OUTSTANDING TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT

TECHNICAL SKILLS NATIONAL PROGRAMME Collaborative Teaching Guide

Created by: Fiona Dallas, Abingdon & Witney College

March 2018

Managed by In partnership with

This resource was created as part of the

OTLA Outstanding Teaching, Learning and

Assessment Technical Skills National

Programme phase 2 project by Abingdon &

Witney College:

Developing & enabling outstanding

teaching, learning and assessment of

Robotics within the FE sector.

Abingdon & Witney College, Wootton Road, Abingdon,

Oxfordshire, OX14 1GG

Basingstoke College of Technology,

Worting Road, Basingstoke,

Hampshire, RG21 8TN

Partners included:

JSP Ltd,

Worsham Mill, Minster Lovell,

Oxfordshire, OX29 0TA

Active Robots Ltd,

Chilcompton, Radstock,

Somerset, BA3 4JE

Oxford Brookes University

Wheatley Campus

Wheatley, Oxford,

OX33 1HX

3/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

INTRODUCTION

This resource is designed to help you deliver

outstanding teaching, learning and

assessment, in a collaborative teaching

setting. The resource arose from the need to

have an external, experienced professional

assist in the delivery of an automation unit on

the BTEC National Engineering with a

Robotics component. Our tutors lacked the

expertise required to deliver the topic in this

rapidly emerging field of engineering. There

was no suitable external CPD course which

could offer upskilling of staff within the correct

time frame and we did not have spare

capacity in the teaching team to release staff

even if a course was available.

We have all invited guest speakers into our

teaching sessions and the content may be

extremely interesting, but it does not relate

directly to the specification and can even give

contradictory information. Our plan was to

invite an experienced individual to work with

the tutor to deliver the session collaboratively

thus upskilling the staff member whilst co-

planning and co-delivering the session.

An important aspect of the PREVENT agenda

with guest speakers is to know the person and

what they are going to say prior to their

delivery; a bonus to this model is the pre-

session planning which does exactly that.

In this delivery guide we will provide the

following:

• Sample lesson plan

• Sample reflective practice

• Feedback questionnaire pro forma

• Lesson plan pro forma

• Reflective practice pro forma

• Link to our Sway platform

PLANNING THE SESSION

For this model of collaborative teaching to

work effectively there are several “rules” which

need to be followed from the outset.

• Agree the number of sessions to be

delivered at the initial consultation

phase

• Agree the date, time and duration of

each session to be delivered,

• Agree the date, time and duration of all

pre-planning sessions and that these

must be before the day of delivery

• Allow for post-delivery analysis time

• Agreement should be obtained in

writing together with the hourly rate (if

applicable)

It may seem strange obtaining all these

agreements but without formalising them,

there is the possibility of other external

employer commitments having priority over

the timetabled sessions.

Depending on the experience of the external

vocational expert, at least two hours should be

allocated for preplanning. It is the

responsibility of the internal tutor to actual plan

the lesson; deciding on the lesson objectives

and the lesson structure with input from the

vocational expert. In addition to the learning

outcomes for the students, the co-deliverers

should identify personal learning objectives.

For the internal tutor this is paramount as they

should be upskilling during the session(s). The

internal tutor must make it clear to the

vocational expert what resources (if any) they

need to make in readiness for the session.

DELIVERING THE SESSION

The co- deliverers should meet briefly before

the session to clarify any last-minute queries.

At the start of the session, the internal tutor

introduces the session, the lesson objectives

and how the session will be organised.

4/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

Feedback from our learners, revealed that

they wanted to know who was “in charge of

the session” and “who to ask questions of”.

Classroom management of behaviour and

health and safety remained the responsibility

of the internal tutor, but learners were

encouraged to ask questions of the vocational

expert. Depending on the experience of the

vocational expert, the internal tutor may have

to facilitate question and answer sessions

since they know the capabilities of the

individuals and how much individually they

should be stretched and challenged.

