Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (AFHEA)
I thought it may be useful to others for me to share my application materials for my AFHEA application. I applied through Swansea University's Bioscience Department HEA recognition programme. My application is specific to teaching biosciences at undergraduate level. This application was successful and approved in September 2020.
Account of Professional Practice
Evidencing Area of Activity A1: Design and plan learning activities and/or programmes of study
I design learning activities that promote active learning, which have been shown to improve student engagement and performance (Daouk et al. 2016) (A1, K3, K6, V3). To engage all students I design inclusive, interactive activities that include individual and group-work (Felder and Brent, 2009) (A4, K2, V1, V2). I have observed from personal teaching experience – consisting of 13 modules at HE Level 3-7 over 6 years, totalling 185 credits to over 1000 students – that such activities are particularly effective for students normally too shy to engage in traditional lecture based settings. I aim to develop students into independent, critical-thinkers (V4) for which active learning activities are fundamental (Walker, 2003); active learning promotes higher level learning by enabling students to develop understanding through discussion, apply knowledge in new contexts (rather than merely recall information), theorise beyond current comprehension, and gain academic confidence (Biggs, 2003) (K3, K5, V2, V4).
In recent years I have implemented numerous interactive learning and experiential activities (cf. Kolb and Kolb, 2005) and highlight two here. First, regarding a workshop I developed on policymaking for ecologists. I wanted to address problem solving and teamwork skills (A1-A2, A4), highlight the reality of working in policy (A1), share my experiences from policy work at the Royal Society (K1), and give students opportunities to learn both individually and through group tasks (A1, K2-K3). Within groups, individuals were assigned a publication examining climate change and ocean acidification, a key topic in biological sciences (A4, K1-K4). I used an enquiry-based learning technique (V1-V2) by asking students to synthesise information from the publications to create policy recommendations (A1-A2, K1-K4). Students reported their evaluations back to peers before groups shared a consensus of their recommendations (A1-A2, K2-K4, V2). To make the activity challenging and reflective of fast-paced policy environments, each student had just 10 minutes to synthesise their paper, and 5 minutes for groups to reach consensus on their recommendations (A1, A4, K1). I developed a positive learning environment by encouraging students to work efficiently as a team (A4). The activity was effective in delivering the learning outcomes (A1-A2, A4); students developed teamwork and problem solving skills, and learnt how to translate scientific information into policy recommendations and the realities of working in a policy environment. Students gave excellent feedback saying it was an “immersive experience” (A1, K2-K5, V3) and had increased their enthusiasm for policy (V2).
The second example is from developing an Ecology of Marine Animals module (HE Level 6) where I led 50% delivery, including writing assessments (A1-A3, K1-K4). I aimed to teach students the differences between animal tracking tags; a fundamental component underpinning much of the wider module content and supplementing other degree modules (A1, K1, K3). I designed a small-group activity for students to interact with tags (A1, K1-K2). This type of activity best suits my interactive teaching style and utilises my expertise from deploying tags for over 6 years (K1). The activity allowed students to examine commercial equipment related to their course; highly relevant for zoologists wanting to pursue a career in animal behaviour or conservation (A1-A2, V4). I asked students to evaluate the tags’ characteristics, highlighting pros and cons (A1, K2-K4, V1-V2). I followed this by teaching the theory through lectures (A1-A2, K2-K4). At the end of the module I led a group activity which encouraged students to discuss the merits of each tag. This gave students an opportunity to present to peers (K2-K3, V2-V3) and enabled me to assess their understanding (A3, K2, K5). The active experience complemented the passive learning that students received through lectures (A1, K2-K5); students gave positive feedback (K5): “seeing real tags was the most effective aspect of the module”. I believe this activity would be particularly useful for visually impaired students who would benefit from interacting kinaesthetically with tags to supplement verbal information in lectures (A4, K2-K4, V1-V2). I plan to share this activity at a pedagogy conference and refine it further for my teaching (K6, V3-V4). I could improve the activity by first encouraging students to think about what makes a good tag and why, so to develop a checklist. This would develop skills in critical thinking and independent learning.
