1

Programme Handbook 2015-2016 Dr. Charles Buckley

CELT POSTGRADUATE CERTIFICATE IN HIGHER

EDUCATION (PGCERTHE)

2

Contents

1. The PGCertHE at Bangor University ...................................................................... 4

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5

1.2. Collaboration and accreditation............................................................................... 6

1.3. Research-teaching links ........................................................................................... 7

1.4. The UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) ....................................... 8

1.5. Outcomes for the Programme and stages .......................................................... 11

1.5.1. Programme outcomes ............................................................................................ 11

1.5.2. Stage 1: Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education: Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................................. 11

1.5.3. Stage 2 Developing and Enhancing Academic and Professional Practice in Higher Education: Learning Outcomes ................................................................ 11

1.6. Criteria for Exemption ............................................................................................. 13

1.7. The CELT Unit ......................................................................................................... 14

1.8. Your Teaching Advisor ........................................................................................... 14

1.9. The CELT Tutor ....................................................................................................... 16

1.10. Booking and Registration ....................................................................................... 16

1.11. Welsh and English ................................................................................................... 16

1.12. Course structure ...................................................................................................... 16

2. Assessment .............................................................................................................. 19

2.1. Stage 1 Portfolio ...................................................................................................... 19

2.2. Stage 2 Portfolio ...................................................................................................... 21

2.3. Assessments in detail ............................................................................................. 22

2.3.1. Induction assignments ............................................................................................ 22

2.3.1.1. A short learning statement ......................................................................................... 22

2.3.1.2. Presentation: ............................................................................................................... 22

2.3.1.3. Poster: ......................................................................................................................... 22

2.3.2. Peer observations and Session Plans ................................................................. 23

2.3.3. Reflective and Evaluative account of teaching: .................................................. 23

2.3.4. Evaluation of workshops ........................................................................................ 24

2.3.5. Plan for Stage 2 .......................................................................................................... 25

2.3.6. Action-based research project (Stage 2 only) ............................................................ 25

2.3.7. Negotiated Assessment (Stage 2 only) ............................................................... 25

2.3.8. Presentation to colleagues (Stage 2) .......................................................................... 26

2.3.9. Revised Learning Statement and CPD Plan ............................................................... 26

2.3.10. Grid to show mapping against UKPSF (new for Sept 2015) ..................................... 27

2.3.11. Teacher Advisor letter/reference ........................................................................... 28

3

2.4. Assessment .............................................................................................................. 29

2.5. Submission of Portfolio ........................................................................................... 29

2.6. Referrals and Fails .................................................................................................. 29

3. Introductory Resources .......................................................................................... 30

3.1. Websites ................................................................................................................... 30

3.2. Key reading .............................................................................................................. 31

Appendix 1 PGCertHE Scheme Meeting with Teacher Advisor .................................... 33

Appendix 2 Peer Observation Form ................................................................................... 34

Appendix 3 Example Session Plan ..................................................................................... 38

Appendix 4 Evaluation of workshop (500 words) ............................................................. 40

4

1. The PGCertHE at Bangor University

5

1.1. Introduction

The award is supported by the newly formed Centre for the Enhancement of in Learning and Teaching (CELT) and located, for academic purposes within the School of Education. The aim of the PGCertHE is to support colleagues in developing practical skills and theoretical knowledge to become an effective teacher/lecturer in Higher Education. There is an emphasis on promoting innovative approaches to teaching and learning and developing colleagues as reflective practitioners. The programme is aligned with the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF). In particular, it is mapped closely against the Areas of Activity, Core Knowledge and Professional Values within the Framework for Descriptors 1 and 2. It is also informed by the Aber-Bangor Learning and Teaching Strategy, and the Strategic Plan http://www.bangor.ac.uk/planning/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-english-web.pdf There is an emphasis Feedback during Induction and associated workshops on assessment and internationalisation. Through regular consultation with Y Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol, there is a clear route for Welsh-medium. It forms the core of the current development of an Aber-Bangor accredited CPD Framework. Completion of the PGCertHE confers Associate Fellow (Stage 1) and Fellowship Status (Stage 2) with the Higher Education Academy (HEA). Stage 1 and 2 are compulsory for staff appointed on academic teaching contracts at Bangor unless they are already Fellows of the Higher education Academy or have more than two years continuous teaching experience in UK higher education. Stage 1 (Associate Fellow) is an entitlement for all staff and postgraduate research students who teach and/or support learning wishing to gain professional recognition against the UKPSF. Stage 2 (Fellow) is an entitlement for all staff and postgraduate students (with substantive teaching hours) who support learning and wish to gain professional recognition against the UKPSF. The programme follows an action-research based learning model to support the initial and continuing professional development of staff engaged in teaching and supporting learning. Colleagues should ensure that they have sufficient teaching opportunities: 40 hours at Stage 1 (including preparation, contact and assessment time). 60 at Stage 2 (including preparation, contact and assessment time) this is important as the assessment is based on action research within the context of one’s own teaching experiences. The teaching experience must be varied enough and suitable to fit the requirements of the PGCertHE. If in doubt, please consult with the PGCertHE Director. Students will normally have a first degree in an appropriate subject or equivalent professional experience. Students who will go on to teach on NMC approved courses must be able to accumulate 12 weeks or 360 contact hours with students

6

The award is subject to Bangor University Regulations, Codes of Practice, Procedures, Guidelines and Rules for postgraduate programmes. Candidates should familiarise themselves with these https://www.bangor.ac.uk/ar/main/regulations/home.htm. In addition, colleagues should familiarise themselves with the Bangor University Research Ethics Policy particularly if intending to publish research conducted as part of the PGCertHE. Please direct queries relating to ethics to the Registrar’s Office in the first instance.

1.2. Collaboration and accreditation

The PGCertHE programme is offered to anyone who wishes to develop their knowledge and skills in the areas of teaching, learning and assessment, including academic staff, research assistants and postgraduates with sufficient teaching responsibilities. Working alongside an experienced Teaching Advisor and CELT Tutor, participants draw and build on experiences gained during their normal teaching duties to prepare a portfolio demonstrating innovative and reflective professional practice underpinned with relevant theoretical concepts. Successful completion of the programme leads to a Master’s level qualification in the form of a Postgraduate Certificate, as well as registration with the Higher Education Academy as a Fellow (FHEA). The PGCertHE scheme is accredited by both the Higher Education Academy and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Colleagues seeking registration with the NMC should complete the record of teaching hours available from the PGCertHE Administrator/CELT Website.

7

1.3. Research-teaching links Bangor University recognises the importance of developing a research culture which articulates with teaching in a scholarly environment. The PGCertHE is designed to strengthen and augment this nexus and is deliberately planned to be flexible to maximize opportunities for sharing good practice in teaching and research across Bangor University and beyond. This articulates closely with the UK Professional Standards Framework philosophy: At Stage 2, the Action-based Research Project and Negotiated Assessment are designed to allow colleagues to show how their research and scholarship integrates with their teaching. If colleagues plan to disseminate research findings, which we encourage, they should consult with the Ethics Committee in their School for approval prior to data collection. The emphasis given to investigating the research-teaching nexus and providing guidance on pedagogical research are examples of how the PGCertHE provides research-related support within an overarching context of teaching. By closely aligning the programme with the school-based activities of the participants, the programme seeks to build strengths in teaching generally and in the discipline. The programme also enhances peer interaction within the institution and across the collaborating partners. In addition, the scheme incorporates an annual learning and teaching conference which provides another opportunity for sharing research and good practice with colleagues from a range of Schools across Bangor.

