Personal statement Name: Jacquie Robson Department/School: Chemistry Signature: Please note that the personal statement should not be over 3000 words.

Scope of Activity You are asked to comment on you activities in the following 5 areas of activity,

1. Professional learning – what teaching-related workshops and seminars have you obtained, what teaching qualifications have you obtained or are you furthering?

2. Student Engagement – how do you ensure student engagement in face – to – face teaching, or if appropriate distance and/or online, comment on your student support activities and the feedback to provide to students, you may also wish to comment of your supervisor practice and undergraduate, pgt and pgr levels.

3. Curriculum Development – what have done in terms of developing resources for courses/modules, have you been involved in curriculum review, Have you been involved in design or innovation within a module or course, How do you evaluate your effectiveness as a teacher?

4. Research and scholarship – this is in relation to learning and teaching. You may also add comments on how your research and scholarship feeds into your ‘research-led’ teaching at Durham

5. Leadership and Collaboration – outline work you have done on mentoring colleagues, governance (e.g. chairing boards of examiners etc), engagement in Peer review, course accreditation and external examining at the undergraduate and pgt level.

Overview Education is about more than what happens in the laboratory or lecture room. Successful students take ownership of their learning, they feel valued and supported and they feel comfortable in (and a part of) their learning environment. My learning activities aim to be student-centred, inclusive and interactive. I support and encourage students to be involved in their own learning, not passive consumers of it. Providing pastoral-style support to enable students to access the academic content of their courses should be the role of all teachers. I care very much for my students as people first and as learners second, and I approach all of my teaching activities with this at the forefront of my mind. [Quotes given in the personal statement to support and evidence claims are taken from student MEQ feedback from 2015-16 or 2016-17 unless stated otherwise.]

1. Professional Learning

PG CAP (Durham) (June 2017)

Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (May 2017)

PG Cert in Further Professional Studies in Education (Durham, 2006)

Qualified Teacher Status (Northumbria 2002) Recent CAR(O)D provided training activities I have completed include:

SD303: Teaching in an International Classroom (2017)

PE301: Introduction to Coaching & Mentoring Techniques (2016) and successful completion of the ILM endorsed programme (to be awarded 2018)

SD246: Improving student learning through changing assessment: a practical guide (2013)

I have also co-designed and delivered a workshop on scholarship for colleagues (2018). 2. Student Engagement My first year lab course takes a blended approach, combining 1:1 laboratory contact with students with a full suite of online support resources and regular contact emails and invitations for questions and queries. Regular, up-to-date contact with students throughout the 19 week course helps highlight their active participation, rather than allow them a passive role.

“Having [had] little confidence in my practical ability coming to university I now feel much more comfortable carrying out practicals. The relaxed atmosphere in regards to whether the experiment was successful or not, and the fact that you could ask the demonstrators anything really helped me to achieve this“.

I use learning technologies to increase student engagement with feedback. Students often wait up to three weeks before receiving assessment marks for some lab work. This also meant they waited three weeks before receiving feedback. Now, feedback comments are released no more than a few days after students submit their report (often within 48 hours). These comments are generated electronically via Feedback Studio and I pioneered the use of ‘Quickmarks’ in the department to increase the information given to the student but decrease the time required by markers. Marks are released later. Separating ‘assessment marks’ from ‘feedback comments’ in this way has proved very successful and this use of learning technologies has enabled me to tackle some of the problems of providing ‘quick and dirty’ but still personal feedback that students want1 to a large cohort of 240. I also provide ‘feed forward’ documents, to be read in advance of assignment submission, and checklists are used at first to ensure the inclusion of all key items. Once assignment marks are released, there is often a generic ‘whole cohort’ feedback document circulated. Feedback screencast videos are available for experiments, and these are regularly and often used. “The transition from school to university lab work was done smoothly, lab work nicely organised and feedback forms useful”

1 Gibbs, G. 2015. 53 powerful ideas all teachers should know about. SEDA (Available at

https://www.seda.ac.uk/53-powerful-ideas (last accessed: 12/3/18)). See particularly Idea Number 27, January

2015.

