning.
4. Actively demonstrate a commitment to the Areas of Activity, Core Knowledge and
Professional Values contained within the UK Professional Standards Framework.
(Academic Development Unit, 2013)
In order to successfully complete the PGCertHE programme, engagement with all dimensions of the
UK Professional Standards Framework (The Higher Education Academy, 2014) must be demonstrated
in this portfolio.

3
Chapter 1:
Teaching Advisor Reference
Dr David Pryce

4
Introduction
Jessica is an early career researcher currently undertaking a 5-year PhD/GTA program within Bangor
University’s School of Biological Sciences. The following will outline the major aspects of the highly
effective teaching, learning support and student-learning methods Jessica has delivered and
undertaken as part of the (PGCertHE) program. In relation to the UKPSF Fellowship level (Descriptors
1 & 2) it will specifically highlight the successful:
• Areas of teaching activity undertaken
• Core knowledge (K1, K2) demonstrated, and to which HEA level
• Commitment to professional values
• Areas of subject and pedagogic research undertaken and incorporated
• Professional development of teaching, learning and assessment responsibilities
UKPSF Fellowship reference
Jessica has undertaken and very successfully employed a range of teaching and learning activities.
A major role was the development, organization and delivery of a 20-credit, level 4 module: Human
Physiology BSX-1025. In addition to delivering the lectures, practicalsand assessments for this module,
as module organizer, Jessica was also fully responsible for the overview and implementation of the
Quality assessment (QA2) for the module, including response to student input/feedback. This
particular aspect was very successfully implemented, via use of the online student feedback forms,
both whilst the module was running and after its’ completion. The exceptionally high student feedback
ratings for the module reflect Jessica’s successful development and delivery of all aspects of this
module (see Appendix A1
: print out of end of module online student feedback form).
In addition to the BSX-1025 module, Jessica very successfully undertook and performed a number
of other support, administrative and pastoral care responsibilities and made numerous ‘additional’
contributions to level 4-6 teaching including: managing non-attendance, plagiarism and absence
issues of students (both tutees and non-tutees), preparation of group work guidance for level 5-6
teaching and assessment, both theoretical and practical, and overviewing/organizing timetables and
feedback for a number of modules (see Appendix A2
:Full list of accomplishments).
As part of the Bangor University’s “Peer Observation Program”, the teaching and assessment
material Jessica prepared and delivered was overviewed by a number of highly experienced academic
staff members. I personally attended and/or observed Panopto recordings of the lectures and a
feedback session for the BSX-1025 module. The core knowledge demonstrated and delivered was
exemplary, and entirely appropriate to the HE level to which it applied and in addition, presentation
was to a highly-professional standard.
Jessica created and employed a number of specific teaching interventions and conducted
innovative pedagogical research. The specific Teaching Interventions were:
Stage 1 - Information Fluency: Students were organized into groups and given tuition on how to create
an effective scientific poster, based on a specific peer-reviewed journal article.
Stage 2 - Science Festival Project: Students were guided through the process of creating an interactive
activity specifically for use in the Bangor Science Festival.
Increasing active participation in lectures – This intervention involved a number of activities within
the Human Physiology module (BSX-1025) including: debates, discussions, audience response system
quizzes, and exercises.
As part of her continuing professional development Jessica has attended a number of seminars and
conferences (Appendix A3
). Jessica has also conducted pedagogic research surveying the views of

5
School of Biological Sciences staff and students in regards to the transition from pre-Higher Education
learning behaviors to the more independent learning required/expected of Higher Education
establishments. Jessica will continue this research as part of her continuing professional development.
In summary Jessica’s drive, professionalism and development over the duration of her PGCertHE
has been both exemplary and highly successful. Particular noteworthy examples include the numerous
teaching interventions she has incorporated, including: creating student participation exercises for a
number of modules; in session and audience response system (ARS) ‘quizzes’, – to enhance
feedback/student revision, student-led debates and discussions and preparation of level 4 tutorials
and examinations.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. David Pryce
Lecturer in Biomedical sciences
Bangor University Teaching fellow
Course organizer: Bangor University - Medical Molecular Biology with Genetics M.Sc.

6
Chapter 2:
Reflection on Stage 1

7
Reflective Statement (Stage 1)
Whilst completing Stage 1 of the PGCertHE, a number of things struck me on a personal level; firstly
that as a scientist, attempting to reflect on my own practice in teaching was a difficult mind-set to
adapt to as science is a field that is largely void of personal opinion and expression. Although adapting
to the process has not come naturally, I now understand and appreciate how this reflective process is
key to the advancement of my pedagogic practice. In addition, I was pleasantly surprised at the degree
to which I enjoyed this practice, and the programme in general. Stage 1 of the programme has ignited
a desire to pursue the scholarship of teaching and learning further, both in the academic context and
in the public learning of science.
At the end of Stage 1 of the PGCertHE I closed with the following quote:
“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”
Confucius
Chinese Philosopher (551 BC - 479 BC)
Whilst the first part is no doubt correct (‘I hear and I forget’), followed by the questionable second
statement (‘I see and I remember’), the final statement (‘I do and I understand’) accurately and
succinctly described my final thoughts on my view of pedagogic practice at the conclusion of Stage 1.
The underuse of students as participants, or even drivers, of their own education, facilitated through
the teaching and learning practice became starkly, and somewhat disappointingly, apparent to me
both in the current academic environment of which I am involved, and in my relatively recent
experience as an undergraduate student. In this I felt that learning facilitators are failing the students,
and are at fault for some of the recurrent complaints of skill-poor spoon-fed graduates encountered
in the media and academic environment. Whilst I appreciate that the learning behaviours of
undergraduate students have been moulded by previous educators, an element which is therefore
out of our control, I feel the current Higher Education environment is not currently addressing this
issue appropriately.
What do I hope to achieve by completing Stage 2 of the PGCertHE programme?
Whilst I may have begun Stage 1 with some trepidation as to the impact I, a part-time Teaching
Associate, could have on the teaching and learning of undergraduate students, I begin Stage 2 with
invigoration and vigour to start tackling this issue head-on. Whilst I appreciate that I am only one
person in a much larger dynamic that I have little influence over, I still feel that it is my duty to move
my own practice into this new era.
The focus of Stage 2 of my PGCertHE is to focus on encouraging the continuum shift away from
teacher-centred learning and towards a student-centred learning environment, in an attempt to
modify the learning behaviours of students to those more suited to the Higher Education
environment.

8
Chapter 3:
Teaching Interventions
Introduction: ‘Shifting the Continuum’.
Intervention 1: ‘Aiding Student Transition to Higher
Education Behaviours In Biomedical Science’.
Intervention 2: ‘Introducing Active Participation in
Lectures’.

9
Teaching Interventions
Introduction: ‘Shifting the Continuum’
In the pedagogic literature, there is great emphasis on the teaching and learning approaches
employed in higher education. As described by Kember (1997), these can be categorised as teacher-
centred/content-orientated or student-centred/learning-orientated at either end of a continuum
(Figure 1). The literature highlights a need to shift from the traditional didactic lecture-orientated,
teacher-centred mode of teaching, in which students become ‘passive, apathetic and bored’ (Rogers,
1983:25), to a student-centred learning (SCL) format in which students are active in their learning. SCL
provides students with a greater degree of choice and sense of power over their learning, with
increased responsibility and accountability, promoting an increased impression of autonomy in the
learner (Lea, Stephenson & Troy, 2003; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005). The SCL format has been
established to be an effective approach to the teaching and learning process, promoting better study
skills and understanding, increased participation and motivation, improved grades, greater sense of
respect for the student and development of life-long skills such as problem solving, critical thinking
and communication (Hall & Saunders, 1997; Lea, Stephenson & Troy, 2003; Lonka & Ahola, 1995; Lujan
& DiCarlo, 2006). This shift to favour active student-centred learning could also improve the number
of students reaching completion of undergraduate STEM courses (Freeman et al, 2014).
Despite this undoubtedly beneficial approach to teaching, student attitudes and opinion towards the
process could impinge these benefits from being realised, if not introduced appropriately (Modell,
1996). Some also fear that the focus on the individual learner may shift to the extreme whereby the
socio-cultural view of learning, with clear focus on peer support and learning, is lost creating feelings
of isolation or abandonment (Lea, Stephenson & Troy, 2003; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005). Adapting SCL
to larger class sizes is also an inherent problem, with Higher Education courses often only employing
SCL techniques in later years of study when class sizes are reduced (O’Neill & McMahon, 2005). This,
however, I believe could serve to increase students apprehension towards the process if adapted to
the learning behaviours of the teacher-orientated approach in earlier years.
The overarching theme in the literature, and my personal belief, is that we have a responsibility to the
students to facilitate this paradigm shift. Openness to this change must not only be demonstrated by
Teacher-Centred Learning Student-centred Learning
Low level of student choice High level of student choice
Student passive Student active
Power is primarily with teacher Power primarily with the student
Student-teacher
interaction
Figure 1: The Teaching and Learning Continuum – Teaching and Learning can be viewed as a continuum, with
‘Teacher-Centered Learning’ and ‘Student-Centered Learning’ placed at opposite ends. The literature calls for a
paradigm shift in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, to move towards the ‘Student-Centered’ end of the
continuum.
(Kember, 1997; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005)

10
the students, but by the lecturers and institutions not simply employing SCL techniques to satisfy the
current ‘best practice’, but by changing their attitudes and belief that this is the better approach to
teaching and learning (Kember, 1997; Modell, 1996).
It is my aim, in the following two teaching interventions and my future pedagogic practice, to help
promote and encourage this paradigm shift. The Biomedical Science degree programme in its
curriculum design somewhat limits the development of SCL; due to the nature of the programme, and
its accreditation with regulatory bodies, students are permitted no choice in modules or topics of
study. Some degree of choice is permitted in the selection of exam questions and use of problem
solving activities in group work scenarios however the latter, in my opinion, is currently
underdeveloped and poorly facilitated. I hope in the following interventions, staged with first year
undergraduate students, to effectively introduce Biomedical Science students to SCL.