The CELT Unit works closely with both internal and external partners to promote good policy in equality and diversity. There are workshops offered during the year which are aimed specifically at promoting a deeper

8

understanding of key issues such as inclusive teaching strategies. Many workshops are based around the areas of activity, core knowledge and professional values contained in the UKPSF http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ukpsf and typically include sessions on themes such as assessment and feedback, designing for teaching small and large groups, evaluating your teaching, blended learning, and reflective practice.

1.4. The UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) The PGCertHE is accredited by the Higher Education Academy (HEA), and participants successfully completing the programme are entitled to become a Fellow of the HEA (FHEA). Those who are entitled to exit the award after successful completion of the first 30 credits will be eligible to apply for Associate Fellowship status with the HEA. The UKPSF launched in February 2006, is a flexible model that uses a descriptor-based approach to professional standards. The UKPSF was proposed in the White Paper ‘The Future of Higher Education’ (2003). The UK HE funding bodies invited the Higher Education Academy to develop the Framework. It recognises the distinctive nature of teaching in higher education, respect for the autonomy of higher education institutions, and recognition of the sector’s understanding of quality enhancement for improving student learning.

The UKPSF provides a general description of the main dimensions of the roles of teaching and supporting learning within the HE environment. It is written from the perspective of the practitioner and outlines a national framework for comprehensively recognising and benchmarking teaching and learning support roles within Higher Education. The Framework has two components: The Descriptors, a set of statements outlining the key characteristics of someone evidencing four broad categories of typical teaching and learning support roles

9

within higher education and Dimensions of Practice outlining Areas of Activity, Core Knowledge and Professional Values. These have been applied to learning outcomes and assessment activities within the PGCertHE at Bangor University. The UKPSF underpins the whole award and it is crucial that colleagues make regular reference to the Framework as the course content, ethos and learning outcomes are aligned with the UKPSF. This is stressed at Induction and reinforced during the award. At the end of Stage 1, colleagues receive comprehensive feedback which indicates the extent to which they have engaged with the Framework and where they should focus at Stage 2 to ensure they fully engage with all the required Areas of Activity, Core Knowledge and Professional Values.

10

UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in

higher education

(http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/ukpsf/ukpsf.pdf).

Areas of Activity

A1 Design and plan learning activities and/or

programmes of study

A2 Teach and/or support learning

A3 Assess and give feedback to learners

A4 Develop effective learning environments

and approaches to student support and

guidance

A5 Engage in continuing professional

development in subjects/disciplines and their

pedagogy, incorporating research,

scholarship and the evaluation of professional

practices

Core Knowledge

K1 The subject material

K2 Appropriate methods for teaching

and learning in the subject area and at

the level of the academic programme

K3 How students learn, both generally and

within their subject/disciplinary area(s)

K4 The use and value of appropriate

learning technologies

K5 Methods for evaluating the

effectiveness of teaching

K6 The implications of quality assurance

and quality enhancement for academic and

professional practice with a particular focus

on teaching

Professional Values

V1 Respect individual learners and

diverse learning communities

V2 Promote participation in higher

education and equality of opportunity for

learners

V3 Use evidence-informed approaches

and the outcomes from research,

scholarship and continuing professional

development

V4 Acknowledge the wider context in

which higher education operates

recognising the implications for

professional practice

11

1.5. Outcomes for the Programme and stages

1.5.1. Programme outcomes On successful completion of the award, participants should be able to: 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

1.5.2. Stage 1: Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education: Learning Outcomes

The module provides practitioners with Associate Fellowship status with the Higher Education Academy and is mapped against Descriptor 1 of the UKPSF

On successful completion of this stage, participants should be able

to:

UKPSF

1a Design and plan learning activities and/or programmes of study A1

1b Critically reflect on effective ways to teach and/or support

learning

A2

2a Demonstrate a core knowledge of teaching within their

discipline

K1

2b Demonstrate an awareness of a range of teaching and learning

methods at the level of the academic programme

K2

2c Demonstrate a critical understanding of how their students learn

most effectively

K3

3a Show a commitment to respecting individual learners and

diverse learning communities

V1

3b Critically reflect on what it means to promote participation in

higher education and equality of opportunity for learners

V2

3c Develop evidence-informed approaches and the outcomes from

research, scholarship and continuing professional development

V3

3d Acknowledge the wider context in which higher education

operates and recognise the implications for professional practice

V4

1.5.3. Stage 2 Developing and Enhancing Academic and

Professional Practice in Higher Education: Learning Outcomes

Successful completion of this module provides Fellowship status with the Higher education Academy and maps against Descriptors 1 and 2.

12

On successful completion of this stage, participants should be able

to:

UKPSF

1a Demonstrate their ability to use effective assessment methods

and give feedback to learners

A3

1b Show they can develop effective learning environments and

approaches to student support and guidance

A4

1c Demonstrate their commitment to continuing professional

development in their subject and their pedagogy, incorporating

research, scholarship and the evaluation of professional practice

A5

2a Demonstrate expertise in their chosen subject area and in

deploying a range of teaching and learning methods

K1 and 2

2b Show an ability to understand how their students learn most

effectively

K3

2c Critically reflect on the use and value of recent technology-

enhanced learning developments in Higher Education.

K4

2d Show an ability to critically analyse and apply a range of

methods for evaluating their teaching.

K5

2e Demonstrate critical understanding of quality assurance and

quality enhancement for academic practice with a focus on

teaching

K6

3a Demonstrate knowledge of and commitment to the professional

values contained within the UK professional standards

framework for teaching and supporting learning in Higher

Education.

V1-4

13

1.6. Criteria for Exemption

In order for new staff to be exempt from having to complete the PGCertHE Programme they must meet at least one of the following criteria:

2 + years consistent and substantial teaching experience in HE (this cannot be constituted as having been teaching at Bangor whilst registered for, and not successfully completing the PGCertHE).

Fellow of Higher Education Academy. Teachers arriving at Bangor with more than three years relevant experience in higher education and are not Fellows of the HEA should seek accreditation direct through the HEA Recognition Scheme and contact the CELT Unit in the first instance. The Induction at Bangor University is compulsory and marks the official starting point for the PGCertHE. It is from this point only that all elements of summative assessment start including the action research element of the portfolio. Candidates preparing for the PGCertHE or those waiting for a suitable induction date are encouraged to engage with the learning and teaching literature and liaise with PGCertHE staff to gain advice about how they might make the most effective use of their time prior to starting.

14

1.7. The CELT Unit

The PGCertHE programme is coordinated through the CELT Unit and School of

Education Current staff include:

Member of staff

Email Telephone Position

Professor Oliver Turnbull

o.turnbull@bangor.ac.uk 3670 PVC Teaching and Learning

Dr Dave Perkins

d.perkins@bangor.ac.uk 2513 OER Leader

Dr Frances Garrad-Cole

f.g.cole@bangor.ac.uk 8714 Assessment and Feedback

Dr Andy Webb

a.webb@bangor.ac.uk 8624 Module Review and evaluation

Dr Charles Buckley

c.a.buckley@bangor.ac.uk 3086 Educational Developer and director PGCertHE

Dr Sue Clayton

sue.clayton@bangor.ac.uk 2604 Head of Continuing Professional Development

Dr Thomas Caspari

t.caspari@bangor.ac.uk 2526 Educational Research

Dr Rosanna Robinson

r.l.robinson@bangor.ac.uk 3696 Mentoring program

Jo Caulfield j.caulfield@bangor.ac.uk 8462 Student Engagement

Nic Kirby celt@bangor.ac.uk 2002 Administrator

We offer, for both new and experienced academic staff, opportunities for the development and enhancement of skills and good practice in a range of aspects of teaching, learning and assessment. The CELT Unit promotes and conducts research into effective teaching & learning, and encourages and supports innovation to enhance the practice and understanding of effective teaching.