At the end of each session we asked the

learners to complete the feedback

questionnaire (pro forma supplied). We

modified the questions which were based on

the Nottingham Trent University Critical Levels

of Evaluation. (The full evaluation was too

lengthy as a tool to use frequently and obtain

high participation rate from learners).

POST-DELIVERY REVIEW & APPRAISAL

Immediately after each session we asked the

co-deliverers to complete the same

questionnaire, as the learners, from their

personal perspective and to independently

complete the Reflection Tool (based on Driscoll,

2007). The “What Now?” was used to inform

planning for the next session.

DIGITAL RESOURCE

We also developed a digital resource which

tells the story of our journey through the action

research project and gives further insight into

the collaborative teaching model as a way for

upskilling “on the job”.

https://youtu.be/GfzyDc6aGDk

USING THE MODEL ELSEWHERE IN FE

At Abingdon & Witney College we have plans

to use this model for collaborative teaching in

a range of curriculum areas as well as

continuing to develop our engineering tutors.

For example:

• introducing our level 3 computing

tutors and students to programming in

Python for Robotics

• upskilling biology tutors in the teaching

of genetics

• developing new teaching staff with

excellent vocational experience in

collaboration with TSA (Teaching

Skills Academy)

REFERENCES

Driscoll, J. (2007) Practising Clinical

Supervision: A Reflective Approach for

Healthcare Professionals. 2nd ed. Edinburgh:

Bailliere Tindall Elsevier.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information about this project and

resource, please contact either the project

lead: Mark.Byerley@abingdon-witney.ac.uk or

the project manager: Fiona.Dallas@abingdon-

witney.ac.uk

For further information on the Sway

presentation, please contact our head of TSA:

Helen.Brown@abingdon-witney.ac.uk

2/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

SAMPLE LESSON PLAN

ROBOTICS RESEARCH PROJECT: Collaborative Teaching 1

Session Title Describe & apply programming terms

Date 11/12/17 Duration 1hr 30 mins

External vocational expert JR

Internal pedagogical tutor IK

Lesson Objectives (for learners) Please denote responsibilities

• To understand the requirements of the practical controlled

assessment, view a “sample test” paper and interpret the

grading and assessment criteria

• To understand and explain the terminology: pseudo,

indentation and brackets

• To create a program that changes traffic lights using the

terms pseudo, indentation and brackets

IK

JR

JR

Outline Lesson Plan Please denote responsibilities

• Welcome, registration, notices and introduction to lesson

objectives (5 minutes)

• Recap on previous lesson, directed questions (5 minutes)

• Power point presentation on the practical controlled assessment

– sample test paper given to each learner; explanation of

contents, tasks, grading criteria and assessment.

o Learners ask questions

o Understanding checked by directed Q&A

(30 minutes allowed for this)

• Explanation of terms with examples (power point presentation).

Terms explained individually, and learners completed

examples. Successful completion of all examples enabled the

learner to create a program that could change traffic lights:

o Pseudo (10 minutes)

o Indentation (15 minutes)

o Brackets (15 minutes)

• Recap and directed Q&A

Classroom management and Health & safety

IK

JR

IK

JR

JR/

IK

IK

3/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

ROBOTICS RESEARCH PROJECT: Collaborative Teaching 2

Session Title Describe & apply programming terms

Date 11/12/17 Duration 1 hr 30 mins

External vocational expert JR

Internal pedagogical tutor IK

Personal Lesson Objectives External Vocational Tutor (JR)

➢ To create a power point presentation and resources which

stimulate the learners to question me further and to be able

to complete all the tasks

➢ For all learners to understand my instructions and to ask

me for clarification rather than going through IK

➢ For all learners to remain on task and achieve lesson

objectives

➢ To be more confident in my delivery and to follow advice

supplied by IK following on from previous session

Achieved?

