Workshop+4

=** OUTLINE: WORKSHOP 4 **= = ** The Reflective higher education practitioner ** =

Venue: Seminar Room, New Science Building, CPUT (See Directions to download location and map) Time: 09h00 - 16h00 (refreshments available from 08h30) 29 March 2012

** On completion of this workshop, the participant will be able to: **

 * explain what is meant by adopt a reflective practice and understand how this might influence one’s role as a university teacher
 * recognise and implement appropriate responses to student and other feedback received on one’s teaching practice.

Pre-workshop reading

Elton, L. 1998. Dimensions of excellence in university teaching. //International Journal of Academic Development,// 3(1):3-11. Kane, R., Sandretto, S and Heath, C. 2004. An investigation into excellent tertiary teaching: emphasising reflective practice. //Higher Education,// 47: 283-310. Kreber, C. and P.A. Cranton. 2000. Exploring the scholarship of teaching. //Journal of Higher Education// 71(4): 476-495. Northedge, A. 2003. Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. //Teaching in Higher Education// 8(1): 17-32. Schön, D. 1987. //Educating the reflective practitioner//. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


 * Outline**

29 March || 09h00 || Reflective practice || CW ||
 * Thursday
 * ^  || 10h00 || Seminar preparation || JS, NM ||
 * ^  || 11h00 || Tea break ||   ||
 * ^  || 11h30 || Seminars || JS, NM ||
 * ^  || 13h00 || Lunch ||   ||
 * ^  || 13h30 || Seminars || MS, CW ||
 * ^  || 15h00 || Tea ||   ||
 * ^  || 15h30 || Seminars || NM, JS, MS, CW ||
 * ^  || 16h00 || End/ Self study: draft outlines of the TALHE assignment ||   ||

Thursday 29 March 2012 Daniel Meyer (FBC) Pitso Tebele (CPUT) || Engineering studies Engineering Mech Eng || Gilbert, D. 2012. From Chalk and Talk to Walking the Walk: Facilitating Dynamic Learning Contexts for Entrepreneurship Students in Fast-tracking Innovations, //Education + Training//, 54 (2) (in press). || LH, NM, JS & CW || Melanie Vermaak (FBC) Hilton Arried (BC) || Business studies Business studies Mathematics || Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H. & Eng, T.Y. 2012. Using student group-work in higher education to emulate professional communities of practice, //Education + Training//, 54 (2): 1-21. || LH, NM, JS & CW || Melanie Anthony (CCT) || Hospitality studies Tourism/hospitality || Winch, A. & Ingram, H. 2002. Re-defining the focus of workplace learning, //International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management//, 14 (7): 361 – 367. || LH, NM, JS & CW || Mark Lawrence (NLC) Ambrence Fisher (CPUT) || Building/civil Elec/construction Building || Bowers-Brown, T. & Berry, D. 2005. Building Pathways: apprenticeships as a route to higher education, //Education + Training//, 47 (4): 270 – 282. || LH, NM, JS & CW || Nuraan Liebenberg (CPUT) Matilda Johnson (NLC) || Agriculture
 * SEMINAR PROGRAMME**
 * Time || Presenters || Discipline/field || Suggested reading for seminar presentation* || Assessors ||
 * 11h30 || Adiel Arnold (BC)
 * 12h00 || Renatha Hartman (BC)
 * 12h30 || Susan Loubser (BC)
 * 13h00 |||||||| L U N C H  ||
 * 13h30 || Sean Smith (CCT)
 * 14h30 || Valerie Claasens (CPUT)
 * 14h30 || Valerie Claasens (CPUT)

Emergency Medical Science

Law, policing || Ford, J.K. & Schmidt, A.M. 2000. Emergency response training: strategies for enhancing real-world performance, //Journal of Hazardous Materials,// 75 (2): 195-215. || LH, NM, JS & CW ||
 * 15h00 |||||||| T E A  ||
 * 15h30 |||||| Feedback from the assessors || LH, NM, JS & CW ||



Other relevant reading
University of Minnesota/Centre for Teaching and Learning. 2006. **Small Group Instructional Diagnosis: Student Feedback through Consensus (SFC). ** [available at []] Wood, LN. & Harding, A. 2007. Can you show you are a good lecturer? //International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,// 38(7):939-947. ||
 * Are You a Reflective Practitioner? **Contemplation for Growth, Center for Teaching and Learning, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. []
 * Introduction to Developing Reflective Practice, **The Higher Education Academy, UK Centre for Legal Education. []
 * Forms of Reflective Teaching Practice in Higher Education. ** Susan Hall, Curtin University of Technology, Australia. In //Learning Through Teaching //, Pospisil, R. and Willcoxson, L., Eds. Proceedings of the 6 th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1997. Perth: Murdoch University. []
 * Storming the Citadel: Reading Theory Critically **Stephen Brookfield, University of St. Thomas. From //Becoming a Reflective Teacher //, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995. []
 * The Critical Incident Questionnaire: Brookfield’s Questions. ** In //National Teaching and Learning Forum //, Vol. 5, No. 2, January 1996. []

// Candidate’s name: ……………………………………………………………………… // Assessor: signature-- Assessment criteria
 * Higher diploma in higher education and training (HDHET) **
 * Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Seminar (assignment 2) **
 * ** Criteria ** || ** NYC (<49%) ** || ** Credit (50-74%) ** || ** Merit (75%+) ** ||
 * Demonstrates understanding of theory of constructive alignment (CA) || Understanding of CA is limited, absent or inappropriate. Fragmented understanding. || Understands CA, but an aspect might be confused, incorrect or inappropriate. || Excellent understanding of CA, including cognisance of students’ ability and issues of deep learning. ||
 * Can apply constructive alignment in own field || Basic application attempted, but not clear or inappropriate application. || Evidence of application of CA alignment principles and practice; there might be some concern, e.g., deep learning outcomes not sufficiently clear. || Excellent application and analysis of CA principles and practice. ||
 * Literature || Use of literature limited, overly descriptive or absent and generally not synthesised with the presentation as a whole. || Literature background is discussed in the context of the presentation, but is limited either through being too descriptive and or a reliance on 1 or 2 sources. Some though limited integration with the presentation. || Additional sources are found/used. Candidate shows analytical and synthesising abilities. Literature is well synthesized with presentation as a whole. May indicate learning beyond the literature. ||
 * Presentation skills || Presentation and fielding of questions is poor/ not clearly articulated. Use of media is not clear and does not facilitate understanding of presentation. || Clear, fluent presentation with good fielding of questions. Media was clear and used effectively to enhance oral presentation. || Excellent, clear presentation with an outstanding ability to answer posed questions. Excellent, creative use of media to promote understanding of oral presentation. ||
 * Presentation skills || Presentation and fielding of questions is poor/ not clearly articulated. Use of media is not clear and does not facilitate understanding of presentation. || Clear, fluent presentation with good fielding of questions. Media was clear and used effectively to enhance oral presentation. || Excellent, clear presentation with an outstanding ability to answer posed questions. Excellent, creative use of media to promote understanding of oral presentation. ||


 * General comments: ** ---
 * Assessor’s mark: **
 * Peer assessment mark: **
 * Overall mark: ** -