AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY TEACHING & CRITERIA & STANDARDS STATEMENT
Self-assessing against the AUTCAS criteria (Office for Learning & Teaching, n.d.) and evidence of my 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 appendices in the “Statement Evidence” section of this site are supported by evidence-based education research. I also speak to their demonstration of my claim of good practice at Level B, and in some cases Level C. Please note that while I address all seven criteria at some point in the following passages, for the sake of brevity, I focus most substantially on addressing Criterion 1: Design and Planning of Learning Activities.
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.
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations (comment samples) evidence above average student survey satisfaction 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 Criterion, as I have not been teaching writing at a design or coordination level for that long. The comments support my claim that I focus on productive and respectful facilitation that aims to foster curiosity and creativity with a commitment to equity and inclusion. Student feedback shows I establish a safe, interactive, “learner-centred” (Biggs, 2014) environment and good rapport across a diverse cohort in keeping with Criterion 4: Developing effective learning environments, student support and guidance. They reflect several points listed under this Criterion, including demonstrating my 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 2: NYU Sydney lecture slides, including learning activity writing experiment, is an example of deep knowledge of the discipline area (Levels B & C) and well-planned learning activities designed to develop the students learning (Level B). This content encourages “imagination, innovation, and risk-taking through lively discussion, close reading, student-centred activities, technology enhanced learning, and inspiring writing prompts and experimental exercises.” This artefact is an example of my alignment with numerous points notes in Criterion 2: Teaching and supporting student learning. It demonstrates content that 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. It also demonstrates good practice in terms of Criterion 5: Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and in support of student learning. The study of affect vis-a-vis 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 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). I was appointed to design and coordinate this course at short notice. By developing high standard curriculum under pressure, I demonstrate Criterion 7: Professional and personal effectiveness in demonstrating ownership and management of teaching role and effective preparation and prioritisation.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project Grading Criteria, the final Capstone Unit in the new MA (Writing) program, primarily relates to Criterion 3: Assessment and giving feedback to students on their learning. My criteria design redresses a tendency in creative writing pedagogy toward generic and poorly defined grading criteria by making clear the stated assessment requirements/criteria. I productively adapted Millar’s Pyramid (Mrozek, 2014) within a learning outcomes model concerned with constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014) in the design of curriculum for a new Capstone unit in a new Master of Arts (Writing) program. I cast “knows” as a student knowing enough about the craft of writing to write at a satisfactory level. “Knows how” relates to the ability to plan and execute a writing task competently. “Shows how” is the sophisticated demonstration of that ability. And “does”, the original highest apex indicates a superior execution of a writing task that demonstrates a degree of mastery. This artefact shows my commitment to supporting students to develop and demonstrate the intended learning outcomes and educational principles. It is part of a comprehensive approach to providing students with constructive and timely feedback on assessment work. This criteria links with and supports authentic learning by reflecting the standards of the publishing and media industries that many Capstone D students go on to work in. It reflects good practice regarding Criterion 5: Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and in support of student learning. Teaching and learning research and scholarship have informed this aspect of my teaching practice by helping me understand the importance of reliability and criteria within an outcomes and standard teaching and learning approach (Carless, 2015). It also serves as an example of my meeting Criterion 7: Professional and personal effectiveness in developing a comprehensive and transparent set of criteria in support of both students and colleagues.
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. This artefact also connects to Criterion 4: Developing effective learning environments, student support and guidance in demonstrating innovation in supporting students and creating supporting or engaging learning environments. Moderation with peer instructor aligns with Criterion 6: Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development. 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).
Self-assessing against the AUTCAS criteria (Office for Learning & Teaching, n.d.) and evidence of my 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 appendices in the “Statement Evidence” section of this site are supported by evidence-based education research. I also speak to their demonstration of my claim of good practice at Level B, and in some cases Level C. Please note that while I address all seven criteria at some point in the following passages, for the sake of brevity, I focus most substantially on addressing Criterion 1: Design and Planning of Learning Activities.
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.
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations (comment samples) evidence above average student survey satisfaction 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 Criterion, as I have not been teaching writing at a design or coordination level for that long. The comments support my claim that I focus on productive and respectful facilitation that aims to foster curiosity and creativity with a commitment to equity and inclusion. Student feedback shows I establish a safe, interactive, “learner-centred” (Biggs, 2014) environment and good rapport across a diverse cohort in keeping with Criterion 4: Developing effective learning environments, student support and guidance. They reflect several points listed under this Criterion, including demonstrating my 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 2: NYU Sydney lecture slides, including learning activity writing experiment, is an example of deep knowledge of the discipline area (Levels B & C) and well-planned learning activities designed to develop the students learning (Level B). This content encourages “imagination, innovation, and risk-taking through lively discussion, close reading, student-centred activities, technology enhanced learning, and inspiring writing prompts and experimental exercises.” This artefact is an example of my alignment with numerous points notes in Criterion 2: Teaching and supporting student learning. It demonstrates content that 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. It also demonstrates good practice in terms of Criterion 5: Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and in support of student learning. The study of affect vis-a-vis 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 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). I was appointed to design and coordinate this course at short notice. By developing high standard curriculum under pressure, I demonstrate Criterion 7: Professional and personal effectiveness in demonstrating ownership and management of teaching role and effective preparation and prioritisation.
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project Grading Criteria, the final Capstone Unit in the new MA (Writing) program, primarily relates to Criterion 3: Assessment and giving feedback to students on their learning. My criteria design redresses a tendency in creative writing pedagogy toward generic and poorly defined grading criteria by making clear the stated assessment requirements/criteria. I productively adapted Millar’s Pyramid (Mrozek, 2014) within a learning outcomes model concerned with constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014) in the design of curriculum for a new Capstone unit in a new Master of Arts (Writing) program. I cast “knows” as a student knowing enough about the craft of writing to write at a satisfactory level. “Knows how” relates to the ability to plan and execute a writing task competently. “Shows how” is the sophisticated demonstration of that ability. And “does”, the original highest apex indicates a superior execution of a writing task that demonstrates a degree of mastery. This artefact shows my commitment to supporting students to develop and demonstrate the intended learning outcomes and educational principles. It is part of a comprehensive approach to providing students with constructive and timely feedback on assessment work. This criteria links with and supports authentic learning by reflecting the standards of the publishing and media industries that many Capstone D students go on to work in. It reflects good practice regarding Criterion 5: Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and in support of student learning. Teaching and learning research and scholarship have informed this aspect of my teaching practice by helping me understand the importance of reliability and criteria within an outcomes and standard teaching and learning approach (Carless, 2015). It also serves as an example of my meeting Criterion 7: Professional and personal effectiveness in developing a comprehensive and transparent set of criteria in support of both students and colleagues.
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. This artefact also connects to Criterion 4: Developing effective learning environments, student support and guidance in demonstrating innovation in supporting students and creating supporting or engaging learning environments. Moderation with peer instructor aligns with Criterion 6: Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development. 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).