Beginning with the first module, 7000CRB ‘Developing and Enhancing Learning and Teaching in Higher Education’ I was encouraged to look beyond my somewhat rote teaching, where each cohort looked the same, and the temptation was to not reinvent the material and approach from year to year.  The first module emphasised that I should break this mode and consider the ways in which I could reflect on my own teaching and amended it based on my insights.  The initial stimulus for reflection was Ramsden (Ramsden 2003) which began a process whereby I considered both how I could amend my own teaching to accommodate the ways students learned, but also, to begin to consider the works of academics in this field.  Looking back, I have seen that there is much in the academic writings that have allowed a critical reflection of my teaching methods.  I needed to understand contemporary teaching practices and improve my own.  

                My first critical review began when we first considered different learning theories such as behaviourism, constructivism, and cognitive theory.  Constructivism appealed to me as it involves individual learners building on prior knowledge and solving problems, which resonated best with the study of my discipline, law.  I was encouraged to read more on this area of theory (Savery and Duffy 1995).  They emphasised that “the learners are actively engaged in working at tasks and activities that are authentic to the environment in which they would be used” (Savery and Duffy, 37).  Law, being a professional subject emphasises the methods that they describe.  At the time I was studying 7000CRB this did not resonate a lot as I was not designing the modules I was teaching.  However, in the next two years I had the opportunity to act on these reflections.  For example, they advocate that all learning activities must be linked to a larger purpose (Savery and Duffy, 32).  In the last year when having responsibility for my own, and new modules, I made formative assessments that had clear linkages to final assessments and to the skills to be gained from completion of the module, and designed authentic tasks.  I found that students were more engaged in the subject if there was a clear correlation between what was taught and what was assessed and practiced.

                 Considering constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014) allowed me consider in depth my intended learning outcomes and to encourage active learning.  I have in recent years been drafting exams and coursework and reflecting on what their purposes are.  In reviewing constructivism I created these materials in this understanding, as well as formative work and seminars to ensure that these purposes were understood.  Some philosophies of teaching discussed I had come across before as a trainer in government, such as VARK (2018) and Kolb’s learning cycle as well as those I had not such as SOLO taxonomy (Fleming and Baume, 2006) and Blooms’s taxonomy.

                I have taught a number of modules since 700CLS.  I have taught in longstanding modules at undergraduate level where there has been little room for me to change them substantively, to new Masters modules in the last twelve months where the materials from 7001CRB and 7006CRB allowed me to design the content and reflect on their purpose.  In 7001CRB, I was encouraged to review my assessment practice, using for example the EAT tool kit and framework (Evans, 2016).  Here I needed to review questions to determine what learning I was seeking to be demonstrated, and whether my lessons had ensured that these skills had been developed.  Neglected concepts such as ensuring that students knew clearly what the teaching objectives were, what quality of work would gain a certain mark using and linking rubrics, and what should be effective feedback were all considered when I taught these newer modules.  I was free to incorporate these new insights into new material and the clarity this has brought students has been well received.  Students have been giving good feedback in emails and MEQs.  Thoughts from such as Carless et al (2011) have ensured that that I consider feedback in my drop-in or informal sessions with students. 

                In 7006CRB my mind was turned to an area I have not yet explored, the design and assessment of a new curriculum.  As Voogt et al (Voogt, Pieters, and Handelzalts 2016: 130) pointed out, creating new materials requires change.  My law school has recently amended most of our modules to adapt to a new professional environment, so I was curious about what the curriculum was and how it was designed.  How students view the curriculum and other educators was a new perspective.  My perspective in the past was an uncritical delivery of material to students.  Cornbleth’s comment (Cornbleth, 1990: 2) on conceptions about curriculum spoke to thinking about the impact of such upon students.  

                The thoughts of Fotheringham, Strickland, and Atichison (2011) encouraged me to see curriculum as more than just content.  This coincided with me being a relatively new academic, so the idea of developing role and identity of an academic came with my new experience (Blaxter et al., 1998; Gale, 2011 and Billot 2010: 709) and as an academic leader (Mahtani, 2018).  Wilhelm von Humboldt suggested a novel idea for me of scholars and students in a common search for truth.  Swain (Swain 2011) asks whether education should be for its own sake.  These ideas encouraged me to review whether I should be teaching law just for the profession, or should I be designing modules with a wider brief.  What is my curriculum intended to do, and what skills should come of it?  In designing the modules I currently teach, what were the thoughts behind its designers, and how might I redesign it.  The group work certainly made clear that this is a holistic process (Toohey 1999).  Overall the group work in 7006CRB in curriculum design was instructive on a number of levels in seeing what objectives need to be met and an appreciation of how many stakeholders are involved.

                The last fifteen months in which I have been teaching throughout the pandemic has been encouraged developmental stimuli that were unexpected.  The first module in the PgCert APHE was conducted for me in ideal conditions where I could reflect on my usual practice, whilst considering the insights that the PgCert modules gave me such as ensuring that the teaching was student centred, and that more attention was required to ensure diversity and student involvement amongst other issues.  The pandemic featured in the last two modules and there was suddenly a much greater focus on, not only on teaching online, but ensuring that teaching was conducted in an environment that recognised difficulty in accessing online material, and a significant number of classes now being conducted online in real time.  Lectures that were outlines to be filled in while spoken in class now needed to be enhanced so that they could be accessed asynchronously.  Overall a high quality of teaching needed to be maintained under these unusual circumstances to ensure that the student experience was maintained at a high level.  Although I had initially seen the teaching in the PgCert as some add-ons that I could utilise through the various insights gained, the pandemic caused me to pull all the lessons together urgently to ensure that my students got the best teaching and materials possible in the shortest amount of time, amending and adjusting as circumstances changed.

                 The PgCert has been a journey, of considering why I am teaching, and having the student’s journey in mind in addition to other stakeholders.  I now have access to pedagogical theory that I can revisit when planning and designing new and existing modules.  I have new insights into the content and accessibility of my modules and how they may be delivered more effectively to inform my continuing development in teaching.  I am certain I am now a better educator for the experience.  Who knows?  Maybe I’ll sign up to a real PgDip if it comes along?

Bibliography

Biggs, J. (2014) ‘Constructive alignment in University teaching’ HERDSA review of higher education 1(1), 5-22

Billot, J. (2010). The imagined and the real: Identifying the tensions for academic identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 709-721.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1998). Writing on academic careers. Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 281-295.

Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., and Lam, J. (2011) ‘Developing Sustainable Feedback Practices’. Studies in Higher Education 35 (4), 395-407

Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in context. Falmer Press.

Evans, C. (2016) Enhancing Assessment Feedback Practice in Higher Education: The EAT Framework.

Fleming, N. and Baume, D. (2006) ‘Learning styles again - Varking up the right tree’. Educational Developments, 7 (4) 4-7

Fotheringham, J., Strickland, K., & Aitchison, K. (2011). Curriculum: Directions, decisions and debate. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Mahtani, K. (2018). What makes an academic leader?

Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer

Savery, J. R., and Duffy, T. M. (1995) ‘Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and its Constructivist Framework’. Educational Technology, 35 (5), 31-38.

Swain, H. (2011). What are universities for? The Guardian.

Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. McGraw-Hill Education.

VARK (2018) ‘VARK – a guide to learning styles’

Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: Effects, mechanisms and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3-4), 121-140.