11
Teaching Intervention 1
‘Aiding Student Transition to Higher Education Behaviours In Biomedical Science’
3.1 – Introduction
It is a popular belief that students entering university from school have a ‘spoon-fed’ approach to
learning, with many students adapted to the passive nature of teaching and learning experienced
throughout their previous education (Cunnane, 2011; McKay & Kember, 1997; Ovens et al, 2011). It
is due to this entrained behaviour that first year undergraduate students face a major challenge in
adapting their learning behaviour to suit the demands of Higher Education, which may prove to be the
primary limiting factor to academic achievement and retention (Ovens et al, 2011; Wingate, 2007).
Students have come to expect the traditional lecture-based format of teaching, and when faced with
deviations from this reality, can be resistant and even suspicious to the benefit of the seemingly less-
structured, freer format of student-centred learning, and adapt slowly to new learning behaviours
(Lea, Stephenson & Troy, 2003; Lonka & Ahola, 1995; Modell, 1996; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005;
Stevenson & Sander, 2002). Educators, however, should not pander to these limiting expectations
which inhibit development of independent learning and creativity and fails to imbue students with
skills of problem solving (Chhem, 2000). If we design our courses, and teach, in a manner that caters
to this behaviour of the students then as learning facilitators we are only fuelling a ‘self-fulfilling
prophecy’ (McKay & Kember, 1997). However, care must be taken to support students in adapting to
new learning behaviours as the adjustment to Higher Education can result in feelings of anxiety and
depression (Nichols, 2013).
In this intervention, I hope to begin this process of modifying student learning behaviours to
encourage independent thinking and self- sufficiency in learning in Higher Education in a non-
intimidatory manner.
3.2 – The Module
BSP1024 is a First Year Biomedical Practicals module for undergraduate students in the School of
Biological Sciences studying Biomedical Science, Medical Biology and Biology with Biotechnology.
Whilst the primary aim of this module is to provide students with experience in ‘a range of techniques
and experimental procedures that are used in the biomedical sciences and molecular biology’, this
module has also played host to a number of field trips such as the ‘Inside DNA’ Exhibit at Liverpool
Museum and ‘Bodies Revealed’ exhibit at Liverpool ONE exhibition centre. The learning outcomes of
this module are:
Learning Outcome 1: Write an account of experimental work in the laboratory in an appropriate
scientific writing style.
Learning Outcome 2: Show understanding of the application of molecular techniques to a variety of
biological questions.
Learning Outcome 3: Follow a written experimental protocol and record and process experimental
data, including appropriate statistical analysis.

12
Learning Outcome 4: Obtain, critically evaluate and synthesise information from the literature.
Learning Outcome 5: Appreciate the context within which molecular techniques may be applied.
(Bangor University, 2014a)
The module runs over the course of two semesters (20 credits) and is comprised of a 3 hour practical
approximately every two weeks. Sessions are run by a range of staff members, with summative
assessment of practical reports.
3.3 – The Problem
Whilst in its essence there is no major fault with this module, I feel practical sessions are run with too
little responsibility placed on the students and are too formulaic; students are given explicitly clear
and detailed instructions regarding the conduction and write up of the experiments, requiring little
creative, critical or independent thought, despite these being required, at least in part, in the learning
outcomes of the module. I wish to introduce an assignment that encourages independent and creative
thought yet does so in a non-intimidatory manner. I would also like to increase student participation
in the teaching process to encourage greater understanding of the mechanisms of Higher Education.
The final issue I hope to address is one that I believe extends across a degree-wide perspective;
students are primarily being taught only one form of communication; science to a scientifically minded
audience. Whilst this is an inherently important quality in this cohort of students, it is also essential
that they are able to communicate science to another audience, specifically the general public or the
‘lay’ person. As I will discuss below, this is a key avenue of research dissemination that is currently
conducted poorly and ineffectively, and hence warrants inclusion in the module to ensure that this
quality is not lacking in our graduates.
3.4 – The Intervention
This teaching intervention sought to instil students with the confidence to participate in the teaching
and learning process, encourage skills of independent thought and problem solving and introduce
students to public communication of science.
Public Communication of Science
Whilst ‘The Public Understanding of Science’ report published in 1985 by The Royal Society had the
original aim of increasing the public’s value of science and hence is regarded as the birth of the Public
Understanding of Science Movement in Britain (SciDevNet, 2014), the concept of scientific public
outreach to increase public understanding of science was first developed by Micheal Faraday in 1825
in the form of The Royal Institution’s Christmas Lectures (The Royal Institution, 2013). Since then it
has developed substantially and public access to science has become increasingly commonplace;
notable University’s such as Stanford University and Stony Brook University have developed keen
interest in the engagement of the public with science (Stanford: Office of Science Outreach, 2014;
Stony Brook University: Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, 2014), and many popular
scientists, such as Brian Cox, Michael Mosley, Robert Winston and Sir David Attenborough regularly

13
broadcast on television and radio. However, despite an increasing momentum to the movement,
many science graduates have little or no experience in this form of communication, and many are now
starting to realise the necessity that scientific communication to the public be part of a scientific
training curriculum in higher education courses (Brownell, Price & Steinman, 2013a). It is essential
that professional scientists are able to convey their research in an accessible manner to a ‘lay’
audience, whilst still retaining scientific accuracy; if this is impaired by subject specific terminology
and scientific jargon then misunderstanding of information, mistrust of scientists and ultimately
negative influence on governmental policy could result (Brownell, Price & Steinman, 2013a; Somerville
& Hassol, 2011).
Biomedical Scientists have been involved in informing media reports on subjects such from cholesterol
testing to anthrax, and nation-wide agendas such as cervical cancer screening (IBMS, 2014), hence it
is the ‘civic duty’ of Biomedical Scientists to relay this information clearly in order for the public to
make informed decisions about their own healthcare (Brownell, Price & Steinman, 2013a; Greenwood
& Riordan, 2001; Miller, 2001). It is of concern that in the education of undergraduate Biomedical
Science students, this essential quality is lacking in the Higher Education Academy Student
Employability Profile (HEA, 2006). The ability to communicate scientific discovery to the public is a
major challenge of contemporary scientists (Aurbach & Prater, 2013), and some courses have
attempted to broach this gap in the education of science students by implementing writing tasks which
require students to construct articles fit for a non-professional audience (Brownell, Price & Steinman,
2013b; Moni et al, 2007; Poronnik & Moni, 2006).
Independent Thought and Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
The aim of many group projects in science is to encourage scientific inquiry and reasoning,
independent thought and problem solving though the design and conduct of experiments, and relay
of material to scientifically-minded individuals (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; DebBurman, 2002). This
intervention sought to encourage a collaborative or co-operative problem-based learning approach
(Barros & Tamblyn, 1980) in a format that did not require the first year students to possess extensive
laboratory background and scientific knowledge. Co-operative learning has been shown to increase
retention and student satisfaction, promote positive attitude towards subject matter and encourage
development of higher level thinking skills, amongst a range of other positive outcomes (Cooper, 1995;
Lord, 2001; Tanner, Chatman & Allen, 2014). As with any pedagogic practice, there are opponents who
seek to dispute these claims, however in a review of the literature on science teaching using co-
operative learning, only 8% of 300 articles reported negative experiences such as a time-consuming
or disruptive nature to the practice (Lord, 2001). Problem-based learning requires the student to
assess their own prior knowledge and direct their learning to ‘fill in the gaps’, using a problem or
situation as a stimulus and the teacher as a guide or facilitator to reach both the teacher and student-
determined learning outcomes (Boud & Feletti, 1997). PBL is considered to be more towards the
‘student-centred’ end of the continuum than problem solving, whereby students have already been
provided with the appropriate knowledge to solve the problem, and hence the instigation and
outcome remain controlled by the teacher (Davis & Harden, 1999).
In this intervention, the students were required to create an interactive activity, based on a topic of
their own choice, to teach the ‘lay’ audience about an aspect of Human Science for the Bangor Science

