Peer-teaching in the food chemistry laboratory: student-produced experiments, peer and audio feedback, and integration of employability skills

Julie Dunne
Julie Dunne
Contact Julie Dunne

School of Food Science and Environmental Health, College of Science, Dublin Institute of Technology Ireland

Published: 18.10.2014.

Volume 3, Issue 2 (2014)

pp. 145-159;

https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/3.2.2014.a2

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

1.
Pegg A, Waldock J, Hendy-Isaac S, Lawton R. Higher Education Academy. 2012;42.
2.
Student Signature Module Code.
3.
Discuss the results in your discussion, supporting the discussion with theory introduced in the introduction.
4.
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.
5.
In methodology / experimental state chemical and put amounts and concentrations in brackets afterwards 22. Include appropriate chemical structures.
6.
Include only relevant information which you understand in the Introduction (assume the reader is in your class).
7.
Include an introduction with project aim and objectives.
8.
Include a list of acronyms and chemical abbreviations if necessary.
9.
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.
10.
Number each section.
11.
Do not abbreviate using can’t, won’t, isn’t, etc.
12.
Use a line spacing of 1.5 and justify text.
13.
Keep the font and formatting style the same throughout.
14.
Include a title sheet with your name, and date.
15.
Yorke M, Team E, -O. Employability in Higher Education: What it is -What it is Not. LTSN Generic Centre. 2004;
16.
Taylor P, Geden J. Physical Sciences Discipline Project Enhancement Themes: Research-Teaching Linkages: Enhancing Graduate Attributes (S. Reinvented Labs in. 2008;
17.
Bennett S, O’neale K. Progressive development of practical skills in chemistry: a guide to early-undergraduate experimental work. 1999;
18.
Overton T, Johnson S, Scott J. Study and communication skills for the chemical sciences. 2011;
19.
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. 2004;(4):609–30.
20.
Nicol D. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. 2010;
21.
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;(3):130–9.
22.
Hrivnak G. “are you listening please?” the advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2013;(4):759–69.
23.
Higgins R, Hartley P, Skelton A. Getting the message across: the problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in higher education. 2001;(2):269–74.
24.
Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2007;(1):81–112.
25.
Fleming N, Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. to improve the academy. 1992;137–55.
26.
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;103–22.
27.
Durbridge N. Media in course design, no. 9, audio cassettes. The role of technology in distance education. 1984;99–108.
28.
Carvalho A, Aguiar C, Maciel R. proceedings 090806 web 0161. Journal of Chemical Education. 2009;(4):543–7.
29.
Carnduff J, Reid N. Enhancing Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratories: prelaboratory and post-laboratory exercises. 2003;
30.
Black P, Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning. 1998;(1):7–74.
31.
Bennett S, Overton T. Evidentiallybased curriculum development introduction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2010;(2):73.
32.
Bennett S, Seery M, Sovegjarto-Wigbers D. Practical work in higher level chemistry education. Innovative methods in teaching and learning chemistry in higher education. 2009;85–101.

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

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.

Most read articles

Indexed by