Consider the following hypothetical teaching sessions you have been asked to undertake:
1. 100 first year nursing students (Adult, MW, MH) in a lecture theatre. The face to face lecture is for 2 hours on an area of your expertise.
2. A 3 -hour half day workshop on your area of expertise with 16 participants – a variety of health care staff (2 medics, Senior nurses, AHPs, University staff, Colleagues)
3. 3 nurses on internship who have asked if you could provide an hour’s session on your area of expertise in the coffee room.
Who, where?
Consider the context including commonalities and differences of each of the above teaching sessions: the participants, demographics, setting, time, focus, your expertise, skills etc.
What?
What learning theories may be relevant and what would be your teaching philosophy? Consider carefully what you would include in your content and therefore your learning outcomes and lesson plan.
How (in what way and) Why?
What teaching strategies would you consider in each session and why? Link the context, setting, participants and content to your chosen approach and lesson plan (including briefly, possible assessment and evaluation).
Compare and contrast the 3 scenarios outlining commonalities and differences and how these impact upon your approach. Please use evidence-based literature and your experience to support your discussion.
Some important points:
Please ensure you define/outline your area of expertise for the reader.
Please keep in mind ‘constructive alignment’ (Biggs 1996).
Include and refer appropriately to theories of learning, your own experience and importantly, evidence-based literature.
You may wish to structure your submission as follows:
-Introduction
-Background
-Each of the scenarios in turn
-Discussion: compare and contrast each of the scenarios using theories of learning, experience and literature.
-Conclusion: summarise and provide final conclusions including implications for your learning.
Reference: Biggs, J. (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 32, 347–364 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