14
Festival as part of the National Science and Engineering Week (Bangor Science Festival, 2014). In this
student-centred activity, students were randomly assigned groups and encouraged to employ a
collaborative learning approach, responsible for project management including team member role
assignment, meeting records, project plans, health and safety, and budgeting, with the tutor assuming
the role of guide and facilitator to maintain feasibility and safety of projects.
Participation in the Teaching and Learning Process - Assessment Criteria Design
Continuing from Stage 1 of the PGCertHE, in which I employed a peer formative feedback exercise, a
social constructivist approach was utilised in which students were included in the design and
implementation of summative assessment criteria, including aspects of within-group and between-
group peer evaluation, in an attempt to achieve the desired ‘assessment dialogue’ (Cartney, 2010;
Rust, 2005; Rust, 2007). Involving students in the assessment process in this way aids the continuum
shift towards SCL by increasing student autonomy and input into decision-making (O’Neill &
McMahon, 2005). Students were responsible for deciding apportion of summative marks between
tutor mark, between-group peer mark, within-group peer mark and public mark and were issued
voting forms to allocate portions of the 10% mark for this assignment to these four categories, with
the instruction that no category could be allocated zero marks. An overall average of these allocations
was then used in the marking criteria; tutor mark 3%, within-group peer mark 3%, between-group
peer mark 2% and public evaluation 2%. Whilst a small population of this student cohort felt an
overwhelming 7% of the marks should be derived from within-group peer evaluation, I feel the final
result reflects a mature and responsible response from the class. Students were instructed that
individuals would receive a group mark, however these marks would be subject to moderation should
the within-group or tutor evaluation raise concern regarding contributions by any team member. To
ensure student involvement in the marking process was fair, clear and explicit instructions were
provided on all marking documents which were made available prior to the marking session. A key
aspect of all documents, but particularly the within-group peer evaluation, was the necessity that
students justify their responses in order for their marks to be considered valid.
In order to facilitate effective planning of this intervention, I sought the guidance of my Teaching
Advisor for advice on my proposal and discussion of assessment criteria (Chapter 7).
Copies of Marking Criteria documents can be found in Appendix B.
3.5 – Assessment of Impact
A questionnaire was administered after completion of the group projects to assess, subjectively,
whether students felt they had developed the desired skills. Objectively, both product and process
were evaluated summatively assessing interpersonal skills (process) and the final project (product)
(Table 1).

15
Table 1: Summative Assessment Components for the Science Festival Project – Students voted on apportion of
marks for each summative component. Each form of evaluation assessed one or more of the following aspects;
Team Work, Audience Engagement, Scientific Knowledge, Appropriate Level and Documentation. Summative
assessment was made by the students (peer), tutor and public.
Summative component: Assessing: How?
Within-Group Peer Evaluation
(Process)
(3%)
Team Work Students rate effectiveness of team
and contributions by individual team
members, with justifying comments.
Between Group Evaluation
(Product)
(2%)
Audience engagement
Scientific knowledge
Appropriate level
Students assess project attraction, i.e.
is it fun and interesting.
Students assess if the science
presented is sound and well
explained.
Students assess if the level of science
presented appropriate for the target
audience.
Tutor evaluation
(Process and Product)
(3%)
Documentation
Team Work
Scientific knowledge
Appropriate level
Completion and timely submission of
appropriate documentation.
Evidenced by meeting minutes,
interview and observation.
Assessment of final product and by
interview.
Level of science presented for target
audience.
Public Evaluation
(Product)
(2%)
Audience engagement
Appropriate level
How fun they found the activity.
Did they understand the material
presented.

16
3.6 – Outcomes of the Intervention
Subjective assessment – Student Questionnaire (Process)
When considering the outcomes of this intervention, quantitatively it would appear that the project
has been moderately successful in achieving its goals (Figure 2). The majority of students have built
upon their skills of teamwork first established in other modules (Q1, n=35 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’);
this development of teamwork skills was aided by the provision of the ‘Advice from Students’
document compiled from group work feedback from my Teaching Intervention in Stage 1. Pleasingly,
the majority of the class felt that they had developed critical thinking and independent thought skills
(Q2, n=29 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’), however a proportion of the class did not indicate a strong
confidence in this outcome (n=12 ‘Neither Disagree or agree’). Whilst this is slightly disappointing, this
project was designed as an introductory assignment to these skills and so it is not unexpected that
confidence in these skills would not be fully established at this stage. Surprisingly, some indicated
disagreement with the statement ‘This assignment has given me experience in project management’
(Q3, n=2 ‘Disagree’); this may be due to unbalance of self-assigned student roles within the team, or
noted lack of engagement by some students, however subjective response suggests that the majority
of the cohort responded positively (n=33 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’). Responses indicated
development of creative problem solving (Q4, n=36 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’), and overall enjoyment
of the task (Q5, n= 38 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’). This demonstrates that this project has the potential
to introduce students to the desired skills in a format that removes the anxiety of SCL.
Figure 2: Subjective assessment of intervention outcomes - Student responses to the following statements:
1) I feel I have built on my skills of teamwork. 2) I feel I have developed my critical and independent thinking
skills. 3) This assignment has given me experience in project management. 4) This assignment gave me the
opportunity to use creative problem solving. 5) Overall, I have enjoyed this assignment. (n=41).
Of the additional statements received in the questionnaire, 87.5% were positive and highlighted that
students appreciated the opportunity to develop skills and tackle a more creative task. Of the 12.5%
negative comments received, I feel most of these could possibly be attributed to students who did not
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5
Numberofresponses
Statement
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagree or agree
Agree
Strongly Agree

17
engage effectively in the task, and do not raise great cause for concern (For sample of comments, see
Residential Conference powerpoint, Chapter 4).
Objective assessment – Product and Process
Of the eight initial groups that took part in this assignment, only six were eventually submitted for the
Science Festival. Two groups failed to submit projects of sufficient quality by the deadline, delivering
projects that were under-developed, confusing to follow and of very poor production, with clear lack
of group co-ordination and cohesion evident on observation and interview. This somewhat opposes
the students’ subjective view, as a cohort, that the desired skills had been developed by this project.
Due to the anonymous nature of the questionnaire, however, it is not possible to evaluate individual
students for perceived performance and actual performance. The poorly performing groups were
provided with an extension of 10 days to improve their projects, or else forfeit 20% public evaluation.
Disappointingly, neither group complied. Of the six groups that proceeded, personally I was entirely
impressed with the final products. The students had developed exciting, interesting, fun and thought-
provoking engaging activities, and the team work demonstrated by some groups was outstanding.
Photographs of these projects can be seen in Figure 3.
The marks and comments received on the within- and between-group peer evaluation documents
were both fair and just, and response from the public was overwhelmingly positive. Whilst a good
general concordance of marks between these and the tutor evaluation was demonstrated, a slight
positive bias was evident within the peer and public evaluations. The overall individual summative
grades ranged from 91.1% to 39.1% (average 75%), including individual moderation for several
students based on tutor observation and within-group evaluation comments.
Limiting factors
I was disappointed by the lack of engagement by some students and, as no indication to the root of
this was elucidated on the within-group evaluation or observation, I fear that the low module
weighting (10%) may have been the primary contributing factor. Overall, however, the majority of the
cohort engaged well, and I accept that strong engagement by all students is an unrealistic expectation.
As only six out of eight projects were successful, this project incurred a small financial loss; this was a
disappointing outcome as funding for the projects (£30/group) was kindly sourced from the Science
Festival Budget. The two poorer-performing groups, however, had only spent approximately £25 of
the allocated £60, therefore the financial loss was lessened. In fact, approximately £135 of the £240
budget remained unspent at the conclusion of the project, allowing the addition of a competition for
the Science Festival and purchase of further equipment for continued public engagement with one of
the activities.
In order to build upon these skills, students will require further complimentary assignments in other
modules and future years of study. At present I fear this criteria to ensure successful skills
development will not be met in the curriculum programme.

18
Figure 3: Successful Public Engagement Science Projects, from top left:
1) ‘Blurred Lines’ Informative Poster on the brain and effects of alcohol with Beer Goggles activity and Q & A booklets.
2) ‘Nerves’ Informative poster on how nerves and reflexes work and diseases with ‘Bop-It’ activity and Synapse model.
3) ‘It’s as Easy as A,B,O’ Informative Poster and hands-on activity on Blood Grouping and Transfusion. 4) ‘Enzymes:
The Pacman of Life’ Informative poster on enzymes and their industrial use, with hydrogen peroxide and catalase
potato experiment (not shown). 5) ‘Microbes in your home’ Informative poster and microscope activity. 6) ‘The Lungs’
Informative poster on lung function and common diseases, with Peak Flow activity, Lung Model (not shown) and
Sheep Lung Specimen (not shown).