The issues of ‘imposter syndrome’ and lack of confidence when arriving at University are very real and seem more prevalent in those accessing our course via a non-traditional route. I have set up a Learning Mentor scheme in Chemistry to support those students who come to us from the Supported Progression (SP) scheme, the Foundation Centre and overseas students. The Learning Mentor scheme, supported by a recent Enhancing the Student Learning Experience grant (2017), sees postgraduate students volunteer to work as mentors for first year students. Mentors are trained using resources prepared by an undergraduate student as part of a summer project in partnership with the Coaching and Mentoring leads in the University. First years identified by the department as belonging to the target groups are invited to participate in the scheme. It is purely voluntary, but ~75% take-up of the invitations. First year participants are paired with a postgraduate Learning Mentor, and they meet up at least once per fortnight. The discussions are focussed around the development of the study skills required to succeed at University and do not provide academic tutoring. Mentors have provided support with note-taking technique, work planning and general ‘survival’ advice. Any concerns outside of the Learning Mentor remit (e.g. welfare concerns) are flagged to me and students are signposted to appropriate help. The sessions regularly involve supportive discussion. First years involved in the scheme report that they feel they have gained in confidence, and the postgraduate mentors find it an enriching experience to ‘give back’ to the students. The Learning Mentor scheme was initially provided just for SP students, then expanded in a joint venture with the Foundation Centre to provide ongoing support for their students. The scheme has since been expanded to include overseas students and any other students who are encountering difficulties with ‘imposter syndrome’ and confidence levels who feel they might like the additional support. The structure of the scheme, including the mentor training resources produced by the undergraduate project student, has been adopted for use as part of the University Laidlaw Scholarship programme. The scheme is being expanded into other departments (currently sport and potentially physics). I firmly believe that ‘transition’ needs to be a ‘to, through and from’ the degree. As such, I have developed a suite of activities and materials to be delivered from acceptance in August and Induction week in October to Weeks 26-28 of the academic year. Chemistry were part of the pilot scheme for the ‘Transitions to HE’ pre-University module, and I have developed further chemistry-specific resources (via an ELSE grant in 2017) to support this. The suite of video induction resources were produced by a current undergraduate student and include interviews with first year staff, video tours of key areas in the department and nearby (e.g. lab tours and a library overview) and they proved popular with incoming students. Induction activities, as well as the logistical issues of sorting timetable and lab equipment, have a focus on study skills and the differences they might encounter in their higher education experience. There is more study skills information provided in January after their progress tests. I use PeerWise2 to set a vacation revision exercise over Easter, to help them engage with their revision and expand their revision activities. After examinations, students are set activities designed to prepare them for second year (e.g. lab inductions and familiarisation with the second year course structure), but also to review and evaluate their successes to date. I worked with the Director of Undergraduate Studies to prepare a Departmental Skills Award for Chemistry,

2 PeerWise is an online repository of multiple-choice questions that are created, answered, rated and discussed

by students. Created by Paul Denny (University of Auckland). Available at https://peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz/

which is part of the Durham Award. Over 90 students of the main Core Chemistry 1 module have engaged with the Departmental Award to date, and during Weeks 26-28 activities are planned to encourage and facilitate them to complete the award. This is work being done in collaboration with the Employability officer and the Durham Award team. This kind of reflective exercise enables students to appreciate how much they have developed during their first year, and allows them to document their achievements in a way which allows them to certificate their skills. I am currently working on a second Departmental Skills Award for second years and above, which will focus on team working and community engagement, as well as departmental extra-curricular activities to add on to the chemistry Durham Award provision. Beyond first year, I work closely with postgraduate students in both an outreach capacity and in developing their teaching and learning skills. Lab demonstrators are required to participate in a Departmental Training Course, which I co-developed, and then are provided with specific lab course training. I teach the PG students about effective marking and feedback and effective working with students in a lab setting. I hand over lots of responsibility to my postgraduate demonstrators in the teaching lab, requiring them to run their own experiments and mark student reports. This allows postgraduate students to develop their transferable and employability skills. I actively encourage those who are interested to pursue the postgraduate teaching award (formerly DULTA) to document their skills, and I support those who complete this course (and some who progress to the full PGCAP). 3. Curriculum Development As detailed above, I have developed a suite of activities for pre-induction, induction and throughout first year to Weeks 26-28 to support first year students with their skills development. I was also part of the small team who developed the Chemistry Departmental Award, which is running for the first time this year. Building employability skills into our course, and ensuring students are aware of the opportunities they have had to develop these, is an important focus at the moment. I overhauled the first year lab course a number of years ago now but I continue to make regular changes. My favourite part of the course is the ‘open ended projects’ section where students pick one of five unfamiliar topic areas and, independently, research the underpinning science and plan an investigation. This is gently scaffolded for them in the written manual but they are given the freedom to go above and beyond what is written. It is a genuine taste of ‘actual’ research for the students and I’m very proud of what they achieve during these sessions. “I have developed many new skills and improved many others. I am more comfortable in the lab now than before – I feel the project, which allowed more freedom in the lab than other weeks, contributed significantly to this.”

