Students could work in small teams in a simulation scenario with an actor role-playing a patient with deteriorating health. Students are not equipped with all of the equipment that they need in order to resolve the health issue so have to work to think through what they would do in this situation. A small group of peers and facilitators can observe and provide constructive feedback following the scenario in a structured debrief.

Limitations: This would have to be carefully managed in terms of student confidence and morale. The aim is not to scare students, or to leave them feeling that they aren't able to provide good care (ie that they "failed" to effectively manage the simulation) but to prepare them for real world scenarios and encourage critical and reflexive thinking. This scenario might work better if the health wasn't critical, but a primary health need in which a healthcare professional ends up needing to contact emergency health services for support.

I think this activity might meet the principles of both pedagogies

L2L

An activity in which third year students join first year students in a peer support role to support them in their sessions around searching for evidence for their assignments. This would consolidate the learning of the third year students, but also get them thinking about the wider applications of why they do this - is it just to pass essays? Or do they need to consult the evidence base in order to provide best nursing care? For first year student nurses, the learning might be more "single loop" at this level, but they would go on to offer this as they progress through the course

Limitations- Assumes third year students are proficient at literature searching. - Timetabling differences with students being on placement at different times

Could we start the conversation about reflective writing on Module 1 by giving participants a reflection to mark and provide feedback on right at the outset of the course. So make the example descriptive but very detailed, lacking a focus on impact and where to next as well as omitting a couple of reflective the lenses. So this is a complex challenge for participants to get started with which they could think about individually at first and then with peers - I would imagine participants may say they are not in a position to be able to mark and give useful feedback at this stage - but giving it a go might mean more attention is paid to the follow up guidance shared and more powerful in demonstrating the value of the what, why, impact, where next structure and what each reflective lens could bring to the reflective piece - in order to show how much learning can be taken from a reflection if approached in more depth using the afore mentioned elements.

Would need to also make time for participants to unpack what has happened here hopefully as part of their learning fro them to then explicitly recognise what we have tried to do with them so then they can consider the value of employing a similar, productive failure approach, within their teaching.

Potential constraints - there is a risk this could put participants off right from the outset of the course - they might be scared off straight away and somewhat overwhelmed with being thrown in at the deep end like this. Knock confidence and also worry about getting something wrong in front of colleagues at the University. Perhaps there would be the need to be upfront a little bit about what we are trying to model - but then does that takeaway from the potential powerful lightbulb moment later on - a real tester of the value they may then see in using such an approach with students. Or is helping all students appreciate why they are engaging with productive failure from the outset the right thing to do?

I suppose we do a lot on the PGCAP about trying to support participants to learn from the teaching experiences they have - reflecting on what has worked and what could be improved - but is there an opportunity to do more about this with participants' reflective writing - which by default means supporting participants to be more effective reflective practitioners beyond the PGCAP even if they are not writing it all down in a 3000 word essay. So by this I mean, could we release the feedback only first for the Module 1 summative assessment but not the grade. The in order for participants to get the grade they would need to respond to this feedback by writing 400 words (or something) on how they intend to improve their reflective writing going into Module 2 and perhaps where they will try to find opportunities to do more of what they need to (i.e. collect more student feedback to listen to). So yes an exercise in improving their reflective writing but also more importantly an opportunity to think about what they need to do more in general to be a more effective reflective practitioner (i.e. "really step back and question why I did what I did"). Again could this be something that participants might think valuable to do in their won practice.

Potential constraints - holding back grades from 'students' could be quite contentious. Does the extra refection then need to be marked with more feedback provided as well as sharing the original grade??

Learning to Learn
One method in which this could be implemented could just be by repeating a lab. There is a lot of value when repeating an experiment as your approach is always reflective and this double loop will capture the iterative nature of experimentation which is generally missing in our lab teaching. The challenge with this would be time constraints- as there is a certain amount of content that needs to be covered over the module, repetition would be hard to fit in. Alternatively peer-to-peer learning could be used in the above productive failure example with students working within groups.

I often do this in my Risk Management module, in which a scenario of a project is presented to students and they are asked to identify and mitigate risks for a lage infrastructure project. Initially they face challenges in predicting all potential (or the most significant) risks due to the project complexity. During the initial identifying stage, the team conducts a risk assessment and several unforseen risks emerge and the project runs over budget and gets delayed. Following the initial setback, students are ask to hold a retrospective meeting to analyse why they missed such risks and explain their assumptions and approaches. Using the lessons learned, they can revistit their risk manaegement process and incorporate better identification techniques. This approach helps the team to recognise the importance of continous risk monitoring and adaptive risk strategies, reinforcing the value of learning from failure to improve risk management practices.

For Learning 2 Learn:

This is something that I can also incorporate in my module. I am thinking on the possibility of putting students in the situation of a risk manager, and they take on this role with proactiveness. Firstly, students can analyse risks in their project or area of responsibility, setting goals for early warning signs and how they would mitigate them. Then, after the risk occurs the team can meet up to discuss how they handled the situation, discussing what went well and what could have been improved. Then the team can aadjust their approach with more regular reviews and enhanced communication channels for faster identification of emerging risks.

Potential constraints: This can be challenging for students, particularly for those that have not been worked in industry before. Risks are a generally big topic, and can be interpreted in many ways and depends on their contexts. The failure aspect of the activity can sometimes affect their motivation and assume that perhaps the exam will be as such, which might be more challenging for many of the students.

We invite industry partners to create a brief that will help students understand real-world industry practice problems that they need to address.

Limitation:Some theoretical support is lacking in the foundational aspects of the brief.

For L2L:

My students are required to complete self-assessments before submitting their assignments. During the seminars, students should quickly create concept maps by finding empirical cases that connect to the knowledge taught in the lectures.

Limitation: While students perform well in self-assessments, their actual work is not of the same quality.