19
3.7 - Reflections on the Intervention and Future Implications
On reflection, whilst I have thoroughly enjoyed this intervention and felt it made great strides in
achieving its aims, in retrospect I feel that undertaking the execution of this intervention was a much
weightier task than originally anticipated. Whilst I had, and was greatly appreciative for, help from a
demonstrator during the practical and marking sessions, compiling the proforma documents,
monitoring student participation, documentation and group work in sessions, and compiling
assessment documents was a time-consuming task. This said, however, conduction of the Science
Festival days (two Ecoscience Days for local Secondary school children, and ‘Hidden Worlds’ a public
open day) was largely completed by student demonstrators, requiring little supervision, reducing my
input drastically from previous years. This itself demonstrated to me the abilities of students to engage
with the public and communicate science. In future years, therefore, I would like to continue the
inclusion of this project in the module as many of the provisions are already in place, i.e. pro-forma
documents, however staff, funding and resources must be secured.
In order to ensure alignment between the outcomes of this project and the module descriptor, an
additional Module Learning Outcome was added:
Learning Outcome 6: Develop skills of public communication of science.
The weighting of this assignment will also be increased from 10% to 15%.
Finally, the possibility to roll out this project on a wider scale to larger classes has been discussed
amongst colleagues. Dr Kat Jones, a lecturer in Zoology for which student numbers on undergraduate
degree programmes are much larger, expressed great enthusiasm in Residential Conference feedback
(pp. 37) for introducing this project to Zoology students.

20
Teaching Intervention 2
‘Introducing Active Participation in Lectures’
3.8 – Introduction
“A lecture is a process by which the notes of the professor become the notes of the student without
passing through the minds of either.”
– (Origin of quote disputed).
The natural sciences in Higher Education is reported to have one of the highest proportions of “teacher
talk” in lectures at a staggering 92% (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). It is the belief in the literature that the
passive nature of lectures in science education is a contributory factor to impeding student learning
(Bonwell & Eison, 1991; McKeachie et al, 1990), and several commissions and councils have reported
that the proportion of active learning in university science education needs to be increased (Boyer
Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; National Research
Council, 1997; 2003; 2004; National Science Foundation, 1996). The benefits of adhering to this
recommendation are well-documented in biology and medicine (Armbruster et al, 2009; Efstathiou &
Bailey, 2012; Freeman et al, 2007; Freeman et al, 2014; Goldberg & Ingram, 2011; Haak, 2011;
Handelsman et al, 2004; Jensen & Finley, 1996; Knight & Wood, 2005; Machemer & Crawford, 2007;
Ruiz-Primo, 2011; Smith et al, 2005; Smith et al, 2011; Udovic, 2002) as well as other sciences (Andrews
et al, 2011). Despite this, a number of studies argue that integration of active participation exercises
into lectures could result in; loss of teaching time (Lammers & Murphy, 2002), reduced content
coverage (Marbach-Ad & Sokolove, 2000; Van Dijk, Van der Berg & Van Keulen, 2010), reduction in
accuracy of transmission (Huxham, 2005) and lowered student perception of material learned and
course quality (Lake, 2001). Some researchers have suggested that the successful active participation
exercises documented in the literature are not being translated effectively into the everyday biology
classroom by instructors due to a lack of knowledge in the pedagogic process, and thus are negating
the potential benefits to learning (Andrews et al, 2011).
In this intervention I hope to address the lack of active participation seen in science lectures, in a
manner that allows evaluation of various activities documented in the literature and their
appropriateness to the teaching in the Biomedical Science degree programme. I hope, in this way, to
ensure activities are effectively employed and utilised appropriately for maximum benefit.
3.9 – The Module
BSX1025 Human Physiology is a 20 credit first year module for undergraduate student on the BSc
Biomedical Science and Medical Biology degree programmes. The module is comprised of weekly 2
hour lectures, with short assignments set every 2 weeks based on assigned additional reading
material. The learning outcomes of this module are:
Learning Outcome 1: Demonstrate an understanding of the anatomy and physiology of various human
body systems. (Biosciences benchmarks: 3.2 Subject Knowledge and Understanding & 3.5 Intellectual
Skills)

21
Learning Outcome 2: Demonstrate an ability to relate physiology on a macroscopic level to the
histological microscopic level. (Biosciences benchmarks: 3.2 Subject Knowledge and Understanding &
3.5 Intellectual Skills)
Learning Outcome 3: Assignments to demonstrate scientific information literacy and knowledge
gained in Learning Outcomes 1 & 2. (Biosciences benchmarks: 3.2 Subject Knowledge and
Understanding, 3.3 Subject Specific Skills, 3.5 Intellectual Skills, 3.7 Numeracy Skills, 3.8
Communication, Presentation and Information Technology Skills, 3.10 Self-Management and
Professional Development Skills).
Learning Outcome 4: Develop an effective approach to exam revision by preparing for two x 1 hour
Cell recognition and MCQ exams. (Biosciences benchmark: 3.10 Self-Management and Professional
Development Skills).
(Bangor University, 2014b)
3.10 – The Problem
As Module Organiser and primary lecturer on the module, I began to develop this module when I
began teaching in October 2010. Assignments have evolved from paper-based assignments based on
lecture material, to Blackboard-based electronic assignments divided into non-summative revision
assignments based on lecture material, and summative assignments based on additional reading,
primarily in the form of primary source research articles. I also encourage continuous feedback from
students throughout the module, with students commenting on all aspects of the module from
content to lecturer effectiveness and assignment format. My aim in promoting this ‘feedback
conversation’ is to ensure any issues are dealt with promptly and swiftly to ensure the teaching and
learning process is not impeded.
However, despite these changes, the primary mode of learning in this module remains lecture-based,
requiring little active input from students throughout the course of the lectures. Whilst a number of
active learning exercises have been trialled in large biology classes with success (Allen & Tanner, 2005),
I felt quite daunted in the initial stages of this intervention as how to incorporate active participation
in Biomedical Science. This subject is largely a fact-based specialty and does not have a strong history
of student-centred learning approaches; a search of the pedagogic literature for ‘student centred
learning’ or ‘active participation’ in Biomedical Science fails to turn up any published literature.
Therefore, instead of employing a single form of active participation, I sought to trial a number of
active learning activities to assess students’ response and how well they could be incorporated into
the 2 hour lecture slots, i.e. impact on content coverage and time constraints, within the realm of
Biomedical Science.

22
3.11 – The Intervention
The activities trialled here either required students to draw on current knowledge to complete the
activity, thereby permitting self-assessment of knowledge, and/or contribute knowledge from their
own reading and opinion, focussing, with exception of the revision session, on one or two central
ideas. The activities were given discrete segments in traditional lectures, to ensure that content
coverage was not sacrificed to a severe degree. In survey of student opinion, it has been indicated that
students appreciate this mix of traditional lecturing to deliver content with the integration of short
timeframe active engagement activities to focus attention (Machemer & Crawford, 2007; Cavanagh,
2011). This interspersing of activities in traditional lectures can also aid to restore ‘normal’
concentration levels, combatting the reported vigilance decrement (Young, Robinson & Alberts, 2009).
From the wide range of active participation activities suggested in the literature (see Murphy &
Sharma, 2010), I decided to employ the following 6 activities listed in Table 2. No summative
assessment was attached to any of these activities.
3.12 – Assessment of Impact
In order to subjectively assess student response to these activities, I employed the approach used by
Goldberg and Ingram (2011) in their evaluation of active participation exercises in a lower-division
botany class. Students responded to four statements regarding each of the activities trialled, and
responses were attributed numerical value. The survey used in this intervention also included
additional questions to register student opinion on the addition of active participation exercises to the
module, and which activity type(s) should be more heavily incorporated. All students present in the
final lecture (n=32) participated in the questionnaire to try and prevent skew from limited
participation.
In order to objectively assess the impact of the active participation exercises on student learning,
analysis of the ARQUE (Assessment Reports on the Quality of University Examinations) report
(Acadvent, n.d.) for this module was considered, comparing two previous years in which active
participation was not employed.
From a teaching viewpoint, I shall also comment on each activity with regards to time and content
coverage impact.

23
Table 2: Active participation activities trialled. Detail of the six activities used, including note of possible pedagogic benefits from the literature, and considerations to be taken into
account. A brief description is provided of how each activity was implemented in the module.
Activity Benefits Considerations
Debates - improve higher order thinking skills, critical thinking skills and oral communication skills.
- facilitate learning, understanding and retention of material.
(D’Souza, 2013; Kennedy, 2007; Yang & Rusli, 2012).
- may encourage students to foster a ‘black and white’ dualism of
subject if improperly facilitated.
- may promote a competitive or confrontational learning
atmosphere.
(Kennedy, 2007).
Implementation: Students were required to research the topic ‘Hormone Use in the Food Industry’, drawing on lecture content as well as research on the
biological, ethical and economic implications. Rather than foster a confrontational atmosphere, the students were asked to collectively collate a list of ‘Pros’ and
‘Cons’ on the whiteboard to appreciate all aspects of the debate.
Audience
Response
System (ARS)
- increased participation by quieter students and non-native English speakers.
- anonymity to reduce student anxiety.
- improved performance in introductory courses.
- improved retention of knowledge.
- instantaneous feedback to correct common misconceptions.
- improved perception of learning.
- increased student discussion of material.
- permits instructors to retain traditional lecture format.
- empowers student to self-assess knowledge.
(Beatty, 2004; Beekes, 2006; Caldwell, 2007; Crossgrove & Curran, 2008; Efstathiou &
Bailey, 2012; Freeman et al, 2007; Gauci et al, 2009; Graham et al, 2007; Kay & LeSage,
2009; Uhari, Renko & Soini, 2003; Zurmehly & Leadingham, 2008).
- questions raised regarding true effectiveness on summative
grades.
- concerns raised regarding the ability of instructors to effectively
utilise the system to full advantage.
(Bunce, VandenPlas & Havanki, 2006; Efstathiou & Bailey, 2012; Kay
& LeSage, 2009)
Implementation: ARS was used in a revision session, allowing students to practice answering exam-style and non-exam style MCQ questions, facilitated by peer
discussion.