1.8. Your Teaching Advisor Following the induction, you will work alongside a Teacher Advisor. These are experienced staff who act as advisors to colleagues on the programme. Where you have been allocated a Mentor by your Head of School, that person can also act as the Teacher Advisor. You are expected to have a Teacher Advisor from

15

your own disciplinary area wherever possible. Please consult your Head of School to assign a suitable person. Advisors help in offering support about your engagement with the UKPSF and act as the first line of peer review and are able to offer feedback on the candidate’s portfolio. PhD supervisors would not normally act as an Advisor. It is expected that your Teacher Advisor will:

1. Have regular meetings with you (see Appendix 1) for template to record meetings).

i. the meetings are informal and can act as feedback about a teaching session or be an opportunity to discuss any issues raised about current teaching methods;

ii. it will be helpful to keep a record of all meetings and conversations about aspects of your progress.

2. Ensure that you are familiar with the areas of responsibility of colleagues in the School, reporting lines and “local” practices in respect of regulations relating to student learning.

3. Provide evaluative feedback to you on activities related to:

i. design of teaching sessions and other learner support action; ii. assessment and giving feedback to students; iii. activity to develop and extend the ethos of learning for personal

growth; iv. reflective practices and personal development.

4. Provide help (where needed) to organise opportunities for you to

observe or work alongside more experienced colleagues. The role should be interpreted flexibly. The primary consideration is to encourage and develop confidence in the teaching role in the context of the individual’s development as an academic. This also means offering guidance on such matters as:

5. Help in prioritising teaching, research and other responsibilities within the School;

6. Provide guidance on how best you might make contributions to the wider academic life of the University in formal and informal ways (e.g. committees, working groups and projects).

7. The Teaching Advisor should provide you with formative feedback on

the development of your portfolio throughout the scheme. Teaching Advisors also undertake peer observation of the participant during Stage 1 and provide a reference at the end of Stage 2.

16

1.9. The CELT Tutor

Each practitioner is assigned a Tutor from the CELT Unit with whom they can consult about issues relating to academic development, clarification about aspects of the course, assessment advice, pedagogical research and writing assignments and advice on networking opportunities. The CELT Tutor is also required to provide a peer observation at Stage 1 for colleagues for whom the award is compulsory. During the first Stage of the award there are Tutor meetings where coverage of the UKPSF is discussed as well as progress with broader issues.

1.10. Booking and Registration Application forms are available through the CELT Website and should be submitted to the PGCertHE Administrator. The PGCertHE is open to all staff teaching at any level, both full time and part time. However practitioners completing the full award must evidence a minimum of 100 hours teaching (including preparation, assessment, support of web-based learning etc) whilst enrolled on the whole programme. The teaching experience must be congruent with the learning outcomes of the PGCertHE which is based around action research, intervention and evaluation to enhance provision. Formal registration for the programme takes place prior to the Induction. To request and book a place on the programme please follow the links on the CELT website. Once a place has been allocated, participants should return the Confirmation Form at least four weeks before the date for the Induction (please refer to the PGCertHE Website for dates)

1.11. Welsh and English The PGCertHE is committed to the Bangor University’s strategy to promote learning and teaching through the medium of Welsh. There is the opportunity to take a Welsh-medium residential programme and a number of workshops in Welsh. Practitioners enrolling on the course are advised to liaise with the PGCertHE team to ensure that the workshops they choose fulfil the requirements of the UK Professional Standards Framework. In common with all Bangor University courses, assessed work may be submitted in either English or Welsh. Some colleagues to submit work bilingually. The staff coordinating the PGCertHE work closely with Y Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol who provide a range of suitable academic development workshops through the medium of Welsh.

1.12. Course structure Following the three induction days there are regular workshops offered by the CELT throughout the year. In addition, there is an annual PGCertHE Teaching and Learning Conference where colleagues are required to present some of their research. In addition to the academic development workshops running throughout the year there are also a range of other events organised through CELT and support sessions. There are also a range of other suitable events within Bangor and beyond on themes around learning and teaching. Some of

17

these are available online such as webinars and a selection are advertised on the PGCertHE website and Blackboard. The following table provides an overview of a typical award for Stage 1 and 2 including an indication of typical milestones.

18

Stage 1 Stage 2

Sem. 1 Sem 2 Sem. 3 Sem. 4

Induction Activities

Three-day induction at Bangor

Reflective and evaluative accounts of teaching

First account

Present First or second account at Conference

Second account

Third account

Pedagogic Research Project or negotiated study

CPD Workshops

Core Workshops (2 at stage 1, 4 per year at stage 2)

Advisor meetings

Advisor meetings (2 per sem.)

Teaching Observations

Observations by advisor

Observation by CELT Tutor if probationary requirement (1)

Observation by peer

Observations by you

Optional Group and Individual Meetings

Group or individual meetings with CELT Tutor

Individual meetings with Advisor

Grid to map against UKPSF (new from Sept 2015)

Plan for Stage 2

Revised Learning Statement

Submissions of Portfolio

Final preparation of portfolio

Advisor reads and writes reference (Stage 2)

Submission of portfolios

19

2. Assessment The PGCertHE is assessed through portfolios submitted at the end of each stage. A teaching portfolio is a personal record of your professional development as an HE educator. It consists of a carefully selected collection of material gathered from your teaching work. These are collated into a structured, evidenced presentation of your achievement of the learning outcomes for the programme. The PGCertHE is assessed via electronic portfolios because it provides a way for individual participants in different teaching contexts to evidence the development of their own expertise. The portfolio should be submitted electronically The Reflective and Evaluative Accounts of Teaching and Stage 1 and 2, Action-based Research Project and/or Negotiated Study MUST also be submitted through Turnitin via the PGCertHE Blackboard site. Most importantly, the portfolios should indicate that you have reflected on your experiences over the course of the Scheme, engaged suitably with the UKPSF and this has guided your thoughts about continuing professional development. Feedback from students should also be seen to guide this process. In addition, there needs to be evidence that you have engaged with relevant pedagogical and academic literature and indicated how this has influenced your teaching. The portfolio should be accessible to the reader and the use of a contents page is recommended with matching page numbers for relevant sections. Please use the referencing system adopted by your School ensuring correct conventions are applied. An exception to using your School referencing system would be during Stage 2 if you submit work which is written in the style of a journal article whereby the style adopted in the target journal should be used. In brief, the required content (please make sure you include all of the following as missing content will affect assessment and likely result in a referred portfolio) for the PGCertHE portfolio is:

2.1. Stage 1 Portfolio

Assessment Methods Stage 1 Learning Outcomes

1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 3a

3b 3c 3d

Portfolio of evidence (9,500 words

equivalent, excluding references) to

include the following:

x x x x x

x x

x x

Reflective Learning Statement and

feedback (500 words)

x x

Presentation and feedback 10 minutes (850

words equivalent) x x x x x

Poster at Induction with reflection on

feedback (1000 words equivalent) x x x x x

3 x Session Plans (300 words each) x x x x x x x x

20

3 peer observations (sessions are usually 1

or 2 hours with time for discussion before

and following the session typically half an

hour) 750 words each

x x x x x

x x

x x

Reflective and evaluative account of

teaching 2000 words x x x x x x x x x

2 evaluations of workshops/CPD events

500 words each x x x x

Grid to show mapping against UKPSF

(500 words) x x x x x x x x x

Plan for Stage Two 500 words x x x x

21

2.2. Stage 2 Portfolio

Assessment Methods Stage 2 Learning Outcomes

Portfolio of evidence (10,500 words

equivalent excluding reference lists and

Advisor letter) to include the following:

1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 3a

Teaching Advisor reference (1000words) x x x x

Reflection on Stage 1 (400 words)

