AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY TEACHING & CRITERIA & STANDARDS STATEMENT
Self-assessing against the AUTCAS criteria (Office for Learning & Teaching, n.d.) and my evidence of excellence in teaching practice, I have identified robust alignment with Level B standards across the seven criteria. In some cases, the evidence reflects Level C criteria standards.
In this statement, I explain how the five artefact appendices in the “Statement Evidence” section of this site demonstrate the above. Though context, environment, and role influence my teaching methodology, it is always grounded in my teaching philosophy, beliefs, and specific foundational methods, such as reflective practice, engagement with evidence-based research and evaluation.
Criterion 1: Design and planning of learning activities
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments show evidence of above-average student survey satisfaction with an English literature course I substantially revised and deliver as per Criterion 1 (Level B). An exception to this claim is that I cannot show evidence of above-average student evaluations for a minimum of two consecutive years, as stated in the Criterion, as I have not been teaching writing at a design/coordination level for that long.
Artefact 3: UNDA peer review of my design of Capstone C: Research Project, the first Capstone Unit in the new MA (Writing) program, offers evidence of my leadership in curriculum, development and design and development of significant curriculum materials, and benchmarking of a unit or course against similar units/courses (Criterion 1, Level C).
Artefact 5: My vision of TEL creative writing pedagogy (including a focus on a specific TEL task in the context of a broader TEL environment) speaks to innovation in the design of teaching, including use of learning technologies (Criterion 1, Level C) demonstrating assessment design for multi-authored born-digital and intertextual creative work.
Criterion 2: Teaching and supporting student learning
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments support my Teaching Philosophy Statement claim that I focus on productive and respectful facilitation that aims to foster curiosity and creativity with a commitment to equity and inclusion. Student evaluation comments also demonstrate I meet Criterion 2 in promoting student-centred learning and teaching techniques that are successful in enhancing student learning.
Artefact 2: NYU Sydney lecture slides, including learning activity writing experiment, is an example of in-depth knowledge of the discipline area (Levels B & C) and well-planned learning activities designed to develop the students learning (Level B). This artefact is an example of my alignment with numerous points noted in Criterion 2, including “innovation/creativity in teaching” (Levels B & C). This content focuses on engaging students and stimulating interest, encouraging active participation, explaining concepts in a way that students can understand, use of a student-centred approach, knowledge and use a range of teaching activities and utilising examples and resources from different contexts and countries.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design serves as an example of my meeting Criterion 2, Levels B & C. As Capstone D is the final capstone course in the MA (Writing) program, this task design (and related schedule) provides structure for effective supervision of postgraduate students to completion.
Criterion 3: Assessment and giving feedback to students on their learning
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design primarily relates to Criterion 3. Capstone D is designed to be the final course in the new MA (Writing) program. The challenge was to set assessment tasks that would work for students working on diverse projects and in various genres as well as tasks that would be suited to peer review and workshopping, formative self-assessment, and supervision feedback. My assessment design, which received high praise in moderation peer-review, achieves a balance of all three in support of students working on their theses ahead of examination.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design shows my commitment to supporting student learning by demonstrating the intended learning outcomes and educational principles. It promotes formative peer and self-assessment while providing students with constructive and timely expert feedback. This assessment design supports authentic learning by reflecting the standards of the publishing and media industries in requiring students to meet rolling deadlines and respond quickly to feedback and editorial suggestions. As such, it meets both Levels B & C standards of Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: Developing effective environments, student support, and guidance
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments show I establish a safe, interactive, “learner-centred” (Biggs, 2014) environment and good rapport across a diverse cohort in keeping with Criterion 4. They reflect several points listed under Level C for this Criterion, including demonstrating effective practice in developing learning communities and initiative or innovation in supporting students and the creation of engaging learning environments. They also indicate other skills associated with this Criterion, including support of students with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, encouraging students to support and engage with each other, building communities in the unit/course or discipline, modelling respect and requiring students to demonstrate respect for others.
Artefact 5: My vision of TEL creative writing pedagogy also connects to Criterion 4 as it demonstrates innovation in supporting students and creating supporting or engaging learning environments.