24
Discussions - increased understanding and communication of socioscientific issues (SSIs).
- develop analytical skills, creative and critical thinking skills, rationality and reasoning.
- facilitate student learning and promote a more realistic world-view of science.
- discussion can be self-maintained by the students.
(Hodson, 2003; KolstØ, 2001; McGonigal, 2005; Oulton, Dillon & Grace, 2007; Sadler et al,
2006; Science Learning, 2010; Shwartz et al, 2009;).
- the literature debates whether the lecturer should maintain a
neutral standpoint on the issue, or indulge in expression of their
own opinion on subjects which may influence student conceptions
and opinion.
(Oulton, Dillon & Grace, 2007).
Implementation: Two discussions were trialled: ‘When does a foetus have the right to life?’ was held purely as discussion due to the controversial nature of the
subject, and allowed students to draw on lecture material to discuss waypoints of development, i.e. fertilisation, gastrulation, viability, etc. The second discussion,
‘Genetically Enhanced Humans: The Future of our Evolution?’ was held following lectures on the Reproductive Systems and inheritance, and permitted discussion
regarding morality of the issue and healthcare implications. It was essential that these discussions took place in an inclusive environment, as to not isolate any
student based on religious, philosophical or other beliefs (refer to Workshop Evaluation pp. 68).
Quiz/Exercise - can be used to integrate smaller assessment into taught courses.
- encourages students to think about material prior to lectures.
- can be used to encourage completion of assigned reading.
- frequent use of quizzes motivates and improves performance of poorer performing
students.
- can improve short term retention.
- collaborative approach demonstrated to improve understanding of material.
- the use of simple questions based on taught material (high probability of correctly
answering) can provide positive reinforcement and helps students’ confidence and
motivation.
- exercises can promote development of critical thinking skills, problem solving skills and
higher order cognitive thinking skills.
(Allen & Tanner, 2005; Dobson, 2008; Ehrlich, 1995; Geist & Soehren, 1997; Goldberg &
Ingram, 2011; Johnson & Kiviniemi, 2009; Poljoicanin et al, 2009, Rao & Dicarlo. 2000;
Rao, Collins & DiCarlo, 2002)
- long term retention of material does not seem to be significantly
impacted.
- questions raised regarding true effectiveness on improving
performance.
(Geist & Soehren, 1997; Haberyan, 2003)
Implementation:
Quiz - students took part in an ‘Epithelium Types’ quiz to review lecture material from the same session. Students were provided with a set of words and required
to combine them to describe the histological image displayed, i.e. Simple + Cuboidal or Stratified + Squamous .
Exercise – Students were required to draw on knowledge delivered in the lecture to complete a diagram for learning, involving correctly ordering statements
describing pressure changes in the cardiac cycle.

25
Dissection - students experience ‘transformative moments’.
- develop essential skills of biologists.
- improves student learning of biological structure and function.
- supported by the National Science Teachers Association, provided the activity has clear
learning outcomes, and considers student views and beliefs.
(Blake, 2010; NSTA, 2008; Oakley, 2012)
- use of animals in education wrought with conflict and ethical
implications.
- virtual alternatives reported to have the same pedagogic benefits.
- cost, ethics and perceived student enjoyment implications.
- provision of alternate activities where appropriate.
- opposed by animal rights organisation such as People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and anti-vivisection
societies
(American Anti-Vivisection Society, 2014; Balcombe, 1997;
Balcombe, 2000; Balcombe, 2001; Bishop & Nolen, 2001; De Villiers
& Monk, 2005; Hug, 2008; Humane Society of the United States,
2008; Jukes, 2003; Oakley, 2012; PETA, 2014; RSPCA, n.d.).
Implementation: Personally, whilst I agree that the same learning outcomes can be achieved through virtual means, for example the knowledge that the trachea
possesses cartilage rings, I believe the experiential impact of physically feeling the cartilage rings in a real biological specimen can solidify this fact and knowledge
in reality, and provide a greater student experience. Sheep hearts were purchased for this practical were from Blades Biological Ltd. (2011), who have confirmed
that the material was sourced from the food industry, and hence no animals were killed exclusively for educational purposes.

26
3.13 – Outcomes of Intervention
Subjective assessment – Student Questionnaire
Student responses to surveys are represented in Figures 4, 5 and 6 below.
Discussion: When does a foetus have the right to life?
Quiz: Epithelium types
Debate: The use of hormones in the food industry
Exercise: Pressure changes in the cardiac cycle
Practical: Heart Dissection
Audience Response System: Interactive Revision Session
Discussion/debate: Genetically Enhanced Humans: The future of our evolution?
Figure 4: Mean student responses (+1SE) to four survey statements regarding the seven activities implemented in the
module BSX1025 Human Physiology. (Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neither Agree not Disagree = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly
Disagree = 1). (n =32)
I was able to apply lecture material to the
exercise.

27
Figure 5 (above): Student responses to the statements:
1) All exercises were relevant to the lecture material.
2) Exercises were well thought-out and planned.
3) I feel that these exercises have improved the module
compared to a strictly lecture-based module. (n=32)
Figure 6 (right): Word cloud demonstrating student
response to the question ‘Of the types of exercises
trialled, which would you like to do more of?’ (n=32)
Students were also asked if there were any other type of activity they would like integrated into the
module, responses to this question were few, but included: Asking more questions during lectures
and demonstrative exercises showing the active process being explained.
Additional comments received from students were all positive:
“Doing interactive exercises makes a lovely change to sitting and listening.”
“Helps me feel confident in my knowledge.”
“Great module.”
“Enjoyed the module.”
“Made revision more interactive and interesting.”
“Dissection helps understanding the mechanics of function.”
“Overall most exercises were particularly enjoyable.”
“I enjoyed all the exercises and found them useful.”
“It has been a really enjoyable module.”
These responses indicate that students not only responded encouragingly to the inclusion of active
participation exercises, but in fact all activities trialled scored positively for the four statements
surveyed; ‘The exercise gave me confidence in my understanding of the material’, ‘The exercise was
useful to my learning’, ‘I was able to apply lecture material to the exercise’ and ‘I participated in the
exercise’ (Figure 4). The quiz, practical and ARS scored slightly higher on all counts, whilst the
discussions and debates trialled were the least positively regarded. This preference towards the use
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Q1 Q2 Q3
Numberofresponses
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagree or
agree
Agree
Strongly Agree

28
of dissection practicals and the ARS is also highlighted in the Wordcloud (Figure 6). Students felt that
all activities trialled were relevant (n=31 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’), well thought-out and planned
(n=30 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’) and felt that the inclusion of the active participation exercises
improved the module, when compared to a strictly lecture-based module (n=30 ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly
Agree’) (Figure 5). No responses indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any aspect
questioned.
Objective assessment – Impact on Learning
Assessment of the impact on learning of the active participation exercises was made through analysis
of the ARQUE (Assessment Reports on the Quality of University Examinations, Acadvent, 2014) report
for this module.
When comparing the overall module mark for the 2013/14 cohort and the previous 2012/13 and
2011/12 cohorts which did not include active participation exercises, this
intervention did not have a notable impact on the mean module mark; from
65% in 2011/12 and 63.3% in 2012/13 to 65.9% in the present 2013/14
cohort.
In the box plot (Figure 7) it is shown that whilst the median mark has risen
from the previous year (2013), it is comparable to the 2012 median score,
although the data does not demonstrate skew as in the previous years. The
upper and lower quartiles demonstrate a slight upward trend over the three
recorded years, indicating a slight improvement in grades of the cohort. Of
greatest note is the reduction in variability in the lower 25% of marks,
represented by the lower whisker. This data indicates that, in comparison to
the two previous years, no students failed the module and the lowest mark
has been considerably raised. This follows with the meta-analysis results by
Freeman et al (2014) in which students taught by active learning were 1.5
times less likely to fail the course than students taught by traditional
lecturing. There has been a slight decrease in the achievement of higher
marks, however there is no trend in the data in the rate of first class marks.
In the 2013/14 cohort, students scored on average 2.5 marks lower than their average on other
modules (Figure 8); the ARQUE report analysis considers this to be significant. Compared to the
previous year, 2012/13, this value was not significant at 0.9 marks lower, and 0.2 marks lower in
2011/12. This indicates that students achieve lower in this module since the addition of active
participation exercises, when compared to their other module marks. However the number of
variables and confounding factors, i.e. variability of student cohorts, changes to other modules, class
Figure 7 (above): Box and whisker plot showing module data for BSX1025-Human Physiology for the current year
(2014) in which active participation activities were trialled, and the previous 2 years (2013 & 2012) in which active
participation exercises were not included. Note that this data does not include students recorded as non-
completing for special circumstances reasons. (2014 n=35, 2013 n=35, 2012 n=28).