2 x Reflective and evaluative account of

teaching (2000 words each) OR 1 x Action-

based Research Project (4000 words) OR

negotiated assessment (4000 words)

x x

x x x x x x x

Presentation to colleagues (10 minutes) 850

words equivalent

x x x x x x x x

2 peer observations 750 words each

(sessions are usually 1 or 2 hours with time

for discussion before and following the

session typically half an hour) and 2

associated Session Plans (300 words each)

x x x x x

CPD event/Workshop evaluations (4 per

year) 500 words each (estimate 2000 as

average completion time should be one year

for this stage)

x x x x x x x x

Grid to show mapping against UKPSF (500

words) x

x x x x x

x x x

Revised learning statement and plan for

continuing professional development 650

words

x x x x

22

2.3. Assessments in detail

2.3.1. Induction assignments

2.3.1.1. A short learning statement

(500 words) on the topic of your approach to learning and teaching is shared with other colleagues at the Induction. This learning statement represents the programme participants’ thoughts and perceptions on teaching and learning in higher education, in particular, in their subject area. It is intended to be reflective and to provide a basis for discussion. It will provide a baseline from which to develop professionally as a teacher and facilitator of learning. Programme participants will be given the opportunity in the first session of the Induction to discuss their and others’ statements. Any feedback they receive should be recorded and included in their portfolio along with the Statement itself. Five copies of the essay will be required at the Induction.

2.3.1.2. Presentation:

During the Induction, each programme participant will give a ten-minute presentation to a small group on a topic relating to their teaching and learning. The presentation may be delivered in any way chosen by participant. Participants will be given the opportunity to decide with their peers the type of feedback they would like to receive, but it will probably include the strengths and weaknesses of the content, style, form and delivery. Feedback will be given at the end of each presentation and should be recorded and included in the portfolio along with the presentation itself and a short reflective account. PowerPoint, Prezi, can be used and there will be laptops and flipcharts will all be available and it is up to the individual as to what resources they chose to use – it is as perfectly acceptable to stand and talk without visual aids as it is to bring a pre-prepared PowerPoint presentation.

2.3.1.3. Poster:

During the induction, participants present an A1 flipchart outlining their plan for their first proposed reflective and evaluative account of teaching It should include: • A description and evaluation of present teaching situation and participant’s reasons for wishing to undertake development • The teaching innovation participant wishes to apply supported by theoretical underpinning • The evaluation method participant will use to assess its success Word processed A4 versions of the poster should be available as handouts at the presentation. The posters will be discussed within a small group and feedback should be recorded and included in the portfolio. Programme participants should include in their portfolios, an A4 copy of the poster, personal

23

reflections and any modifications made to the action plan following the discussion.

2.3.2. Peer observations and Session Plans

Each participant is expected to submit peer observations using the template (Appendix 2) with associated session plans. (see Appendix 3 for an example). The peer observations have 4 sections to them: • A summary of the session being observed including learning outcomes and areas that require feedback • Feedback from the observer • A joint discussion between the observer and teacher about the feedback provided • An action plan by the teacher for future sessions. Teaching observations may be undertaken in any order and at any point during the award (it is recommended however, that they are evenly spread to allow for evaluation and reflection), involving teaching in any context (not only lectures but seminars, tutorials, supervisions, practical classes, fieldwork, video conferencing or e-learning activities). In the case of a one-to-one event, permission should be asked of the student involved. Template forms and Session Plans are available in this Handbook and on the PGCertHE website. Each teaching observation form should be included in the portfolio. It is particularly important to complete the reflective elements of the teaching observation form.

2.3.3. Reflective and Evaluative account of teaching:

Much of the learning in the programme is work-based. The programme participant’s normal teaching duties provide the context for teaching interventions, which form some of evidence base for the portfolio. The method used for the teaching interventions, action research, is one of self-reflective enquiry in cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting to improve the understanding and quality of one’s own educational practice. Action plans, specified in terms of expected outcomes, allow interim modifications to be made, and actual outcomes are recorded, interpreted and reviewed for future application. Reflective practitioners automatically use such planning and reviewing activities as part of their professional behaviour. For the purposes of the PGCertHE, this assessment is important evidence of the participant’s developing knowledge and skills of teaching and learning in their particular context, as well as their ability to evaluate practice and develop professionally. Choosing appropriate areas of focus for the reflective account, Project or Negotiated Study is therefore crucial to producing a successful portfolio. A suggested structure for the report (although this is open to individual interpretation) is:

24

1. An account of the issue including reference to appropriate literature on teaching and learning in HE.

2. A plan highlighting proposed teaching practice, intended outcomes and method of evaluation.

3. Progress notes on teaching practice and any interim modifications. 4. Summary of relevant data and feedback on student learning. 5. Evaluation of student learning experience in relation to intended outcomes. 6. Comments on implications for professional development of teaching

practice. The report should be underpinned by relevant theoretical analysis using a suitable range of learning and teaching literature. The length of each report should be approximately 2000 words (excluding references) and be referenced using the Harvard style. The report can be written in the style of an article to be submitted for publication. The style of presentation is flexible although it should provide a coherent analysis of the situation, present a clear argument and demonstrate a good command of grammatical conventions. Regardless of format, the report should demonstrate an understanding of how aspects of pedagogical theory inform practice. This should be commensurate with working at postgraduate level. Reflective and Evaluative Accounts can be presented as a report. One of the accounts may be presented in the form of a poster. The CELT Unit encourage a flexible approach to the style used to produce reports which may take the form of an academic journal article. The assessment can be presented in many ways and if you have an innovative approach you wish to trial for presenting, please consult with your CELT Tutor.

2.3.4. Evaluation of workshops Programme participants are required to attend and evaluate workshops identified as counting for the PGCertHE during the programme. The series of workshops is designed to address the key requirements of the UKPSF. The workshops offer the opportunity to engage with current scholarship and practice in higher education in order to inform participants’ approaches to understanding student learning in their own specific context. Knowledge gained from the workshops provides a useful basis for preparing the portfolio. Participants need to provide an evaluation of each workshop (one to two pages). The evaluation should be presented in a suitable format although the subheadings are not prescribed. Should you prefer to use a template, please see Appendix 4. Evaluations will likely report on things such as implications for the participant’s teaching, critical comment on the potential of the theoretical underpinnings presented and any planned interventions as a result of attending the workshop. The evaluations should be submitted in the end-of-course portfolios. You will be issued with a certificate of attendance; a photocopy of this should be included with each evaluation. The workshops are delivered by the programme team, internal and external trainers. Please see the CELT website for updated lists of workshops. There are also workshops offered through Y Coleg as well as the Learning Technology Team. In addition there are events which can support your professional development and coverage of the UKPSF with external providers such as JISC and the HEA.

25

2.3.5. Plan for Stage 2 Regardless of whether colleagues are continuing with Stage 2 or not, the portfolio should provide a plan which looks forward and outlines how the action research and reflection incorporated during the first Stage could be developed further. Colleagues who exit at this stage might re-engage at a later date and the purpose of this exercise is to reflect on the lessons learnt during Stage 1 and indicate what the next steps might be. The way this section is structured is flexible although it should give a clear indication of the way in which the project (s) at Stage 2 will be implemented whether it be two more reflective accounts, an Action-based Research-Project or Negotiated Assessment. The focus here should be on the two planned Reflective and Evaluative Accounts of Teaching, Action-based Research Project or negotiated Study. Please ensure you make reference to how you plan to cover the remaining elements of the UKPSF.