I am responsible for the design and running of the department’s Supported Progression and Sutton Trust provision. This sees pre-University school students complete a week long open-ended project in the department to allow us to ascertain their suitability for a degree at Durham. I designed this work pack, which sees participants complete some independent research in an area, design and complete a practical investigative study, give

a presentation and prepare a project report. The assessment of these is my responsibility, and I provide extensive feedback to all participants. I was invited to be a part of the university’s “Training of Academic Staff” working group which is, among other things, redeveloping the PG CAP staff training course. I have very much enjoyed being able to input ideas into this institution-wide initiative and I am confident that the new system will positively impact the teaching and learning of staff, and consequently students, across the University for years to come. Being able to consider a new curriculum, almost starting from scratch, has been an enjoyable experience. Some of my suggestions which are likely going to be incorporated into the new training scheme include facilitating a more joined-up approach to staff induction and teaching and learning training, and the development of a more sustainable and focused mentoring scheme. 4. Research and Scholarship I have been fortunate enough to be involve with a large number of scholarship projects during the last few years. I have been awarded a number of Enhancing the Student Learning Experience grants, usually working in partnership with undergraduate and/or postgraduate students, which have added great value to the department teaching and learning provision. These include the develop the Learning Mentor scheme in Chemistry (2017), to develop video resources for induction (2017), development of an academic writing course for third year students using a corpus (2014) and the development of post-laboratory screencast resources to provide feedback and feedforward outside of the laboratory (2013). The academic writing project was an invited paper in a themed ‘language’ issue3 in the Royal Society of Chemistry’s flagship pedagogical journal in 2016. The workshops described in the paper have garnered some interest and I have forwarded resources on to colleagues in other UK HEIs. I was invited to speak at the European Conference on Research in Chemistry Education (ECRICE) 2017 in Barcelona as a result of this publication. I have presented my work at many institutional, regional, national and some international conferences. 5. Leadership and Collaboration I have been the allocated mentor for teaching-only colleagues within the department and I have also acted as a mentor for teaching-track academics in departments across the University. These colleagues have been applying for promotion or scholarship leave, and I have enjoyed working with them to help them achieve their goals and to discuss their approaches to teaching and learning. As the first member of staff to ever achieve promotion on a teaching-only track contract within the Faculty of Science at the University, I have a unique position and have been happy to assist other colleagues to achieve the same or more and, as such, to further improve the profile of teaching and learning at Durham.

3 “Write on the edge: using a chemistry corpus to develop academic writing skills resources for

undergraduate chemists”, M. L. Bruce,* P. K. Coffer, S. Rees and J. M. Robson*, Chem. Ed. Res. Pract., 2016,

17, 580. DOI: 10.1039/c6rp00005c

I have been invited to be the external examiner for a new joint course in Physics and Education being run by University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moore’s from this summer.

Sphere of Influence Please indicate how you have supported colleagues and influenced support for student learning within (and if appropriate beyond) Durham, through demonstrating impact and engagement beyond your immediate academic or professional role by, for example:

contributing to the development of colleagues to promote student learning;

contributing to departmental/faculty/institutional/national initiatives to facilitate student learning.