Word Count: 736
References:
Evidencing Area of Activity A3: Assess and give feedback to learners
Through my teaching experience and reading of pedagogic literature I have learnt that assessment is fundamental to promote learning (Brown, 2005) (A5, K1-K4, V3). I employ numerous assessment and feedback methods to inclusively meet all learners’ needs (V1). In laboratory practicals, I use formative assessments, e.g. by demonstrating elements of the task (A2, K1) and asking students to repeat them (A1, K2-K3) before providing instant feedback or asking students to self-evaluate (Chickering and Gamson, 1987) (A3, V3). I have found that students respond well because they can immediately apply knowledge following active observation (K2-K3). I can also monitor the students’ ability and the effectiveness of my teaching (A4-A5, K5).
I have taught computer practicals to over 1000 students over 6 years on the 20 credit module Ecological Data Analysis (HE Level 5). Specifically, I teach students how to code and conduct statistical analyses; two key skills for bioscientists (V4). I have learnt that students on this course respond well to “open book” summative Blackboard tests (K4), which allow them to use course notes to answer novel questions. This method of assessment is appropriate as it reflects typical coding work (K1) where you apply knowledge rather than rely on memory; this assesses students’ understanding, i.e. higher level learning (cf. Bloom’s Taxonomy) (A3, K2, V4). Students found early assessments challenging because their abilities were not honed. On reflection, I emphasized the importance of “time on task” in my feedback (K3, V3), encouraging students to prepare with mock tests (A5, K3, V3). I hosted seminar-style revision sessions, encouraging students to ask questions to promote learning autonomy (A5, K3-K4, V3-V4). In these sessions I delivered constructive feedback, enabling student self-reflection and meta-cognitive learning (A3, K3, V3-V4). Students said this helped them develop individual revision strategies in preparation for graded assessments (A2, A4, K2-K5, V1-V3). Students also said they appreciated the instant feedback they received from online summative tests (K4-K5, V3).
Before commencing teaching, I outline the learning outcomes and assessments so students understand how these align and what is expected of them (Biggs, 1999) (A4, K1). I also consider this when preparing assessments to ensure that assessments are valid indicators of students’ learning objectives (A1, K1-K2). I host informal quizzes during lectures as a means of formative assessment. These allow me to check that students are not “lost” during lectures (A4), be more inclusive to a range of learner needs (V1-V2), evaluate the effectiveness of my teaching (A3, V1), and encourage students to maintain concentration (A4, V2). For written reports I provide mark schemes to guide students (A2-A4, K2). These are useful when marking because I can signpost students to relevant sections to complement written feedback (A3). I have utilised these in marking over 300 student reports. Senior colleagues have said my marking is fair and consistent, and that my feedback is detailed, constructive, and effective.
When delivering verbal feedback, I strive to develop discussion with students so that they ask questions and share their thoughts in addition to me telling them what they did well or not (A1-A4, K3, V2). This is effective because I can ascertain where students’ understanding is lacking, and so identify areas for improvement (K5, V1) and provide appropriate feedback (A3, K1-K3). I often provide this feedback at the end of classes, either in groups or 1-to-1. I follow a structure for providing verbal feedback which I reflect upon frequently: review the material, encourage student(s) achievements, asses areas requiring improvement and provide constructive criticism, and feed-forward by previewing future lesson content (A1-A4, K1-K4). This structure builds on a nationally recognised teaching technique that I have implemented successfully over the last 8 years in my extracurricular activities as a watersports instructor and embodies principles of good practice for delivering feedback (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Students respond well to this structure saying that criticism helps to identify weaknesses, and that words of encouragement motivates them to act (A2-A4). With reflection I identified opportunities during computer practicals for students to provide peer feedback (A4-A5). Teaching is an effective way for students to develop understanding (Koh et al., 2018) (A1, K2-K3, V2-V3) and allowing students to feedback to each other also develops reciprocity and cooperation (A4, V1-V3). Students said they enjoyed this think-pair-share structure (V3).