2.3.6. Action-based research project (Stage 2 only)

At Stage 2, practitioners have the choice of continuing with two more reflective and evaluative accounts to follow the one they produced for Stage 1. Alternatively, they can opt to work on a pedagogical action research project which should be written as a potentially publishable article for a learning and teaching journal. This provides an opportunity for colleagues to focus in more depth over stage 2 into a specific area of pedagogic research and it would be expected that there will be a critical engagement with appropriate literature with a sound methodology and method to underpin the project.

2.3.7. Negotiated Assessment (Stage 2 only) This assessment aims to enable practitioners to explore an aspect of their current practices of research within their discipline and show how these have influenced their learning and teaching practice. Practitioners will critically evaluate different research approaches and consider the impact of these on their academic practice. The focus of the study should be negotiated with the practitioner’s Advisor with the support of the CELT Tutor prior to starting Stage 2. It is important that practitioners obtain approval from their CELT Tutor prior to starting the Negotiated Assessment to ensure that it is likely to meet the learning outcomes. Colleagues can select an appropriate mode of assessment to demonstrate critical and professional understanding in this area ensuring that the work is equivalent to 4000w. Topics might include:

What is research and how can it influence student learning?

Involving students in the research process.

Disciplinary research collaborations and their potential for enhancing the

student learning experience.

Exploring the differences between pedagogic and disciplinary research.

Using research methodology to help structure student learning

Collaborative research with students

26

Supervising research students

Submissions will be assessed against the learning outcomes for this module. The table below indicates how some of the learning outcomes might be applied to this study.

Example: Stage 2 Outcomes Example assessment

1.c. Demonstrate their commitment to continuing professional development in their subject and their pedagogy, incorporating research, scholarship and the evaluation of professional practice

Identify the philosophical underpinnings associated with your disciplinary research and indicate how these might inform your university practice.

2.b. Show an ability to understand how their students learn most effectively

Indicate how your research practice has been used to inform module assessments, planning for teaching and develop a deeper approach to learning amongst your students.

2.c. Critically reflect on the use and value of recent technology-enhanced learning developments in Higher Education.

Demonstrate critically how your practice has evolved to embrace a more blended approach to teaching and facilitating student learning.

2.d. Show an ability to critically analyse and apply a range of methods for evaluating their teaching.

Critically evaluate feedback from student evaluations about your research and reflect upon ways in which this has influenced your teaching practices.

2.3.8. Presentation to colleagues (Stage 2) At Stage 2, you should provide an account of a 10 minute presentation of your first or second reflective and evaluative account of teaching or progress on your action-based research project or Negotiated Assessment). This can be at a PGCertHE event such as the Induction to new colleagues when you are part way through your award or to colleagues in your School. If you are presenting at a conference, you might choose this as an opportunity to disseminate your PGCertHE work and gain feedback. It is up to you to organise this in liaison with your Teaching Adviser and CELT Tutor. You should write this as a short report (include your slides/resources if you wish) including any ideas/feedback you received to help inform your practice.

2.3.9. Revised Learning Statement and CPD Plan The PGCertHE is designed to encourage you to become a more reflective practitioner and develop yourself to better understand the student learning experience. This statement should show how involvement in the course has affected your thinking about student learning in higher education and what development opportunities you plan to follow in your future teaching career.

27

2.3.10. Grid to show mapping against UKPSF (new for

Sept 2015) This is a brief resume of the activities, which provide examples of how you have evidenced the UKPSF holistically across the dimensions and descriptors. At least 2 Areas of Activity must be evidenced at the end of Stage 1 together with appropriate areas of Core Knowledge and Professional Values. At the end of Stage 2, you should There must be a minimum of 6 and maximum of 12 contrasting activities, which demonstrate the depth, and breadth of your contribution to teaching and learning. You must reference the relevant dimension of practice A, K, V.

Activity A1-5 K 1-6 V 1-4

e.g. initiated a series of short formative assessment activities for the students in Module AB1234.

A1, A3 K2, K3 V1, V2

e.g. attended CPD workshop facilitated by Kate Exely November 2015 on Principles of Assessment and, following this, have introduced informal peer reviewing with students. Held focus groups with some of the students during the module to obtain their feedback on the initiative.

A1, A2, A3, A5 K1, K2, K3, K5 V1, V2, V3

e.g. comments from Teaching Advisor during peer observation suggested more variety needed in some of the slides used for PowerPoint presentation. As follow-up, have embedded some video clips within the presentation and incorporated

A1, A2, A3, A4 K1, K2, K3, K4 V1, V2

28

more images into some slides

e.g. listened to recorded webinar on learning and teaching from (locate source/provide link) and have evaluated this. The session covered key issues in enhancing quality assurance and enhancement in HE teaching. The presentation offered a series of short cases from different universities

A5 K1, K2, K4, K6 V3, V4

2.3.11. Teacher Advisor letter/reference Your Advisor writes this letter when they have read your final portfolio and is an endorsement from them about the extent to which the work meets the assessment criteria contained in the award. In addition, it should reflect the ways in which your portfolio maps against the UKPSF. Advisors are also welcome to provide an overview of the ways in which you have developed your own practice, worked with students and staff within your School and perhaps beyond to enhance the learning experience of students. In this way, the reference is mostly about how the portfolio meets the criteria for the award which is why working closely with your Advisor throughout is important and that they have access to your written materials and not just your teaching through the peer observation system.

29

2.4. Assessment

Portfolios submitted by practitioners who started September 2014 or later are assessed using the new Bangor University Categorical marking Scheme and mapped against the guidelines contained within: www.bangor.ac.uk/regulations/regulations/reg01.php.en Please see Appendix 5 and 6 which specify the criteria for assessment and Descriptors for Stage 1 and 2 respectively.

2.5. Submission of Portfolio

There are two submission opportunities per year. The portfolio should be submitted at any point specified by the CELT Unit. Stage 1 should be completed in one year Stage 2 can be completed in up to a further two years. If candidates do not submit within the three-year period will fail by default. Should there be extenuating circumstances and a request for an extension, there will need to be a form endorsed by the Teaching Advisor, Head of School and PGCertHE Director). Forms are available from the administrator of the PGCertHE. Candidates should indicate their intention to submit and requests for extensions at least 8 weeks before the intended submission date so that appropriate assessors from adjoining disciplines can be booked. Please indicate on the form if you intend to submit through the medium of Welsh so that Welsh-speaking assessors can be approached. Forms are available from the administrator.

2.6. Referrals and Fails Where assessors judge that a portfolio does not meet the requirements to achieve a pass, the portfolio is referred. Referred portfolios will also be read by the internal moderator, and where the referral is agreed by the Examination Board, the candidate will be informed and given guidance concerning what needs to be done to demonstrate performance of the learning outcomes. Referred portfolios and fails must be re-submitted within one year of the initial submission date. Portfolios may be resubmitted on one occasion. For those who do not pass following the re-submission deadline for whom the PGCertHE is a requirement of probation, the candidate must re-register for the PGCertHE as they would not be deemed to have reached the necessary level of competency expected by Bangor University.

30

3. Introductory Resources

3.1. Websites

Higher Education Academy (HEA) http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ The Academy's role is to be a nationwide focus for enhancing teaching, learning and students' experiences in higher education. They work with institutions, discipline groups and individual staff within the four countries of the UK.

Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) http://www.seda.ac.uk/ SEDA is the professional association for staff and educational developers in the UK, promoting innovation and good practice in higher education.

Jorum is an online portal sharing and discussing learning and teaching resources, shared by the UK Further and Higher Education community.http://www.jorum.ac.uk/

Joint Information Systems Committee http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ The mission of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) is to provide world-class leadership in the innovative use of ICT to support education and research.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education http://www.qaa.ac.ukThe mission of the QAA is to safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher education qualifications and to inform and encourage continuous improvement in the management of the quality of higher education.