Colleague development I am on the steering group for the Teaching Focussed Academic Network (formerly the Teaching Fellows Network), and I have been involved in organising and running sessions for colleagues. I was one of the facilitators of the ‘What is scholarship’ workshop, which aimed to allow colleagues to reflect on and develop their own practice. I am on the steering group for the Durham Learning and Teaching Network (a collegial support group which aims to influence institutional practice and strategies). I contributed to the establishment and running of an annual Learning and Teaching conference at Durham. I regularly contribute to the PGCAP course, offering advice and feedback to early career academics as part of round table and micro-teaching sessions, and I am contributing to the redevelopment of this course as part of the “Training of Academic Staff” working group. I was an invited speaker at the October 2017 Faculty of Science retreat, where I presented to the HoDs, DoEs and DoRs of each science department about issues our students encounter during the transition from school to University and how, in chemistry, we are implementing ideas to support students throughout this period. I have followed this up with providing information and advice to colleagues in other departments who are developing their provision for transition. Contribution to initiatives to facilitate student learning I was invited to be a part of the national “Effective Laboratory Teaching” network, run by Malcolm Stewart at Oxford, to provide input on the open-ended projects I developed at Durham and other aspects of lab teaching to be shared with colleagues running similar courses at other UK HEIs. I have had regular contact from teachers who are using aspects of my experiments in their own classroom, including most recently from a teacher at Elgin Academy in Scotland who has a student completing an open-ended investigation of his own based on one of my experiments and who has used my material as a starting point. This demonstrates the extent of the impact some of this work has had.

After being awarded a Royal Society of Chemistry School Teacher Fellowship in 2010-2011 and have kept close links with the society. I was invited to work as the North-East Mentor for RSC Teacher Training scholars, and, with other regional mentors, I organise and deliver training activities designed to assist the trainee teachers with expanding their skill set, enabling them to be learn and practice as much practical chemistry as possible so they can take this into their classroom, as well as training on general teaching and pedagogic issues.

Source of Evidence You should provide some evidence of excellence in teaching practice. Three sources of evidence for evaluating teaching excellence are available, namely,

Personal – Evidence of reflective practice, evidence of engagement with educational literature and/or theory, e.g. how a teaching philosophy / theory informs your practice

Students – Clearly student value your teaching by nominating you, what other evaluative evidence do you have enhancing student achievements. How do you student evaluation scores compare with the School / Department average?

Peers – Evidence of recognition by colleagues, head of department / school, external examiner. May also include peer observation and peer reviews of curriculum development

Measuring effectiveness as a teacher, and the subsequent effect on the learning of students, is not a trivial task. Indeed, the measurement of ‘teaching quality’, if that is what effectiveness is, is the source of much debate in the TEF era. I rely partly on collected evidence (such as MEQ responses, staff observation feedback, student performance and engagement with me and peer comments), partly on my own reflection of whether teaching has been appropriate and learning has happened, and also on observation of student development. I am keenly aware that students ‘enjoying’ sessions and students effectively learning are not always the same thing. Drawing out the key information from student comments is important, as is acting on the information in a measured and considered way. If students feel comfortable to approach with questions or queries, any issues soon become apparent and can be addressed. I have included direct evidence in some of the above claims, but please find below some more examples. Personal evidence I use educational literature to inform my teaching. My presentation skills workshops use a ‘flipped’ and ‘blended learning’ approach, combining ‘contact’ teaching with the use of technology. I provide all the preparatory materials on duo and the workshop is a two hour practical session. Each student presents on a topic of their choice for up to two minutes. My favourite topic to date is “How the facial hair of American presidents correlated to their political policies”! Members of the audience completed a peer assessment form to

provide instant feedback on presentation skills and a video recording provided to allow self-assessment. “It was extremely helpful to receive feedback on our presentation skills especially in a relatively informal

setting.” “The presentation skills training was essential. It helped me identify my weaknesses as a speaker and improve before doing the real thing.”

Further evidence from students MEQ scores and comments: I keep records of MEQ scores for everything I teach. The collated record for the last 6 years are attached as Appendix A. My lecture course has been the highest scoring in the Molecules in Action module for the past few years and has placed me in the top 5 in the department every year since the course began in 2013. “Thoroughly enjoyed these lectures, have no bad points to mention. Very enthusiastic and use of videos and handout made it informative and exciting.” The MEQ responses directly related to Induction show students feel very welcomed and well prepared for the Core Chemistry 1 course: “I felt welcomed into the Chemistry department, specifically with introductory lectures.” “I found the Orientation Treasure Hunt particularly useful as it encouraged us to start to familiarise ourselves with the Chemistry department, know where useful offices and pigeon holes are etc. Overall, the talks and handouts given in the induction I found helpful in making a smooth transition into University study.”