YES

NOT YET

NO & YES

YES

4/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

Personal Lesson Objectives Internal Pedagogical Tutor (IK)

➢ To understand and explain the terms: pseudo, indentation

and brackets to the class in the future

➢ To create a program that changes traffic lights using the

terms pseudo, indentation and brackets

➢ To be able to create another microcontroller program that

uses the terms pseudo, indentation and brackets

➢ To have the confidence to answer learners’ questions rather

than referring to JR for his response

Achieved?

YES

YES

YES

NOT YET

SAMPLE REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

REFLECTION TOOL (based on Driscoll, 2007) External tutor / internal tutor (delete as applicable)

What? A description of the experience in practice, purposefully reflecting on selected aspects of the experience

My programming skills: for a person who has no knowledge of

microcontroller programming it was a useful lesson personally. The basic

terms with their applications clarified their context within the small

programs. The “Building block” process for programming was easy to

follow and was like the flow chart programming I am familiar with.

JR’s presentation skills: JR has excellent and sound subject knowledge and

it was clear he was familiar with the course content and structure. Learners

are now showing interest in the subject and were asking some very good

questions which demonstrated their knowledge and understanding and

their eagerness for stretch & challenge tasks. However, I felt that some were

struggling to take notes during the presentation and would have benefited

5/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

from a copy of it (even for future reference – check that it has been placed

on HuB)

So What? An analysis of the event. Discovering what learning arises from the process of reflection

My programming skills: having completed the tasks alongside the

learners, I have a much greater understanding of the steps in

microcontroller programming and not starting with a blank page, I can see

how I could deliver a similar session next year. I was expecting it to be more

complex.

JR’s presentation skills: JR’s delivery is still more of a speaker than a tutor

and needs to be more interactive. Walking around the room rather than

staying at the front would have maintained eye contact and would have

avoided confrontation with disengaged learners; needs to be more

interactive.

6/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

Now What? Proposed actions following the event

My programming skills: to practice this simple programming technique,

to increase my confidence in the skills I have acquired. Deliver next session

with support from JR rather than other way round – discuss in our next

planning session.

JR’s presentation skills: JR has embraced the teaching of programming of

microcontrollers, but I need to work with him on basic teaching pedagogy

for all learners to be engaged and achieving. Strategies to avoid

confrontation. Change of focus in our planning sessions, clearly JR is

doing plenty of individual preparatory work from the specification.

7/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE PROFORMA

(based on Nottingham Trent University critical levels of evaluation levels,2, 4 & 5)

Denote your role in the session: student / internal tutor / external tutor (delete those not applicable)

Please complete the following questionnaire.

Hig

hly

ineff

ective

Ineffe

ctive

Eff

ective

Hig

hly

eff

ective

Rate each question from highly ineffective to highly effective

Did you acquire the intended knowledge & skills?

Was there a change in your knowledge?

Did you effectively apply the new knowledge?

Did you effectively apply the new skills?

Did the session have the intended impact on students?

Are students more confident as learners?

Have the students changed their attitudes?

Have the students changed their aspirations?

Have the students had positive learning outcomes?

Additional comments or feedback

8/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

LESSON PLAN PROFORMA

ROBOTICS RESEARCH PROJECT: Collaborative Teaching 1

Session Title

Date Duration

External vocational expert

Internal pedagogical tutor

Lesson Objectives (for learners) Please denote responsibilities

Outline Lesson Plan Please denote responsibilities

9/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

ROBOTICS RESEARCH PROJECT: Collaborative Teaching 2

Session Title

Date Duration

External vocational expert

Internal pedagogical tutor

Personal Lesson Objectives External Vocational Tutor Achieved?

Personal Lesson Objectives Internal Pedagogical Tutor

Achieved?

10/13 Collaborative Teaching Guide

March 2018

Education & Training Foundation

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE PROFORMA

REFLECTION TOOL (based on Driscoll, 2007) External tutor / internal tutor (delete as applicable)

What? A description of the experience in practice, purposefully reflecting on selected aspects of the experience

So What? An analysis of the event. Discovering what learning arises from the process of reflection

Now What? Proposed actions following the event