This paper describes the author’s experience over the last several years of implementing an alternative Food Chemistry laboratory practical model for a group of third-year BSc Nutraceuticals students. The initial main objectives were to prepare students for the more independent final-year research project; to incorporate innovative approaches to feedback; and to integrate key employability skills into the curriculum. These were achieved through building the skills required to ultimately allow students working in groups to research, design and run a laboratory for their class. The first year of the project involved innovative approaches to feedback, including weekly feedback sessions, report checklists and audio feedback podcasts. Student evaluation after one year suggested the case group felt more prepared for final-year research projects and work placement owing to the redesign of the laboratory assessment. This, together with general positive feedback across several indicators, was proof of concept, and was a foundation for an improved model. The improvements related to the organisation and management of the project, but the same pedagogical approach has been retained. The second year saw the introduction of a more rigorous and easier to manage peer evaluation through use of the online Comprehensive Assessment for Team-Member Effectiveness (CATME) tool. The most recent revision has included a Project Wiki hosted on Blackboard™to facilitate the organisation, communication, assessment and feedback of student-generated resources. More recently, the final-year students who had participated in the peer-teaching Food Chemistry labs when in third year have been evaluated. This evaluation took place following their research projects, and suggests that the peer-teaching model better prepared them for these activities, compared to traditional laboratories.
Bennett S, O’neale K. Progressive development of practical skills in chemistry: a guide to early-undergraduate experimental work. Royal Society of Chemistry; 1999.
2.
Bennett S, Seery M, Sovegjarto-Wigbers D. Practical work in higher level chemistry education. Innovative methods in teaching and learning chemistry in higher education. RSC Publishing; 2009. p. 85–101.
3.
Bennett S, Overton T. Evidentiallybased curriculum development introduction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2010. p. 73.
4.
Black P, Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. 1998. p. 7–74.
5.
Carnduff J, Reid N. Enhancing Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratories: prelaboratory and post-laboratory exercises. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2003.
6.
Carvalho A, Aguiar C, Maciel R. proceedings 090806 web 0161. Journal of Chemical Education. 2009. p. 543–7.
7.
Durbridge N. Media in course design, no. 9, audio cassettes. The role of technology in distance education. 1984. p. 99–108.
8.
Eilks I, Markic S, Baumer M, Schanze S. Cooperative learning in higher level chemistry education. Innovative Methods of Teaching and Learning Chemistry in Higher Education. 2009. p. 103–22.
9.
Fleming N, Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. to improve the academy. 1992. p. 137–55.
10.
Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2007. p. 81–112.
11.
Higgins R, Hartley P, Skelton A. Getting the message across: the problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in higher education. 2001. p. 269–74.
12.
Hrivnak G. “are you listening please?” the advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2013. p. 759–69.
13.
Davies M, Mc Donnell W, O’connor C, Seery C, M. Developing practical chemistry skills by means of student-driven problem based learning mini-projects. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2008. p. 130–9.
14.
Nicol D. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2010.
15.
Nicol D, Macfarlane-Dick D, Juwah C, Macfarlane-Dick D, Matthew B, Nicol D, et al. The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self-and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education; 2004. p. 609–30.
16.
Overton T, Johnson S, Scott J. Study and communication skills for the chemical sciences. Oxford University Press; 2011.
17.
Pegg A, Waldock J, Hendy-Isaac S, Lawton R. Higher Education Academy. Nelson Thornes; 2012. p. 42.
18.
Taylor P, Geden J. Physical Sciences Discipline Project Enhancement Themes: Research-Teaching Linkages: Enhancing Graduate Attributes (S. Reinvented Labs in. 2008.
19.
Yorke M, Team E, -O. Employability in Higher Education: What it is -What it is Not. LTSN Generic Centre. 2004.
20.
Include a title sheet with your name, and date.
21.
Keep the font and formatting style the same throughout.
22.
Use a line spacing of 1.5 and justify text.
23.
Do not abbreviate using can’t, won’t, isn’t, etc.
24.
Number each section.
25.
Refer to all figures and tables in the text before inclusion 13. Label all figures and tables correctly 14. Figure captions go below the figure 15.
26.
Include a list of acronyms and chemical abbreviations if necessary.
27.
Include an introduction with project aim and objectives.
28.
Include only relevant information which you understand in the Introduction (assume the reader is in your class).
29.
In methodology / experimental state chemical and put amounts and concentrations in brackets afterwards 22. Include appropriate chemical structures.
30.
Do not use “as per manual, handout”, etc. Write out methodology fully, using a paragraph, not steps. See literature papers in a relevant. Journal for correct format.
31.
Discuss the results in your discussion, supporting the discussion with theory introduced in the introduction.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