Technical Advisory Service for Images http://www.tasi.ac.uk/training/training.html The Technical Advisory Service for Images is a JISC funded service. It provides advice and guidance to the UK's Further and Higher Education community on the issues of: Creating digital images (including raster, vector and animated formats); Delivering digital images to users; using digital images to support teaching, learning and research and managing both small and large scale digitisation projects.

Deliberations http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/ is an international website on issues of learning and teaching for the higher education community.

Centre for Recording Achievement http://www.recordingachievement.org/ is a national network organisation and a registered educational charity. It seeks to ‘promote the awareness of recording achievement and action planning processes as an important element in improving learning and progression throughout the world of education, training and employment’.

31

3.2. Key reading

There is a more extensive reading list on the CELT website

Essential Reading (in Library) Core texts:

Fry, H., Ketteridge, S, and Marshall, S. (2008) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (3rd Edition) London, Routledge

McDowell, L., Sambell, K. and Montgomery, C. (2011) Assessment for Learning in Higher Education: A Practical Guide to Developing Learning Communities. London, Routledge

Norton, L. (2008) Action Research in Teaching and Learning: A Practical Guide to Conducting Pedagogical Research in Universities London, Routledge

Race, P (2006) The Lecturer’s Toolkit, (3rd edition), London: Kogan Page.

Salmon, G. (2011) E-Moderating The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, 3rd Edition London, Routledge

Salmon, G. (2013) E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning (2nd Edition) London, Routledge

Recommended reading:

Barrett, T and Moore, S. (2010) New Approaches to Problem-based Learning: Revitalizing your Practice in Higher Education. London, Routledge

Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (Editors) 2nd Edition (2013) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning London Routledge.

Campbell, A. and Norton, L. (2007) Learning, Teaching and Assessing in Higher Education: Developing Reflective Practice (Teaching in Higher Education): Developing Reflective Practice London, Learning Matters Limited

Cousin, G. (2008) Researching Learning in Higher Education: An Introduction to Contemporary Methods and Approaches. London Routledge

Fisher, A. Exely, K. and Clobanu, D. (2013) Using Technology to Support learning and Teaching. London Taylor and Francis.

Harland, T. (2012) University Teaching: An Introductory Guide. London Routledge

Hunt, L and Chalmers, D. (2012) University Teaching in Focus. London Routledge

Kreber, C. (Editor) (2009) The University and it's Disciplines. Teaching and Learning within and Beyond Disciplinary Boundaries. London Routledge

Light G, Cox, R. and Calkin, S. (2009) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education The Reflective Professional London Sage

Means, B., Bakia, M. and Murphy, R. (2014) Learning Online. What Research tells us about Whether, When and How. London Routledge

32

Mortiboys, A. (2011) second edit. Teaching with Emotional Intelligence London Routledge

Littlejohn, A. and Pedlar, C. (2014) Preparing for Blended e-learning: Understanding Blended and Online Learning (Connecting with E-Learning). London Routledge

Savin-Baden, M. (2007) A Practical Guide to Problem-Based Learning Online. London Routledge

Schiller, M Cockell, J and McArthur Blair, J. (2012) Appreciative Inquiry London Routledge

Key Journals

Active Learning in Higher Education

Gwerddon

Higher Education Quarterly

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Internet and Higher Education

Journal of Further and Higher Education

Studies in Higher Education

33

Appendix 1 PGCertHE Scheme Meeting with Teacher Advisor (This form is available electronically from the CELT/ PGCertHE website)

Name: …………………………………………….. Date: ……………………………….. This form records the purposes and outcomes of a meeting with your Teacher Advisor. What do you want to get out of this meeting? Topics for discussion. Outcomes and planned actions How well is the UKPSF being covered?

Please ask your Teacher Advisor to countersign this form. The top sheet should be kept in your Portfolio The copy should be given to your Teacher Advisor

34

Appendix 2 Peer Observation Form

PGCertHE programme Please complete this form and forward it to the observer before the session.

Name

Date Module/Course Unit

Level / Year

Mode e.g. Full time Part time

Composition of the student group

Type of activity, e.g. lecture, Seminar

Topic Number of Students

Observer Length of the session Hours Minutes

Length of the observation 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.

How do these learning objectives relate to the Programme Specification and other modules?

As well as general observations, on what particular aspects would you like feedback? 1. 2. 3.

35

PEER OBSERVATION : Reflection and Discussion The lecturer, following discussion with the observer, should complete this form. A copy should be given to the observer.

1. What did you feel were the most important points in your discussions with the observer? 2. Will you make changes to any of the following? If so, what? If not, why? a) the particular or similar sessions b) the module programme c) to your teaching more generally 3. Any other comments about the observation.

Feedback to help the observer to be more effective in fulfilling this role in the future

36

Observation and Feedback

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. 2. 3.

37

Observation notes: Please comment on the session in relation to the learning objectives:

Observation and Feedback

Please summarise the key points from your observation for discussion with your colleague

Overall quality and the strengths of the teaching in relation to the objectives:

Suggestions for enhancing the teaching and learning.

Observer: Name

Signature Date

38

Appendix 3 Example Session Plan

Session Plan Topic: Bangor Programme Introduction Aim: To introduce the course and key ideas in teaching and learning within local and wider contexts Learning Outcomes: you will be able to:

Understand the course aims, ethos , structure and expectations

Consider Bangor and wider contexts of learning and teaching in H.E.

Engage with key concepts of reflective practice and aligned session planning.

Reflect on your own conceptions of the teaching role and professional needs.

Time: Content T & L Methods Resources Assessment1

10.00 10.20 10.30 11.15 11.30 11.45

Welcome , introductions, session overview

Bangor and wider contexts for learning and teaching in H.E.

PGCertHE course aims and expectations: what is a Reflective and Evaluative Account of Teaching?

The Reflective Practitioner Introduction to planning learning Next steps

Warm up activity ( all) Presentation Presentation and discussion Active learning: Whole group activity Small group activity Presentation

PowerPoint and Projector Handbook Web links Handouts Post its and flip chart Session Plan example & blank pro-formas

Question and answer Draft Learning Statements and session plans to discuss in tutorial groups.

1At the session level this is usually linked to formative assessment techniques –checking understanding - could be tutor, peer or self assessment

39

Reflections:

Did the plan work/go to plan? If not why?

What went well and why?

What didn’t go so well and why?

What would you do differently next time and why

40

Appendix 4 Evaluation of workshop (500 words)

What were the strengths of the session? How might it be developed to be more relevant to you?

What are the implications for your continuing professional development following attendance at this event? How might this event inform your teaching? How do feel that the theoretical underpinnings of this session were integrated with practical aspects of learning and teaching?

41

Appendix 5. Marking Criteria PGCertHE XVE 4008/XVC4008 Teaching and Learning in H E/Addysgu a Dysgu Mewn A. U.

Categorical Mark

Degree Class Master’s

General Overview

within class

Primary marking criteria

Secondary marking criteria Descriptor

A* Distinction Outstanding Comprehensive knowledge

Detailed understanding of the subject area

Extensive background study

Highly focussed answer and well structured

Logically presented and defended arguments

No factual/computational errors

Original interpretation

New links between topics are developed

New approach to a problem

Excellent presentation with very accurate communication

Exceeds expectations for most primary criteria

Complete command of subject and other relevant areas

Ideas/arguments are highly original

The work is exceptionally well-written and presented. The work demonstrates that the practitioner has an excellent understanding of planning for learning activities and/or programmes of study in their discipline and how students learn most effectively. There will be outstanding examples of innovative practice which show an excellent knowledge and critical understanding of how students learn most effectively. There is an excellent commitment to continued professional development. The research which has been presented is likely to be of a quality suitable for publication There should be outstanding engagement with relevant pedagogical literature. There is also excellent evidence that they can employ and effectively evaluate a wide range of methods for their teaching. There are excellent examples of innovative thinking in the practices of the practitioner who has shown that they readily respond to others’ comments

A+ Excellent Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Complete command of subject

ideas/arguments are highly original

A Good Meets all primary criteria

Command of subject but with minor gaps in knowledge

Ideas/arguments are mostly original

A- Meets requirements

of Class

Meets most but not all primary criteria

Command of subject but with some gaps in knowledge

Ideas/arguments are mostly original

42

and have embedded evaluation in their professional practice. The portfolio is outstanding and shows evidence of independent critical thought and excellent levels of reflection throughout. There is a clear commitment to respecting individual learners and insightful analysis of the wider context in which higher education operates.