Criterion 5: Integration of scholarship, research, and professional activities with teaching and in support of learning
Artefact 2: NYU Sydney lecture slides demonstrate Levels B & C practice in terms of the Criterion 5 reference regarding engaging in “teaching and learning scholarship that demonstrates research-informed and/or contemporary teaching within or across disciplines.” The (interdisciplinary) study of affect in relation to creative writing and literature is one of my central research interests and an area of expertise. The incorporation of my professional, industry and work-based practice or experiences into teaching practice or curriculum stated in Criterion 5 extends well beyond and far more broadly.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design reflects good practice in relation to Criterion 5 in drawing on education research that shows the effectiveness of peer and self-assessment (Nulty, n.d., Boud, 1995).
Criterion 6: Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments and Artefact 3: UNDA peer review of my design of Capstone C: Research Project show my participation in the evaluation of practice and my commitment to whole-course moderation. I welcome evaluation at the design stage, mid-semester, and at the end of the semester. I also maintain a committed reflective practice that serves a vital evaluative role in my evolution as a teacher.
The moderation with peer instructor aspect of Artefact 5: My vision of TEL creative writing pedagogy aligns with Criterion 6. This internal benchmarking highlights the importance of reliability and constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014), as well as validity and quality assurance (Miller, 2000). Furthermore, it complies with the Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards (TESQA) in terms of institutional consistency. The peer-review takes place within a whole course teaching and assessment moderation process linked to early scrutiny of assessment tasks and consideration of expected standards (Bloxham et al., 2016; Smith, 2012).
My commitment to ongoing professional development is evident in my continued participation in teaching meetings and communities of practice, professional development opportunities, research communities, and my reflective practice. I am also a current education student at the University of Notre Dame Australia. I expect to complete the Graduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching for Higher Education in semester one, 2020.
Criterion 7: Professional and personal effectiveness
The above stands as evidence of my professional and person effectiveness. In addition, Artefact 3: UNDA peer review of my design of Capstone C: Research Project demonstrates professional and personal effectiveness. I was appointed to design and coordinate this course at very short notice. By developing high standard curriculum under pressure, I demonstrate Criterion 7 ownership and management of teaching role and effective preparation and prioritisation.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design also serves as an example of my meeting Criterion 7 in developing a comprehensive approach to postgraduate assessment to maximise the benefits of both peer-assessment and individual supervision.
Self-assessing against the AUTCAS criteria (Office for Learning & Teaching, n.d.) and my evidence of excellence in teaching practice, I have identified robust alignment with Level B standards across the seven criteria. In some cases, the evidence reflects Level C criteria standards.
In this statement, I explain how the five artefact appendices in the “Statement Evidence” section of this site demonstrate the above. Though context, environment, and role influence my teaching methodology, it is always grounded in my teaching philosophy, beliefs, and specific foundational methods, such as reflective practice, engagement with evidence-based research and evaluation.
Criterion 1: Design and planning of learning activities
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments show evidence of above-average student survey satisfaction with an English literature course I substantially revised and deliver as per Criterion 1 (Level B). An exception to this claim is that I cannot show evidence of above-average student evaluations for a minimum of two consecutive years, as stated in the Criterion, as I have not been teaching writing at a design/coordination level for that long.
Artefact 3: UNDA peer review of my design of Capstone C: Research Project, the first Capstone Unit in the new MA (Writing) program, offers evidence of my leadership in curriculum, development and design and development of significant curriculum materials, and benchmarking of a unit or course against similar units/courses (Criterion 1, Level C).
Artefact 5: My vision of TEL creative writing pedagogy (including a focus on a specific TEL task in the context of a broader TEL environment) speaks to innovation in the design of teaching, including use of learning technologies (Criterion 1, Level C) demonstrating assessment design for multi-authored born-digital and intertextual creative work.
Criterion 2: Teaching and supporting student learning
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments support my Teaching Philosophy Statement claim that I focus on productive and respectful facilitation that aims to foster curiosity and creativity with a commitment to equity and inclusion. Student evaluation comments also demonstrate I meet Criterion 2 in promoting student-centred learning and teaching techniques that are successful in enhancing student learning.