29
sizes in other modules, teaching styles used by other lecturers, etc, makes analysis of this data with
relation to a single factor impossible. Of note from the ARQUE analysis is that this module does not
appear unfairly advantage higher or lower performing students and no gender-effect is seen in the
2013/14 cohort (Figure 8). The summative achievement by the 2014 cohort demonstrates a left skew,
with increasing frequency of higher marks (Figure 9). The drastic drop in frequency above 80% is a
similar pattern to previous years in which 80% or above is rarely achieved.
From this data, it would appear that although the introduction of active participation exercises did not
have a notable improvement on learning for the cohort in general, it may help poorer performing
students to achieve better grades to pass the module.
Subjective assessment - Ease of Integration
The more structured nature of activities, such as quizzes, ARS and the dissection practical, meant that
integrating the activity into a session was relatively easy with regards to forward planning of time
constraints. Other activities, such as discussion and debates, are difficult to plan with high accuracy as
this is determined by the level of student participation and engagement with the material; to an extent
the lecturer can facilitate by posing questions, however these activities are largely the responsibility
of the student to propel. In my experience here, I was pleased with the level of engagement by the
students that permitted prolonged and fruitful discussion, yet did not unduly impinge on time
reserved for traditional lecturing of material. I felt that the frequency and length of lectures
(2hrs/week) provided a sufficient volume of time to cover content in both a traditional lecture format,
and integrate the active participation exercises to review material, share opinion or provoke deeper
thought.
Figure 8: A scatterplot demonstrating parity between
mark on this module and average marks on other
modules. The regression line is parallel but below by 2.5.
No gender effect or bias towards higher or lower
performing students is seen.
Figure 9: Frequency of marks obtained in
module BSX1025 by 2014 cohort.

30
With regards to ease of design and implementation, the only activity that presented any challenge to
myself was the use of the Audience Response System (ARS). However, following appropriate
instruction by the Learning Technology Team, the ARS system presented little problem in ease of use
and user interaction. The only problem encountered was the use of this system in conjunction with
Panopto, discussed in Chapter 5: Peer Observations & Session Plans, Section 5.2.
Personally, as a lecturer, the inclusion of active participation exercises made sessions more fun, not
only to teach but to learn from the students and appreciate the diversity of the student cohort when
discussing views on socio-scientific issues. The exercises provided a change of pace to the lecture
format, and helped to provide early assurance that students were engaging with and learning material
prior to summative assessment.
Limitations
As discussed previously, there are a number of variable and confounding factors that prevent discrete
analysis of the impact of incorporation of the active participation exercises on student learning in this
study. Of note is the variability of student cohorts between years; as a lecturer I found this cohort of
students to require little motivation to engage and were generally open to the new teaching practices
being trialled over this module. I cannot assume that subsequent cohorts will express such positive
learning behaviours.
As with any task that involves small group teaching, the learning environment can impact the success
of the endeavour. Apart from the dissection practical, all sessions were conducted in a traditional
lecture format room which I believe may have limited the exchanges between students, especially in
the discussion/debate activities. For further discussion on the structural issues of small group
teaching, please refer to ‘Chapter 6: Workshop Evaluations – Section 6.2 ‘Teaching Small Groups’.
3.14 - Reflections on the Intervention and Future Implications
From this intervention, I have no doubt that I will continue to include active participation exercises in
this module. Students responded highly positively to the use of ARS, and in future lectures I will look
to incorporate ARS questions throughout the course of lectures, perhaps permitting students to
discuss and re-answer to encourage peer learning, as demonstrated by Freeman et al (2007), or as a
review of key points at the end of sessions (Allen & Tanner, 2005). I would also like to consider
introducing learn before lecture (LBL) assignments (Moravec et al, 2010). In this way, student can be
engaged in learning outside the lecture, and assessment of their knowledge can take place via ARS
questions at the beginning of the lecture, or at timed intervals to continue combatting the vigilance
decrement seen in lectures (Young, Robinson & Alberts, 2009).
To include more dissection practicals in the module will require funding, sourcing of specimens,
timetabling of laboratory space and technical support. Whilst this is not impossible, it limits the extent
to which this type of activity can be included in the module. One consideration would be to utilise
virtual dissection software, however my personal belief is that these approaches do not add as much
value to the learning experience as real dissections. Whilst the module may not play host to any
additional dissection practicals, the heart dissection practical will remain, and students will continue
to visit the School of Medical Sciences to observe preserved human specimens.

31
In future, I will ensure to explain the roles of the student and lecturer within the context of the module
at the beginning of the lecture series, i.e. students will be active in the learning environment in order
to fulfil learning outcomes, to ensure that my expectations and those of the students are matched to
promote a successfully learning environment (Modell, 1996).

32
Chapter 4:
Residential Conference

33
Bangor University PGCertHE Annual Learning and Teaching Conference
Date: 30th
April 2014
Keynote: Jesse Martin, School of Psychology: Putting Students at the Centre of Their Learning
Parallel Session 2:
Chairperson: Dr Katherine Jones
Miriam Mehl Problem based learning – Sometimes Less is More
Mary Louise
Parker
Securing Threshold Concepts: Learning from the Origins of Legal
Scholarship
Enrico Onali Formative Assessment using Blackboard
Rebecca Butler Exploring Romantic and Virtual Spaces: A Web-Based PBL Approach
David Styles Removing distance: Evaluation of an Assessed Discussion Forum to
Engage Distance Learners
Jessica Fletcher “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand”:
Encouraging active participation in teaching and learning
Helen Gittins Using reflective techniques to encourage deep learning
The Bangor University PGCertHE Annual Learning and Teaching Conference is an opportunity for
participants of the PGCertHE Programme to meet with colleagues and present a teaching cycle, in
order to share ideas, partake in valuable discussion about teaching and learning and gain feedback on
their Teaching Intervention.
As always, I found the opportunity to discuss pedagogic practice with other motivated and enthusiastic
members of staff an invaluable and enjoyable one. A copy of my conference talk is available on the
following pages, after which I shall discuss the talks presented, and feedback.
In order to facilitate explanation of the practices used in my teaching intervention, I provided
colleagues at the session with handouts of the marking documentation for my Teaching Intervention
(Appendix B).

34
The Problem
• Students entering HE are adapted to a passive, ‘spoon-fed’ nature of learning.
(Cunnane, 2011; McKay & Kember, 1997; Ovens et al, 2011)
• ‘Spoon-feeding’ does not promote independent learning and creativity, and does not imbue
students with skills of problem solving. (Chhem, 2000)
• Failure to adapt to HE learning behaviours could be the primary limiting factor to academic
achievement and retention. (Ovens et al, 2011; Wingate, 2007)
• Adjustment to HE learning behaviours can result in feelings of anxiety and depression.
(Nichols, 2013)
Jessica Fletcher, PGCertHE Annual
Learning and Teaching Conference 2014
“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”
Encouraging Active Participation
in Teaching and Learning.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
Student-centered Learning
Teacher-centered Learning
• Low level of student choice
• Student passive
• Power is primarily with teacher
Student-centered Learning
• High level of student choice
• Student active
• Power is primarily with the student
O’Neill & McMahon (2005)
• Student-centered learning can be implemented in a number of ways, including:
- Independent projects
- Group discussion
- Debates
- Field-trips
- Practicals
- Quizzes
Are we doing enough?
• Two teaching cycles to move this continuum towards student-centered learning:
• Teaching Cycle 1: Science Festival Project.
- Student-centered group activity to encourage skills required of HE learning through
design of an interactive activity for public participation.
• Teaching Cycle 2: Active Participation in Lectures
- Trial of a number of within-lecture activities (incl. discussion, debate, ARS, quiz) to
assess student participation and contribution to learning. Intervention completed in
Human Physiology, first year undergraduate Biomedical Science module
The Intervention
• Students were required to work in randomly assigned groups to design, develop and create an
interactive exhibit for the Bangor Science Festival, based on a topic of their own choice.
• Students responsible for project management, including meeting records, project plans, health
and safety, and budgeting.
• Tutor assumes the role of guide and facilitator.
• Students included in the design and implementation of summative assessment criteria,
including apportion of marks and aspects of within-group and between-group peer evaluation.
• Projects were also evaluated by the tutor and public.
Intended Outcomes
• Introduce students to independent and creative thinking, problem-solving and self-sufficiency in
learning in Higher Education in a non-intimidatory manner.
• Include the students more in the teaching and learning process, to encourage greater
understanding of the mechanisms of higher education.
- ‘Social constructivist’ assessment procedure; suggested to be the best approach to assessment and
evaluation in the Higher Education system. (Rust, O’Donovan & Price, 2005)
- Aid in establishment of an ‘assessment dialogue’, continuing theme from Stage 1 of the PGCertHE.
(Cartney, 2010; Rust, 2007)