Word count: 734
References
I design learning activities that promote active learning, which have been shown to improve student engagement and performance (Daouk et al. 2016) (A1, K3, K6, V3). To engage all students I design inclusive, interactive activities that include individual and group-work (Felder and Brent, 2009) (A4, K2, V1, V2). I have observed from personal teaching experience – consisting of 13 modules at HE Level 3-7 over 6 years, totalling 185 credits to over 1000 students – that such activities are particularly effective for students normally too shy to engage in traditional lecture based settings. I aim to develop students into independent, critical-thinkers (V4) for which active learning activities are fundamental (Walker, 2003); active learning promotes higher level learning by enabling students to develop understanding through discussion, apply knowledge in new contexts (rather than merely recall information), theorise beyond current comprehension, and gain academic confidence (Biggs, 2003) (K3, K5, V2, V4).
In recent years I have implemented numerous interactive learning and experiential activities (cf. Kolb and Kolb, 2005) and highlight two here. First, regarding a workshop I developed on policymaking for ecologists. I wanted to address problem solving and teamwork skills (A1-A2, A4), highlight the reality of working in policy (A1), share my experiences from policy work at the Royal Society (K1), and give students opportunities to learn both individually and through group tasks (A1, K2-K3). Within groups, individuals were assigned a publication examining climate change and ocean acidification, a key topic in biological sciences (A4, K1-K4). I used an enquiry-based learning technique (V1-V2) by asking students to synthesise information from the publications to create policy recommendations (A1-A2, K1-K4). Students reported their evaluations back to peers before groups shared a consensus of their recommendations (A1-A2, K2-K4, V2). To make the activity challenging and reflective of fast-paced policy environments, each student had just 10 minutes to synthesise their paper, and 5 minutes for groups to reach consensus on their recommendations (A1, A4, K1). I developed a positive learning environment by encouraging students to work efficiently as a team (A4). The activity was effective in delivering the learning outcomes (A1-A2, A4); students developed teamwork and problem solving skills, and learnt how to translate scientific information into policy recommendations and the realities of working in a policy environment. Students gave excellent feedback saying it was an “immersive experience” (A1, K2-K5, V3) and had increased their enthusiasm for policy (V2).
The second example is from developing an Ecology of Marine Animals module (HE Level 6) where I led 50% delivery, including writing assessments (A1-A3, K1-K4). I aimed to teach students the differences between animal tracking tags; a fundamental component underpinning much of the wider module content and supplementing other degree modules (A1, K1, K3). I designed a small-group activity for students to interact with tags (A1, K1-K2). This type of activity best suits my interactive teaching style and utilises my expertise from deploying tags for over 6 years (K1). The activity allowed students to examine commercial equipment related to their course; highly relevant for zoologists wanting to pursue a career in animal behaviour or conservation (A1-A2, V4). I asked students to evaluate the tags’ characteristics, highlighting pros and cons (A1, K2-K4, V1-V2). I followed this by teaching the theory through lectures (A1-A2, K2-K4). At the end of the module I led a group activity which encouraged students to discuss the merits of each tag. This gave students an opportunity to present to peers (K2-K3, V2-V3) and enabled me to assess their understanding (A3, K2, K5). The active experience complemented the passive learning that students received through lectures (A1, K2-K5); students gave positive feedback (K5): “seeing real tags was the most effective aspect of the module”. I believe this activity would be particularly useful for visually impaired students who would benefit from interacting kinaesthetically with tags to supplement verbal information in lectures (A4, K2-K4, V1-V2). I plan to share this activity at a pedagogy conference and refine it further for my teaching (K6, V3-V4). I could improve the activity by first encouraging students to think about what makes a good tag and why, so to develop a checklist. This would develop skills in critical thinking and independent learning.
Word Count: 736
References:
- Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university, Second edition, The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. ISBN: 9780335201723
- Daouk, Z., Bahous, R., and Bacha, N. N. (2016). Perceptions on the effectiveness of active learning strategies. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(3), 360-375.
- Felder, R. M., and Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ higher education brief, 2(4), 1-5.
- Kolb, A. Y., and Kolb, D. A. (2005) Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212.
- Walker, S. E. (2003). Active learning strategies to promote critical thinking. Journal of athletic training, 38(3), p.263.