Artefact 2: NYU Sydney lecture slides, including learning activity writing experiment, is an example of in-depth knowledge of the discipline area (Levels B & C) and well-planned learning activities designed to develop the students learning (Level B). This artefact is an example of my alignment with numerous points noted in Criterion 2, including “innovation/creativity in teaching” (Levels B & C). This content focuses on engaging students and stimulating interest, encouraging active participation, explaining concepts in a way that students can understand, use of a student-centred approach, knowledge and use a range of teaching activities and utilising examples and resources from different contexts and countries.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design serves as an example of my meeting Criterion 2, Levels B & C. As Capstone D is the final capstone course in the MA (Writing) program, this task design (and related schedule) provides structure for effective supervision of postgraduate students to completion.
Criterion 3: Assessment and giving feedback to students on their learning
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design primarily relates to Criterion 3. Capstone D is designed to be the final course in the new MA (Writing) program. The challenge was to set assessment tasks that would work for students working on diverse projects and in various genres as well as tasks that would be suited to peer review and workshopping, formative self-assessment, and supervision feedback. My assessment design, which received high praise in moderation peer-review, achieves a balance of all three in support of students working on their theses ahead of examination.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design shows my commitment to supporting student learning by demonstrating the intended learning outcomes and educational principles. It promotes formative peer and self-assessment while providing students with constructive and timely expert feedback. This assessment design supports authentic learning by reflecting the standards of the publishing and media industries in requiring students to meet rolling deadlines and respond quickly to feedback and editorial suggestions. As such, it meets both Levels B & C standards of Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: Developing effective environments, student support, and guidance
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments show I establish a safe, interactive, “learner-centred” (Biggs, 2014) environment and good rapport across a diverse cohort in keeping with Criterion 4. They reflect several points listed under Level C for this Criterion, including demonstrating effective practice in developing learning communities and initiative or innovation in supporting students and the creation of engaging learning environments. They also indicate other skills associated with this Criterion, including support of students with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, encouraging students to support and engage with each other, building communities in the unit/course or discipline, modelling respect and requiring students to demonstrate respect for others.
Artefact 5: My vision of TEL creative writing pedagogy also connects to Criterion 4 as it demonstrates innovation in supporting students and creating supporting or engaging learning environments.
Criterion 5: Integration of scholarship, research, and professional activities with teaching and in support of learning
Artefact 2: NYU Sydney lecture slides demonstrate Levels B & C practice in terms of the Criterion 5 reference regarding engaging in “teaching and learning scholarship that demonstrates research-informed and/or contemporary teaching within or across disciplines.” The (interdisciplinary) study of affect in relation to creative writing and literature is one of my central research interests and an area of expertise. The incorporation of my professional, industry and work-based practice or experiences into teaching practice or curriculum stated in Criterion 5 extends well beyond and far more broadly.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design reflects good practice in relation to Criterion 5 in drawing on education research that shows the effectiveness of peer and self-assessment (Nulty, n.d., Boud, 1995).
Criterion 6: Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations comments and Artefact 3: UNDA peer review of my design of Capstone C: Research Project show my participation in the evaluation of practice and my commitment to whole-course moderation. I welcome evaluation at the design stage, mid-semester, and at the end of the semester. I also maintain a committed reflective practice that serves a vital evaluative role in my evolution as a teacher.
The moderation with peer instructor aspect of Artefact 5: My vision of TEL creative writing pedagogy aligns with Criterion 6. This internal benchmarking highlights the importance of reliability and constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014), as well as validity and quality assurance (Miller, 2000). Furthermore, it complies with the Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards (TESQA) in terms of institutional consistency. The peer-review takes place within a whole course teaching and assessment moderation process linked to early scrutiny of assessment tasks and consideration of expected standards (Bloxham et al., 2016; Smith, 2012).
My commitment to ongoing professional development is evident in my continued participation in teaching meetings and communities of practice, professional development opportunities, research communities, and my reflective practice. I am also a current education student at the University of Notre Dame Australia. I expect to complete the Graduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching for Higher Education in semester one, 2020.
Criterion 7: Professional and personal effectiveness
The above stands as evidence of my professional and person effectiveness. In addition, Artefact 3: UNDA peer review of my design of Capstone C: Research Project demonstrates professional and personal effectiveness. I was appointed to design and coordinate this course at very short notice. By developing high standard curriculum under pressure, I demonstrate Criterion 7 ownership and management of teaching role and effective preparation and prioritisation.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design also serves as an example of my meeting Criterion 7 in developing a comprehensive approach to postgraduate assessment to maximise the benefits of both peer-assessment and individual supervision.