B+ Merit Good Strong knowledge

Understands most but not all of the subject area

Evidence of background study

Focussed answer with good structure

Arguments presented coherently

Mostly free of factual/computational errors

Some limited original interpretation

Well known links between topics are described

Problems addressed by existing methods/approaches

Good presentation with accurate communication

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Command of subject but with gaps in knowledge

Some ideas/arguments are original

The work is sound and convincing, well-written and presented. There is good evidence of the practitioner having a sound knowledge how to plan effectively for student learning in their discipline. There will be examples of very good practice which reflects the practitioner understands of how students learn. The practitioner will have shown a commitment to continued professional development and there is sound evidence that background research and study has informed practice. Appropriate methods of evaluation should be evident to augment a sound knowledge of teaching methods. There should be evidence of critical thinking and innovative practices which have been informed by suitable levels of reflection .There will be a clear acknowledgement of the wider

B Mid-level Meets all primary criteria

Strong factual knowledge and understanding

Ideas/arguments are well presented but few are original

B- Meets requirements

of Class

Meets most but not all primary criteria

Strong factual knowledge with minor weaknesses in understanding

Most but not all ideas/arguments are well presented and few are original

43

context in which higher education operates and examples of showing respect for individual learners.

C+ Pass Good within the Class

Knowledge of key areas/principles

Understands the main elements of the subject area

Limited evidence of background study

Answer focussed on question but also with some irrelevant material and weaknesses in structure

Arguments presented but lack coherence

Has several factual/computational errors

No original interpretation

Only major links between topics are described

Limited problem solving

Some weaknesses in presentation and accuracy

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Strong factual knowledge with some weaknesses in understanding

Ideas/arguments are limited but are well presented

The work will be reasonably well-presented and text will be clear, but may be flawed by some grammatical errors that nevertheless do not obscure the meaning. There may be some factual errors and shortcomings in terms of coverage of issues although the work will demonstrate sufficient knowledge of some key issues in learning and teaching. The practitioner will demonstrate knowledge of key issues associated with planning for effective learning. They should show that they have a suitable understanding of the ways in which students learn. There should be some engagement with continuing professional development activity and evidence that work has been informed by research and scholarship although this will likely be underdeveloped. The practitioner will show that they have the ability to be reflective although this is likely to be limited and not feedback effectively into their practice. There will be some evidence of showing their commitment to

C Mid-Level Matches all primary criteria

Moderate factual knowledge with some weaknesses in understanding

Ideas/arguments are limited with weaknesses in logic/presentation

C- Meets requirements

of class

Matches most but not all primary criteria

Moderate factual knowledge with several weaknesses in understanding

Ideas/arguments are limited with weaknesses in logic/presentation

44

respecting individual learners and an acknowledgement of the wider context in which higher education operates although this will be limited.

D+ Compensatable fail

Good within the Class

Knowledge of key areas/principles only

Weaknesses in understanding of the subject area

Limited evidence of background study

Answer only poorly focussed on question and with some irrelevant material and poor structure

Arguments presented but lack coherence

Several factual/computational errors

No original interpretation

Only major links between topics are described

Limited problem solving

Many weaknesses in presentation and accuracy

For PGT - Insufficient to fulfil

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Moderate factual knowledge with several weaknesses in understanding

A few ideas/arguments are presented but with weaknesses

There will be some factual errors. Significant grammatical and/or structural deficiencies may mar the text, leaving the reader to have too much to do to discern the intended sense of the argument. There will be evidence that the practitioner has a basic grasp of the ways in which students learn in their discipline but with several shortcomings. There will be an indication that they have some insights into the key issues associated with planning for effective learning although this will have limited scope. There will be a limited level of examples and indicators of understanding about the ways in which students learn most effectively. There will be limited engagement with continuing professional development and whilst research and scholarship forms part of their practice, it is mostly lacking and arguments are personalized. There will be a superficial level of reflection evident although the practitioner will struggle to show how this has informed their practice and

D Mid-level Matches all primary criteria

Limited factual knowledge with several weaknesses in understanding

Very few ideas/arguments are presented

D- Meets requirements

of Class

Matches most but not all primary criteria

Limited factual knowledge with many weaknesses in understanding

Very few ideas/arguments are presented and with errors in logic/presentation

45

the associated learning outcomes

development. There will be a little evidence that they have shown a commitment to respecting individual learners and understanding how higher education operates in the wider community.

E Fail Borderline fail/Non-

compensatable fail

Insufficient to fulfil the associated learning outcomes

Deficiencies in knowledge even of key areas/principles

No evidence of understanding, even of main areas

No evidence of background study

Answer relies on tangential material and lacks a coherent structure

No arguments presented

Many factual/computational errors

No original interpretation

No links between topics are described

No attempt to solve problems

The presentation is very weak containing many inaccuracies

Exceeds expectations for most primary criteria

Very limited factual knowledge with many weaknesses in understanding

Weak attempt to answer/address question

The portfolio is poorly presented and structured and there are grammatical errors. There is limited evidence of effective planning and little indication that the practitioner understands the ways in which students learn most effectively. Engagement with continuing professional development activities will be very limited and there will be inadequate use of research and scholarship to inform their practice. The practitioner will show a limited ability to use reflective practice to inform their practice and there will be inadequate commitment to showing they have the ability to respect individual learners and understand the way in which higher education operates in the wider community.

F Fail/non-compensatable

fail

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Major gaps in knowledge/understanding

Very weak attempt to answer/address question

F (1)

Fail/non-compensatable

fail

Matches all primary criteria

Very limited evidence of knowledge/understanding

Ideas/arguments are largely irrelevant to question

The portfolio is very poorly presented with frequent errors in grammar and an illogical structure. There is little evidence of understanding the ways in which students learn and serious flaws in planning for learning. The work

46

makes unsupported assertions and statements. There is little engagement with continuing professional development and reflection is mostly absent. The practitioner shows little attempt to respect individual learners or acknowledge the way higher education operates in the wider community.