Evidencing Area of Activity A3: Assess and give feedback to learners
Through my teaching experience and reading of pedagogic literature I have learnt that assessment is fundamental to promote learning (Brown, 2005) (A5, K1-K4, V3). I employ numerous assessment and feedback methods to inclusively meet all learners’ needs (V1). In laboratory practicals, I use formative assessments, e.g. by demonstrating elements of the task (A2, K1) and asking students to repeat them (A1, K2-K3) before providing instant feedback or asking students to self-evaluate (Chickering and Gamson, 1987) (A3, V3). I have found that students respond well because they can immediately apply knowledge following active observation (K2-K3). I can also monitor the students’ ability and the effectiveness of my teaching (A4-A5, K5).
I have taught computer practicals to over 1000 students over 6 years on the 20 credit module Ecological Data Analysis (HE Level 5). Specifically, I teach students how to code and conduct statistical analyses; two key skills for bioscientists (V4). I have learnt that students on this course respond well to “open book” summative Blackboard tests (K4), which allow them to use course notes to answer novel questions. This method of assessment is appropriate as it reflects typical coding work (K1) where you apply knowledge rather than rely on memory; this assesses students’ understanding, i.e. higher level learning (cf. Bloom’s Taxonomy) (A3, K2, V4). Students found early assessments challenging because their abilities were not honed. On reflection, I emphasized the importance of “time on task” in my feedback (K3, V3), encouraging students to prepare with mock tests (A5, K3, V3). I hosted seminar-style revision sessions, encouraging students to ask questions to promote learning autonomy (A5, K3-K4, V3-V4). In these sessions I delivered constructive feedback, enabling student self-reflection and meta-cognitive learning (A3, K3, V3-V4). Students said this helped them develop individual revision strategies in preparation for graded assessments (A2, A4, K2-K5, V1-V3). Students also said they appreciated the instant feedback they received from online summative tests (K4-K5, V3).
Before commencing teaching, I outline the learning outcomes and assessments so students understand how these align and what is expected of them (Biggs, 1999) (A4, K1). I also consider this when preparing assessments to ensure that assessments are valid indicators of students’ learning objectives (A1, K1-K2). I host informal quizzes during lectures as a means of formative assessment. These allow me to check that students are not “lost” during lectures (A4), be more inclusive to a range of learner needs (V1-V2), evaluate the effectiveness of my teaching (A3, V1), and encourage students to maintain concentration (A4, V2). For written reports I provide mark schemes to guide students (A2-A4, K2). These are useful when marking because I can signpost students to relevant sections to complement written feedback (A3). I have utilised these in marking over 300 student reports. Senior colleagues have said my marking is fair and consistent, and that my feedback is detailed, constructive, and effective.
When delivering verbal feedback, I strive to develop discussion with students so that they ask questions and share their thoughts in addition to me telling them what they did well or not (A1-A4, K3, V2). This is effective because I can ascertain where students’ understanding is lacking, and so identify areas for improvement (K5, V1) and provide appropriate feedback (A3, K1-K3). I often provide this feedback at the end of classes, either in groups or 1-to-1. I follow a structure for providing verbal feedback which I reflect upon frequently: review the material, encourage student(s) achievements, asses areas requiring improvement and provide constructive criticism, and feed-forward by previewing future lesson content (A1-A4, K1-K4). This structure builds on a nationally recognised teaching technique that I have implemented successfully over the last 8 years in my extracurricular activities as a watersports instructor and embodies principles of good practice for delivering feedback (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Students respond well to this structure saying that criticism helps to identify weaknesses, and that words of encouragement motivates them to act (A2-A4). With reflection I identified opportunities during computer practicals for students to provide peer feedback (A4-A5). Teaching is an effective way for students to develop understanding (Koh et al., 2018) (A1, K2-K3, V2-V3) and allowing students to feedback to each other also develops reciprocity and cooperation (A4, V1-V3). Students said they enjoyed this think-pair-share structure (V3).
Word count: 734
References
- Biggs, J. (1999) What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75.
- Brown, S. (2005). Assessment for learning. Learning and teaching in higher education, 1, 81-89.
- Chickering, A.W., and Gamson, Z.F. (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin, 3, 3-7.
- Koh, A.W.L., Lee, S.C., and Lim, S.W.H. (2018) The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 401-410.
- Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218