EDM0130
Professionalizing Your Teaching
Assignment: Reflective Diary
Candidate:
Assessment and Feedback
Criterion 1: Providing a rich, reflective account of your professional development in
teaching across the year.
Comments
Marks/40
Comments
Marks/40

Include reference to ideas discussed during ‘needs analysis’ and CPD plan meeting
with the course team, as well as reflection on teaching development coaching
sessions (Learning Outcome 1b, 2b, 3a, 3b 3d; UKPSF A2, K2, V1, V2, V4).
 Keep comprehensive notes which allow you to demonstrate critical reflection on
the theoretical and practical material encountered during the summer school
(Learning Outcomes 2a, 2b; UKPSF K1, K2).
 Keep thorough records of the contents of all continuing professional development
workshops attended and relate the material encountered to its practicability and
usefulness within your own teaching (Learning Outcomes 2a, 2b; UKPSF K1, K2).
 Critically analyse own professional practices and values, particularly through selfobservation of teaching using technology, peer observation, the assessed teaching
observation, participation in the online forum and feedback from others (Learning
Outcomes 2c, 3a; UKPSF K4, V1)).
 Keep a disciplined, detailed log of at least three ‘critical incidents’ as well as
everyday activities relating to own teaching experiences at regular intervals
throughout the course of the year (and thoughts and reactions to these events)
(Learning Outcomes 1b, 3a, 3b; UKPSF A2, V1, V2).
 Articulate how own professional values and teaching philosophies inform own
teaching practices and how these develop over time (Learning Outcome 3a; UKPSF
V1)).
Criterion 2: Showing evidence of the development of advanced reflexive skills in relation to
your teaching.


Articulate an understanding of what reflective writing at Master’s level is, showing
you have both consulted and understood the literature on reflective practice in HE
(Learning Outcomes 1b, 3b;UKPSF A1, V2).
Interpret ‘critical incidents’ and everyday teaching encounters using reflective skills
to find ways of optimising and developing your professional practice. (Learning
EDM0130
Professionalizing Your Teaching
Outcome 1b; UKPSF A2).
Write in a reflective style (in the first person and spontaneous), yet draw on
evidence-informed approaches and outcomes from others’ research, scholarship
and experience with the aim of developing own teaching practices and skills
(Learning Outcome 3c; UKPSF V3).
 Critically reflect on the optimum ways to teach both generally and within specific
discipline by drawing on a range of teaching and learning activities and methods
have learned about and / or experienced (Learning Outcomes 1a,1b,2a,2b; UKPSF
A1, A2, K1, K2)).
 Relate personal experiences of teaching in HE to broader institutional, national and
global drivers and policies, acknowledging implications for own practice and the
student learning experience (Learning Outcome 3d; UKPSF V4).
Criterion 3: Presentation and content of your reflective diary.

/20

Set out your work in a logical, developmental narrative, showing progression in
skills and self-awareness in teaching over the course of the year this module runs
(Learning Outcome 1b, 2a, 3b; UKPSF A2, K1, V2).
 Show both ‘in the moment’ reflection and longitudinal insight into own teaching
practice over the course of the year, ending with a summary of key learning points
(Learning Outcome 1b, 3b; UKPSF A2, V2).
 Show selectivity in choosing from the notes you have written throughout the year
to include in final write up (Learning Outcome 3c; UKPSF V3).
 Honestly and congruently identify both existing good practice and areas for
improvement and development in the way you see your teaching (Learning
Outcome 3b, 3c; UKPSF V2, V3).
 Use appropriate referencing, citing sources and include a bibliography listing all
references cited in the text (Learning Outcome 3c; UKPSF V3).
How to improve
Mark/100
EDM0130
Professionalizing Your Teaching
Marking Bands and Descriptions for Written Assessment Tasks
80% and above (Exceptional Distinction): Outstanding work that shows evidence of independent critical thought and reflection and is likely to be of a quality suitable for
publication. It will demonstrate complete command of the topic, subtlety of interpretation, exceptional critical evaluation and considerable reflection. Such work will be
exceptionally well written and presented.
70-79% (Distinction): Work that shows a considerable degree of critical thought, flair and independence, together with a sound factual knowledge, directly targeted at the
topic. The work will illustrate a power of critical analysis, critical evaluation and reflection. Such work will be written and presented to high academic standards.
67-69% (Very Good Pass): Answers in this range should be essentially sound and convincing, with evidence of good understanding and solid critical thought. Answers
should show thorough understanding of the subject and broad-based knowledge, with an ability to use material comparatively and critically. Examples and supporting
evidence should be used appropriately, to demonstrate clarity and coherence of argumentation. Such work will be written and presented to good academic standards.
64-66% (Good Pass): Work of this standard should be competent and methodical indicating a clear understanding of the topic, and an ability to critically engage with
relevant debates. Examples and supporting evidence should be present and used appropriately. The work will show some analytical power. It will be written and presented
to good academic standards and should be clear of major grammatical errors.
60-63% (Fairly Good Pass): Work shows some limitations in coverage, and some minor errors in fact or credible interpretation. There will be a tendency to accept ideas
uncritically and describe for extended passages, rather than analyse. Work of this standard should be competent but less methodical, yet still indicating a clear
understanding of the topic and some ability to critically engage with the debates. Examples and supporting evidence will be present, but not always optimally deployed.
The work will show some analytical qualities, but not consistently. It will be written and presented to acceptable standards but may contain some grammatical errors.
55-59% Satisfactory Pass: This work will demonstrate a reasonable grasp of the principle materials relevant to the subject and link them into an at least partly sustained
argument from premises to conclusions. It will be solid and competent. However, arguments may display a lack of clarity, crispness and focus. There may be some factual
errors, and shortcomings in terms of coverage, reading, organisation and only limited evidence of sustained critical thought. The text will be clear, but may be flawed by
grammatical errors that nevertheless do not obscure the meaning.
50-54% Low Pass: This work will demonstrate some grasp of principle materials and arguments will be apparent but show incomplete comprehension. There will be a poor
understanding of the context. There may be some factual errors. Significant grammatical and/or structural deficiencies may mar the text, leaving the reader to have too
much to do to discern the intended sense of the argument.
40-49% (Fail): This work will be poorly or illogically structured and show only limited understanding of the issues and inadequate appreciation of the context. It will include
some relevant material but not enough; and will have significant inaccuracies and significant sections of irrelevance. The work will typically make a number of statements
of opinion not adequately supported by evidence. It will be insufficiently focused on the question, fail to shape the argument from premises to conclusion, take little
account of key readings and be marred by significant shortcomings of grammar and syntax.
39 and Below (Serious Fail): Such work will show a very limited grasp of essential literature, revealing major errors or omissions, or substantial irrelevant material. The
work is likely to contain extensive irrelevance and be seriously and repeatedly marred by errors of grammar and expression. Arguments will be poorly organised and
difficult to follow, or not present at all. Evidence is likely to be weak and limited. The work is likely to make unsupported assertions and statements that are not backed up
be evidence.