35
Additional Outcome
• Encourage communication of science, specifically to a ‘lay’ audience:
- The ability to communicate scientific discovery to the public is a major challenge of
contemporary scientists. (Aurbach & Prater, 2013)
- Biomedical Scientists have been involved in informing media reports on subjects such from
cholesterol testing to anthrax, and nation-wide agendas such as cervical cancer screening.
(IBMS, 2014)
- Information must be relayed clearly in order for the public to make informed decisions about
their own healthcare. (Brownell, Price & Steinman, 2013a; Miller, 2001)
Summative Assessment Design
• Students voted for apportion of marks:
Tutor: 30%
Within-group: 30%
Between group: 20%
Public Evaluation: 20%
• With instruction, students were required to assess performance of own group (process) and final
project of one other group (product).
• Contingent on the tutor (product + process), within-group and between-group marks, successful
projects were put forward for public evaluation (product).
• Students receive a group mark, with individual moderation depending on within-group and tutor
evaluation.
Outcomes – Subjective
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5
Numberofresponses
Statement
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagree or agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Student responses to the following statements:
1) I feel I have built on my skills of teamwork.
2) I feel I have developed my critical and independent thinking skills.
3) This assignment has given me experience in project management.
4) This assignment gave me the opportunity to use creative problem solving.
5) Overall, I have enjoyed this assignment.
Outcomes – Objective
‘Blurred Lines’
‘Nerves’ ‘Microbes in your home’
‘Enzymes: The PacMan of Life ‘The Lungs’‘It’s as Easy as A, B, O!
Student Comments“Really enjoyed it, nicer working with other people
doing something practical and interesting that
involves your own research rather than just doing
assessed written work.”
“It’s been really fun to do something creative with science.”
“I liked how it made us think outside the box”
“The assignment made us think about problem solving and adapting
to situations when problems occur.”
“Assignment was fun and a good opportunity, allowed me to further
get to know people on my course and other courses, while feeling a
certain level of responsibility as our work was on public display.”
“I enjoyed this assignment because it has allowed me to be more
creative, as well as allowing work independently and as part of a
team.”
“It was a good opportunity to get to know other members of the
course and interact, and to understand the different levels of
scientific knowledge there is and when to apply the apt level to the
chosen audience.”
“I enjoyed how it allowed me to learn about our chosen subject
during the research project and continue to learn more during the
presentation session as I reviewed others work.”
“I felt the assignment was a good idea a great way to demonstrate
what it can be like to get the public engaged in science and the
difficulties in formatting such information.”
“I have really enjoyed this assignment and I have learnt a great deal
about how to manage a team. It was fantastic to see it come
together working well.”
87.5% Positive
Student Comments
“Even though teamwork skills have been improved, no
new scientific knowledge has been learnt.”
“The project idea was good, but seems like we created these
projects in a short amount of time as well as just to build publicity
for the school. The presentation session felt rushed.”
“I feel that we are not being pushed enough in biomedical practicals
to learn biomedical skills. The ‘project’ was enjoyable but I don’t
feel that it has helped me in the grand scheme of things. I would
like to focus more on biochemistry. More new techniques!”
“It was a great and enjoyable assignment, though we didn’t learn
much and it wasn’t involved with our course.”
12.5% Negative

36
Evaluation
• Overall moderately successful non-intimidatory introductory assignment to encourage skills.
• Good concordance of marks. Slight positive bias of peer and public marks compared to tutor marks
for poorer performing groups.
• Individual summative mark: 91.1% - 39.1% (Av. 75%)
• Activities can be used for future public engagement events.
• Students who engaged in volunteering during the Festival have an Employability note on myBangor.
Evaluation
• Limiting factors
- Low weighting of assignment may have contributed to poor engagement by some students.
- Expense - only 6 out of 8 group projects presented to public.
- Only an introduction - requires further complementary assignments to build on skills.
• Future applications
• Repeat / Roll-out on wider scale?
- Proforma documents in place.
- Staff commitment required.
- Funding & resources required.
Literature
• Aurbach, E. & Prater, K. (2013) 2013 Innovation in Graduate Education Challenge, Community Choice Winner – RELATE:
Researchers Expanding Lay-Audience Teaching and Engagement,
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/gradchallenge/images/winners/entries/comm-choice-ira-flatows.pdf
• Brownell, S.E., Price, J.V. & Steinman, L. (2013a) Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach
Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training, J. Undergrad. Neurosci.
Educ., Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.E6-E10
• Cartney, P. (2010) Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and
feedback used, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No.5, pp. 551-564
• Chhem, R.K. (2000) Spoon-Feeding in Higher Education, CDTL Brief, Vol. 3, No. 2
• Cunnane, S. (2011) To spoon-feed is not to nurture, Times Higher Education, 24th Nov. 2011,
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/418217.article
• IBMS: Institute of Biomedical Science (2014) Media and Communication, http://www.ibms.org/go/biomedical-science/get-
involved/media-communication
• McKay, J. & Kember, D. (1997) Spoon Feeding Leads to Regurgitation: a better diet can result in more digestible learning outcomes,
Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp.55-67
• Miller, J.D. (2001) Biomedical Communications: Purpose, Audience and Strategies, 1st Edition, Academic Press
• Nichols, F. (2013) New students may struggle to adjust, http://www.bps.org.uk/news/new-students-may-struggle-adjust
• O’Neill, G. & McMahon, T. (2005) Student-centered Learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers?, Emerging Issues in the
Practice of University Teaching and Learning, AISHE, http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahon-Tues_19th_Oct_SCL.pdf
•
• Ovens, P., Wells, F., Wallis, P. & Hawkins, C. (2011) Developing Inquiry for Learning: Reflecting Collaborative Ways to Learn How to
Learn in Higher Education, Routeledge
• Rust, C. (2007) Towards a scholarship of assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 32, Issue 2, pp. 229 -237
• Rust, C., O’Donovan, B. & Price, M. (2005) A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this
could be the best practice, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 30, Issue 3, pp.231 -240
• Wingate, U. (2007) A Framework for Transition: Supporting ‘Learning to Learn’ in Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol.
61, Issue 3, pp.391 – 405

37
Bangor University PGCertHE Annual Learning and Teaching Conference
Reflective Statement
Throughout the session, it was clear that the main defining theme being developed by myself and my
colleagues is that of student-centred teaching and learning practices to encourage greater student
participation and control in learning and education. Key approaches raised in the session are discussed
below.
Problem-based learning (PBL) – This technique was used by colleagues Miriam Mehl & Mary Louise
Parker. Miriam highlighted that PBL, though a useful skills development technique, is not without its
problems; initially students were unable to overcome mental barriers and get motivated as they did
not possess ‘baseline’ skills in order to engage in the PBL activity. Miriam aided students by
incorporating instructional scaffolding to assist the students in achieving the learning outcomes of the
exercise. Mary also utilised PBL in the form of ‘Mooting’; a court structured oral presentation of a legal
issue against an opposing counsel, and found that this helped to improve student communication and
secured threshold concepts. My intervention sought to address many of the same issues here,
particularly building or ‘scaffolding’ of student skill exercises to encourage development of skills.
Formative assessment – Enrico Onali sought to increase student engagement through the use of an
online formative assessment for statistics students. In my teaching, I have implemented formative
revision assignments for students studying Human Physiology. The problem encountered in both cases
is that without a summative component to the assignment, students lacked voluntary engagement
and required repeated reminders from the tutor in order to engage with the material. As Enrico
agreed, the online assignments are time-consuming to create and so lack of student engagement is
disappointing.
Virtual learning spaces – Rebecca Butler integrated a Wiki in a group project to encourage Creative
Writing, with a peer assessment element. Engaging student both in their learning and in the teaching
process, through inclusion in assessment procedures, is an element I can relate to and find important
in my own practice. Rebecca highlighted that in order to effectively facilitate this process, the students
require clear structure and means of collaboration. David Styles acted to engage distance learners to
promote a sense of community, using a Blackboard discussion forum with weekly threads posing a
number of questions for discussion. David found that engagement waned when students had
assignments due, and some students engaged more passionately than others. For this initial ‘test run’
David’s input as tutor to the forum was minimal to encourage students to drive discussion and share
expertise, however some felt that more tutor interjection would have reassured students. Whilst I
have not attempted to engage students in this learning format, I find the idea interesting and would
consider developing a similar approach to engage students with current issues or controversial topics
in the field of Biomedical Science.
Encouraging reflective techniques – Helen Gittins incorporated a number of reflective practices in
order to encourage students to think deeper about the lecture content. She encouraged students to
reflect on material during a session and form a personal opinion, and then register this opinion on a
physical scale i.e. post-it note on a board, allowing students to then discuss and consider other
opinions. Whilst this is a great approach to get students thinking about the material, Helen
commented that these kinds of activities required more allocated time, which was typically impossible

38
in 1 hour lecture slots. I have attempted to achieve a similar outcome in my second Teaching
Intervention through the addition of discussions and debates.
The feedback on my own intervention was highly positive and encouraging, particularly from Kat
Jones, a colleague from SBS, who felt the intervention has good propensity to be ‘rolled out’ for the
entire zoology undergraduate student cohort. On discussion of the problems I encountered with lack
of engagement by some student groups, it was suggested that perhaps grouping the students by ability
would have been a wiser choice. I gave great consideration to the method of grouping used for this
intervention, and had decided that random assignment was the most fair and beneficial to the cause;
the project aim was directed towards skills development, which I felt may not necessarily correlate
with academic achievement. I designed the project in such a way that the level of ‘difficulty’ of
scientific content was determined by the student groups themselves, therefore I feel the lack of
engagement was not due to the grouping method used. Despite our best efforts otherwise, the group
agreed that some students just can’t be motivated in group work.
Although we approached student-centred learning in different ways, it was reassuring to discover that
as learning facilitators we are driving this movement in pedagogic practice forward within the
University. I whole-heartedly believe this paradigm shift, from a didactic to socratic or facilitative form
of teaching (Banning, 2005), will result in graduates who are increasingly ‘world-ready’, who possess
the necessary skills to think independently and employ creative problem solving.