The most useful feedback is not subjective numbers, however, but comments that highlight areas ripe for improvement. Our students are brutally honest in their feedback and this makes their input incredibly useful as a developmental tool for teaching. But please forgive me for not presenting any of those (small number of) examples here! Further evidence from peers: recognition and peer review I was one of two nominees from Durham University in 2017 for a National Teaching Fellowship. Descriptions used to describe my teaching from peers observing my teaching have included ‘enthusiastic’, ‘passionate’ and ‘innovative’. A colleague in the Learning Technologies Team was kind enough to write the following:

When I think of innovative teaching practices at Durham University, Jacquie is the first name that comes into my head. Over the past year, I have helped Jacquie use video technology to create opportunities for students to reflect upon their presentation skills. A session that has greatly improved the confidence of her students and taught them valuable life skills. When speaking to other academics about ways that they can use technology to enhance learning and teaching, I continually refer to Jacquie as a fine example Ross Parker, IS Learning Technology Specialist

Word count (not including quotes and greyed out instructions): 2998

Appendix A: Collated summary of MEQ scores, Jacquie Robson

Summary of MEQ scores for CHEM1087: Practical Chemistry 1A.

1. Mean responses to questions set by the department

2012* 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average** 1.1 The laboratory course in this module was well organised and enjoyable

2.28 2.04 82% 80% 78% 79% 2.16 / 79.8%

1.2 The experiments in the laboratory course were interesting and enjoyable

2.04 1.94 79% 78% 78% 79% 1.99/78.5%

1.3 The purpose of the experiments was clear from the laboratory manual

2.02 1.88 79% 79% 78% 77% 1.95 / 79%

1.4 The pre-laboratory exercises were sufficient to suitably prepare me for the experiments

75% 79% 79% 78% 78.2%

1.5 The web-based supporting materials were useful.

2.29 2.04 77% 73% 79% 79% 2.17 / 77%

1.6 The experimental work undertaken in the laboratory course was presented at a level I could understand based on my previous knowledge/experience

2.29 2.13 77% 80% 80% 78% 2.21 / 78.8%

1.7 The assessment criteria were clearly outlined in advance

73% 72% 72% 73% 72.5%

1.8 The project gave me the opportunity to demonstrate some of the skills I’d learned throughout the lab course

2.67 2.24

2.46

1.8 The quantity of lab work covered in each session was appropriate

2.71 2.33

2.52

Putting the MEQ scores for this module into context Practical Chemistry 1A is a compulsory course for all undergraduate chemists (approximately 120-130 per year). It is also an option often chosen by Natural Science students (~80-100 per year). The lab course runs across four three-hour sessions per week (each session containing up to 60 students) across 19 weeks of the academic year. This module, and Practical Chemistry 1B, were the highest scoring laboratory courses in the department in 2017 in most components. Prior to 2013-2014, the laboratory courses were embedded into the Core Chemistry 1A module (CHEM1012) and the MEQ questions relating to laboratory work were, in some cases, different. The scores are broadly comparable, however, and still refer to my laboratory course and so have been included here for completeness.

*up to 2013, the scale used was 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) and the % was not calculated. The lower the score, the better the rating. **two averages have been calculated to reflect the two different ratings systems used in MEQs across the period under review.

Summary of MEQ scores for CHEM1107: Practical Chemistry 1B.

Mean responses to questions set by the department

2012* 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average** 1.1 The laboratory course in this module was well organised and enjoyable

1.95 2.21 85% 84% 85% 83% 2.08 / 84.3%

1.2 The experiments in the laboratory course were interesting and enjoyable

1.92 2.01 83% 82% 85% 81% 1.97 / 82.8%

1.3 The purpose of the experiments was clear from the laboratory manual

1.83 2.06 81% 83% 81% 80% 1.95 / 81.3%

1.4 The pre-laboratory exercises were sufficient to suitably prepare me for the experiments

79% 81% 82% 79% 80.3%

1.5 The web-based supporting materials were useful.

1.90 2.15 79% 73% 81% 78% 2.03 / 77.8%

1.6 The experimental work undertaken in the laboratory course was presented at a level I could understand based on my previous knowledge/experience

2.03 2.14 80% 83% 80% 80% 2.09 / 80.8%

1.7 The assessment criteria were clearly outlined in advance

73% 70% 73% 75% 72.8%

1.8 The project gave me the opportunity to demonstrate some of the skills I’d learned throughout the lab course

2.05 2.42

2.24

1.8 The quantity of lab work covered in each session was appropriate

2.19 2.46

2.33

Putting the MEQ scores for this module into context Practical Chemistry 1B is a compulsory course for all undergraduate chemists (approximately 120 per year). It is very occasionally also taken by Natural Science students (~4-5 per year). The lab course runs for three three-hour sessions a week for 19 weeks, with up to 50 students per session. There were no overall % given in the MEQ for questions relating to feedback, demonstrator performance and confidence in practical skills so these have not been included here. Prior to 2013-2014, the laboratory course was embedded into the Core Chemistry 1B module (CHEM1022) and the MEQ questions relating to laboratory work were, in some cases, different. The scores are broadly comparable, however, and still refer to my laboratory course and so have been included here for completeness.