F (2) Poor fail (non-compensatable

Matches some primary criteria

No evidence of relevant knowledge/understanding

Ideas/arguments are irrelevant to question

F (3) Very poor fail (non-

compensatable

Matches very few primary criteria

No evidence to demonstrate even cursory knowledge or understanding

No attempt to answer/address question

47

Appendix 6. Marking Criteria PGCertHE XVE 4009/XVC4009 Enhancing Academic Practice/Gwella Ymafer Academaidd

Categorical Mark

Degree Class Master’s

General Overview

within class

Primary marking criteria

Secondary marking criteria Desriptor

A* Distinction Outstanding Comprehensive knowledge

Detailed understanding of the subject area

Extensive background study

Highly focussed answer and well structured

Logically presented and defended arguments

No factual/computational errors

Original interpretation

New links between topics are developed

New approach to a problem

Excellent presentation with very accurate communication

Exceeds expectations for most primary criteria

Complete command of subject and other relevant areas

Ideas/arguments are highly original

The work is exceptionally well-written and presented. The work demonstrates that the practitioner has an excellent understanding of learning and teaching in their discipline and how students learn most effectively. They will show excellent examples of practice in assessing and providing feedback to students and commitment to excellence and regard for quality assurance issues. There is an excellent commitment to continued professional development. The research which has been presented is likely to be of a quality suitable for publication . There should be outstanding engagement with relevant pedagogical literature. There is also excellent evidence that they can employ and effectively evaluate a wide range of methods for their teaching including engagement with recent developments in technology. There are excellent examples of innovative thinking in the practices of the practitioner who has shown that they readily respond to others’ comments and have embedded evaluation in their professional practice. The portfolio is

A+ Excellent Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Complete command of subject

ideas/arguments are highly original

A Good Meets all primary criteria

Command of subject but with minor gaps in knowledge

Ideas/arguments are mostly original

A- Meets requirements

of Class

Meets most but not all primary criteria

Command of subject but with some gaps in knowledge

Ideas/arguments are mostly original

48

outstanding and shows evidence of independent critical thought and excellent levels of reflection throughout. There is a clear commitment to and excellent knowledge of the Values contained in the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF).

B+ Merit Good Strong knowledge

Understands most but not all of the subject area

Evidence of background study

Focussed answer with good structure

Arguments presented coherently

Mostly free of factual/computational errors

Some limited original interpretation

Well known links between topics are described

Problems addressed by existing methods/approaches

Good presentation with accurate communication

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Command of subject but with gaps in knowledge

Some ideas/arguments are original

The work is sound, convincing and well-written and presented. There is good evidence of the practitioner having a sound knowledge of student learning in their discipline and good examples of using assessment and feedback methods appropriately. The work shows that there is a good understanding of quality assurance issues. The practitioner will have shown a commitment to continued professional development and there is sound evidence that background research and study has informed practice. Appropriate methods of evaluation should be evident to augment a sound knowledge of teaching methods including engagement with suitable technology to support their teaching. There should be evidence of critical thinking and innovative practices which have been informed by suitable levels of reflection The work should indicate that there is a sound knowledge of and commitment to the Values within the UKPSF.

B Mid-level Meets all primary criteria

Strong factual knowledge and understanding

Ideas/arguments are well presented but few are original

B- Meets requirements

of Class

Meets most but not all primary criteria

Strong factual knowledge with minor weaknesses in understanding

Most but not all ideas/arguments are well presented and few are original

49

C+ Pass Good within the Class

Knowledge of key areas/principles

Understands the main elements of the subject area

Limited evidence of background study

Answer focussed on question but also with some irrelevant material and weaknesses in structure

Arguments presented but lack coherence

Has several factual/computational errors

No original interpretation

Only major links between topics are described

Limited problem solving

Some weaknesses in presentation and accuracy

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Strong factual knowledge with some weaknesses in understanding

Ideas/arguments are limited but are well presented

The work will be reasonably well-presented and text will be clear, but may be flawed by some grammatical errors that nevertheless do not obscure the meaning. There may be some factual errors, and shortcomings in terms of coverage of issues although the work will demonstrate sufficient knowledge of some key issues in learning and teaching. The practitioner will demonstrate knowledge of key issues associated with the ways in which students learn. They should indicate that they are able to use a range of assessment and feedback techniques and have some awareness of quality assurance issues. There should be some engagement with continuing professional development activity and evidence that work has been informed by research and scholarship although this will likely be underdeveloped. The practitioner will show that they have the ability to be reflective although this is likely to be limited and not feedback effectively into their practice. There will be evidence of engagement with elements of the Values contained within the UKPSF although this will be incomplete and there will be some deficiencies in their knowledge of the Framework.

C Mid-Level Matches all primary criteria

Moderate factual knowledge with some weaknesses in understanding

Ideas/arguments are limited with weaknesses in logic/presentation

C- Meets requirements

of class

Matches most but not all primary criteria

Moderate factual knowledge with several weaknesses in understanding

Ideas/arguments are limited with weaknesses in logic/presentation

50

D+ Compensatable fail

Good within the Class

Knowledge of key areas/principles only

Weaknesses in understanding of the subject area

Limited evidence of background study

Answer only poorly focussed on question and with some irrelevant material and poor structure

Arguments presented but lack coherence

Several factual/computational errors

No original interpretation

Only major links between topics are described

Limited problem solving

Many weaknesses in presentation and accuracy

For PGT - Insufficient to fulfil the associated learning outcomes

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Moderate factual knowledge with several weaknesses in understanding

A few ideas/arguments are presented but with weaknesses

There will be some factual errors. Significant grammatical and/or structural deficiencies may mar the text, leaving the reader to have too much to do to discern the intended sense of the argument. There will be evidence that the practitioner has a basic grasp of the ways in which students learn in their discipline but with several shortcomings. They will have used some variety in techniques for assessing and feeding back to their students but this will have little originality or innovative thought. Whilst acknowledgement to quality assurance is given, it is likely to be limited. There will be limited engagement with continuing professional development and whilst research and scholarship forms part of their practice, it is mostly lacking and the arguments are personalized. There will be a superficial level of reflection evident although the practitioner will struggle to show how this has informed their practice and development. Whilst elements of the Values associated with the UKPSF are evident in their practice, the practitioner shows a limited knowledge and engagement.

D Mid-level Matches all primary criteria

Limited factual knowledge with several weaknesses in understanding

Very few ideas/arguments are presented

D- Meets requirements

of Class

Matches most but not all primary criteria

Limited factual knowledge with many weaknesses in understanding

Very few ideas/arguments are presented and with errors in logic/presentation

E Fail Borderline fail/Non-

compensatable fail

Insufficient to fulfil the associated learning outcomes

Exceeds expectations for most primary criteria

The portfolio is poorly presented and structured and there are grammatical errors. There is limited evidence that the practitioner

51

Deficiencies in knowledge even of key areas/principles

No evidence of understanding, even of main areas

No evidence of background study

Answer relies on tangential material and lacks a coherent structure

No arguments presented

Many factual/computational errors

No original interpretation

No links between topics are described

No attempt to solve problems

The presentation is very weak containing many inaccuracies

Very limited factual knowledge with many weaknesses in understanding

Weak attempt to answer/address question

understands the ways in which students learn most effectively and limited insights of how assessment and feedback should be integrated into their teaching practice. The attention to quality assurance issues will be under-developed. Engagement with continuing professional development activities will be very limited and there will be inadequate use of research and scholarship to inform their practice. The practitioner will show a limited ability to use reflective practice to inform their practice and there will be inadequate commitment to the Values contained within the UKPSF.

F Fail/non-compensatable

fail

Exceeds expectations for some primary criteria

Major gaps in knowledge/understanding

Very weak attempt to answer/address question

F (1)

Fail/non-compensatable

fail

Matches all primary criteria

Very limited evidence of knowledge/understanding

Ideas/arguments are largely irrelevant to question

The portfolio is very poorly presented with frequent errors in grammar and an illogical structure. There is little evidence of understanding the ways in which students learn and serious flaws with the ways in which assessment and feedback have been used. Quality assurance issues have been, for the most part ignored and the work makes unsupported assertions and statements. There is little engagement with continuing professional development and reflection is mostly absent. The

F (2) Poor fail (non-compensatable

Matches some primary criteria

No evidence of relevant knowledge/understanding

Ideas/arguments are irrelevant to question

52

F (3) Very poor fail (non-

compensatable

Matches very few primary criteria

No evidence to demonstrate even cursory knowledge or understanding

No attempt to answer/address question

Values contained within the UKPSF are mostly ignored.