39
Chapter 5:
Peer Observations &
Session Plans
Section 5.1: PHP3008 Theories of Therapeutic Counselling
(Observation of Dr Fay Short)
Section 5.2: BSX1025 Human Physiology
(Observed by Dr David Pryce)
Section 5.3: Reflective Statement

40
5.1 - Session Plan: PHP3008 Theories of Therapeutic Counselling
Topic: Humanistic Approach
Date: 17-02-14
Aim: Explore the Humanistic Approach from a psychotherapeutic perspective
Learning Outcomes:
Discuss the development of the Humanistic Approach (third force in psychology) in an historical context
Outline the personal and professional biography of Carl Rogers
Describe the organismic self and the self-concept
Discuss the impact of conditions of worth on the self-concept
Discuss the tendency towards self-actualization
Describe the hierarchy of needs
Describe the characteristics of the fully functioning person
Outline the nineteen propositions of personality

41
Time: Content T & L Methods Resources Assessment1
11.10am
11.15am
11.20am
11.45am
11.55pm
12noon
12.10pm
12.15pm
12.20pm
12.25pm
12.35pm
12.45pm
12.55pm
1pm
Review previous content and outline context for current lecture
Present learning outcomes for current lecture
Development of the Humanistic Approach (third force in
psychology) in an historical context
Personal and professional biography of Carl Rogers
Summarise lecture content
Break
Organismic self and the self-concept
Discuss the impact of conditions of worth on the self-concept
Discuss the tendency towards self-actualization
Describe the hierarchy of needs
Describe the characteristics of the fully functioning person
Outline the nineteen propositions of personality
Summarise lecture content
Finish
Lecture Powerpoint Formative assessment will
be included in the
associated discussion
sessions

42
Reflections /evaluation:
 Did the plan work/go to plan? If not why?
Lectures overran – Too much content intended for coverage within the time frame.
 What went well and why?
Student seemed engaged and interested in the content.
 What didn’t go so well and why?
Too much content.
 What would you do differently next time and why?
Reduce content.

43
Peer Observation: PHP3008 Theories of Therapeutic Counselling
(Form 1)
Name
Fay Short
Date
17/02/14
Module/Course Unit
Counselling and Psychotherapy
Level / Year
3
Mode e.g.
Full time
Composition of the student group
HE Students
Type of activity, e.g. lecture,
Seminar
Lecture
Topic
Humanistic Approach and Person centred
Therapy
Number of
Students
Approx. 100
Observer
Miss Jessica Fletcher
Length of the session
2 Hours Minutes
Length of the observation
2 Hours Minutes
What are the objectives planned for this session (e.g. knowledge and understanding, key skills,
cognitive skills, and subject specific, including practical/professional skills)? Indicate how they
contribute to supporting students in achieving expected learning outcomes in the session or
module.
 List the three main forces in psychology.
 Discuss the development of the Humanistic Approach in a historical context
 Acknowledge the main contributors to the development of the Humanistic Approach
 Outline the personal and professional biography of Carl Rogers (1902-1987)
 Describe the organismic self and the self-concept
 Discuss the impact of conditions of worth on the self-concept
 Discuss the tendency towards self-actualization
 Describe the hierarchy of needs
 Describe the characteristics of the fully functioning person
 Outline the nineteen propositions of personality
How do these learning objectives relate to the Programme Specification and other modules?
These objectives directly relate to the overall programme spec requiring students to have an
understanding of the Humanistic approach and the impact of this approach in psychotherapy.

44
As well as general observations, on what particular aspects would you like feedback?
1. Student Engagement
2. Pace
3. Level of content

45
Observation and Feedback (Form 2)
Prompts
Strengths and points for improvement where relevant in the
context of the session
Clarity of objectives.
Content ( currency,
accuracy, relevance, use of
examples, level to match
to student needs)
Planning, organisation and
structure, links.
Methods / approach.
Delivery and pace.
Level of 'challenge' to
students.
Student
participation/engagement.
Use of resources, e.g.
time, space, equipment
Other points as requested
1. Student engagement
2. Pace
3. Level of content
Objectives relayed verbally and Learning Outcomes given in ppt at
beginning of each section. Very clear to explain to student why they
are being taught this concept.
Relates to previous content to link modules/years of study. Use of
examples to explain theory and relate to practice and the client.
Good use of summary slides at the end of sections. Clear slides,
appropriate volume of text.
Referral back to the same example helps students to link concepts
as they are built upon.
Clear delivery (use of microphone). Enthusiastic and good
modulation. Use of humour to engage students. See below.
Students not directly ‘challenged’, i.e. via questions, but expected to
have a knowledge basis for reference of material.
Short answer practice questions provided for break, though
completion not mandatory. See below.
Use of microphone and laser pointer enhances clarity and delivery.
Not apparent during lecture seminar, however student-led
discussion groups used in subsequent sessions to engage students
with material. Could students be engaged more during the lecture?
Good pace of speech and slide transition – additional comment
given to supplement slides but does not overload. However did not
deliver all the planned material.
As a non-psychology observer content was clear with links to
previous/future study for students to relate content and create
links.

46
Overall quality and the strengths of the teaching in relation to the objectives:
Fay is an energetic lecturer whose enthusiasm for the subject is apparent. The consistent use of
‘real-life’ examples to demonstrate concepts, and continued relation of the concept to client
therapy, allows the student to develop not only an understanding of the concepts but how they are
applied to psychotherapy.
The lecture material was clearly delivered, both orally and via the powerpoint notes.
As a non-psychology observer I found the material to be well-explained and interesting, and enjoyed
the observation.
Suggestions for enhancing the teaching and learning:
Although I found pace of delivery to be good, Fay did not deliver all the material planned for the
session. As I understand, subsequent seminar sessions are to include discussion of lecture material,
therefore I think it important to ensure material is covered in full in order for the seminar session
to be effective in its purpose. Perhaps certain slides/information for which additional explanation
is not required could be assigned as pre-lecture reading, for example perhaps the section of the
history describing the main contributors to the development of the Humanistic Approach and
related texts. This would provide more time in lectures to cover more complex concepts and
material and would engage the students with the material outside of the lecture environment.
Observer:
Miss Jessica Fletcher
Signature: Date:
17/02/14

47
Reflection and Discussion (Form 3)
1. What did you feel were the most important points in your discussions with the observer?
Insight into how understandable the content was presented for a non-psychology student. Insight
into engagement of the audience.
2. Will you make changes to any of the following? If so, what? If not, why?
a) the particular or similar sessions
Try to introduce audience activities into the session
b) the module programme
Reduce content for coverage in class
c) to your teaching more generally
Try to include more audience participation
3. Any other comments about the observation.
Interesting insight and thoughtful comments.
Feedback to help the observer to be more effective in fulfilling this role in the future
Observer was respectful and supportive, whilst still offering constructive criticism. Very positive
experience.

48
5.2 - Session Plan: BSX1025 Human Physiology
Module: BSX1025 Human Physiology (Semester 2)
Session: Revision Session
Session length: 2 hours
Class size: 40 expected, 30 attended
Aim: To facilitate student revision and identify areas of weakness in student understanding with Semester 2 content.
Learning Outcomes:
- Encourage students to adopt self-assessment techniques to assess current knowledge.
- Practice at exam style questions.
- Offer guidance and encourage students to develop their exam skills.
- Offer reassurance for students who experience anxiety and stress with exams through a structured revision session.
- This session will also permit learning facilitator to identify areas of cohort weakness through ARS and Q&A, and address them.

49
Time Content Teaching & Learning
Methods
Resources Assessment
11.10 Welcome class.
Announcements.
Information about exam format.
Verbal n/a -
ARS response
Question and answer
11.15 Revision session
- Reproductive Systems
- The Brain
- The G.I.Tract
Presentation Powerpoint and projector
ARS handsets and receiver
Webcam
12.00 Break - - -
12.10 Revision session
- The Liver
- The Musculo-skeletal System
Presentation Powerpoint and projector
ARS handsets and receiver
Webcam
ARS response
Question and Answer
12.50
12.55
Any questions from class?
Close session.
Verbal
Verbal
n/a
n/a
-
-

Stage 2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Stage 2

Similar to Stage 2 (20)

Stage 2