*up to 2013, the scale used was 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) and the % was not calculated. The lower the score, the better the rating. **two averages have been calculated to reflect the two different ratings systems used in MEQs across the period under review

Summary of MEQ scores for CHEM1012/CHEM1078: Core Chemistry 1A (Responses relating to Induction only).

Mean responses to questions set by the department

2012 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average** 1.1 I felt welcomed to the Chemistry department 1.67 81% 80% 80% 80% 80.3% 1.2 If I had any questions, I knew who to ask in the chemistry department

1.83 74% 76% 77% 75% 75.5%

1.3 The Chemistry induction process made it clear to me what I needed to do and where I needed to be for my Chemistry modules

1.99 78% 78% 79% 75% 78.5%

1.4 The Chemistry induction process helped me to develop my approach to learning at University

2.57 63% 64% 62% 64% 63.3%

1.5 I received all the required information and materials for the Chemistry course.

2.00 74% 75% 74% 75% 74.5%

3. Putting your MEQ scores for this module into context Core Chemistry 1A (Core Chemistry 1 from 2016-17) is a compulsory module for all undergraduate chemists (~120 students) and is a popular option choice for Natural Scientists (~100 students). The Core Chemistry 1A induction evaluated in the MEQ involves the activities undertaken in the first week the students are in Durham since the redevelopment of the Induction process for the 2012-2013 academic year. Prior to this, there were no questions about Induction in the MEQ. There is no directly comparable module / section / course in the department, but scores are very good (closer to 1 = more highly rated).

*up to 2013, the scale used was 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) and the % was not calculated. The lower the score, the better the rating. **two averages have been calculated to reflect the two different ratings systems used in MEQs across the period under review

Summary of MEQ scores for CHEM1061: Molecules in Action).

Mean responses to standard issues set by University

2012 2013* 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average %**

1.1 Module Content “It was clear to me how courses in this module related to each other and to other sections of my course”

2.36 67% 57% 68% 66% 64.5%

1.2. Modes of Learning “My interest level in the area of chemistry covered into this module was sustained and I want to learn more”

1.98 78% 69% 81% 81% 77.3%

1.3. Modes of Assessment “I feel confident that I will be able to answer exam questions successfully on the material presented in this module”

2.16 72% 67% 76% 68% 70.8%

1.4(1). Learning Resources “The workshops in this module provided me with sufficient exercises and staff contact to reinforce my understanding of the module”

2.77 48% 49% 56% 58% 57.8%

1.4(2). Learning Resources “I found the text books recommended useful in supporting the material presented in this module”

2.80 49% 45% 51% 51% 49.0%

Mean responses to questions set by the department (lecturer-specific)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average 2.1 It was clear from the lectures in this course which material we were expected to learn

1.77 84% 88% 85% 86% 85.8%

2.2 The material in the course was presented in an interesting and enthusiastic manner, at a suitable pace and in a logical order

1.54 92% 88% 90% 88% 89.5%

2.3 I found it easy to make notes in the lectures and the handouts/web-based supporting materials were useful and sufficient

1.61 88% 90% 87% 85% 87.5%

2.4 The quantity of material in the lecture course was appropriate

1.98 81% 85% 82% 82% 82.5%

2.5 The material in the course wasn’t significantly harder than in other courses and was presented at a level I could understand based on my previous knowledge/experience

1.91 81% 88% 82% 82% 83.3%

3. Putting the MEQ scores into context This is an optional first year module for any student who has taken A-level chemistry. Typically, the cohort of ~100 students is made up mostly of Chemistry and Natural Science undergraduates with a small number from other departments. Of the five lecture courses in this module, the scores for my course across all components have been consistently the highest over the three years I have taught on the module. The scores have also consistently placed me in the top two or three lecturers in the department (when ranked by MEQ scores).

*up to 2013, the scale used was 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) and the % was not calculated. The lower the score, the better the rating.