Examples of Personal Approach to Teaching essays

This document contains extracts from Personal Approach to Teaching essays. Before viewing
these examples, we strongly recommend that you read the Learning Outcomes, essay
guidance and Marking Criteria (all found in the module handbook).

Please note, we have selected extracts from the ‘main body’ of the essays. We have not
included extracts from the introduction or conclusion sections.

Plagiarism is taken very seriously by the university and by professional regulators such as
the GMC or GDC. These essays have been submitted via Turnitin and so any similarities will
return a match.

Extract from a Pass Grade Essay (40-49% band)

Although the Honey and Mumford learning styles questionnaire ([Link] 2015) has
been widely used and applied since its inception in 1986 it's not without its flaws. I would suggest that
in order to gain the maximum from each learning experience the teacher should aim to be balanced
in each style. Capel and Martin (1994) argue that although the questionnaire has been useful in
focusing trainers' minds upon different styles it can be confusing as the process is overly theoretical
and they question the definition of learning styles and the manner of coming to conclusions.
Nevertheless, having some method of elucidating one's own style and how that influences your
teaching is a helpful exercise. For me it highlights my reliance upon more active styles and thus informs
me to remember not to neglect my reflective side or to consider it in my learners. I try to deliver
teaching in a way that takes into account the different ways that people learn.

During medical school I had the opportunity to experience several teaching styles, with an initial basis
in the traditional, didactic lecture-based style, then moving on to a problem-based learning (PBL)
approach. I have always felt most comfortable in lecture-based teaching; being given information by
an expert allows me to learn what I need but also sparks my interest and leads to wider independent
reading. The PBL sessions which I encountered were not my preferred way of learning and I was often
uncertain of the quality of knowledge I gained, learning objectives were either too wide or too narrow
and I was not confident that I was achieving the what I needed for my course. While I am informed by
the way that I learn and sessions that have been memorable for me I realise that not everyone learns
in the same way as me. For this reason, although my instinct is to fall back upon styles that suit me, I
also make a conscious effort to expand my range of teaching to include those with other learning
preferences. This means that as well and giving information in a lecture format I also try to include
activities such as discussing clinical cases and asking questions, both of which will appeal to active
learners.
Extract from a Merit Grade Essay (60-69% band)
Central to my personal approach to teaching is that everyone’s experience is individual and
this should be respected and valued. In line with constructivism, I believe that the learner
takes control of their own learning and builds on prior knowledge by manipulating new
information through their belief system and previous experiences to create new knowledge
(Sivalingam and Nazimah, 2014). Thus, I ensure that my teaching is learner-centred by
understanding what my learner knows or does not know, to provide experiences that
expose or challenge their previous assumptions (Kaufman, 2003). Exploring this is pivotal to
my practice as my audience can vary from having near to no clinical experience such as
undergraduate medical students, through to experienced senior colleagues.
Bloom’s taxonomy of learning reflects the different levels at which I pitch my teaching,
depending on my audience (Taylor and Hamdy 2013). With medical students, I often start at
the level of remembering. Pedagogy, traditionally, is the theory of teaching children.
Children are meant to have an uncensored and comprehensive learning, absorbing
everything within their clutch (Illeris, 2008). From my experience, I think this reflects
medical student education. They have a wealth of information given by their institution
which they faithfully rote learn. The motivation to learn is externally driven in the form of
passing exams, or due to a thirst for knowledge. I see my role in this context as providing
them with “comprehension” of the information learnt and to anchor key concepts allowing
them to apply them to practical situations (Taylor and Hamdy 2013: 1564-5).

For example, I had to teach a junior doctor the importance of reviewing blood results at the
end of the day, teaching her to prioritise what needed actioning that day and what could
wait. Having set the objective, I went through an example and explained my reasoning for
each decision, providing opportunities for questions. I then asked her to do the same,
explaining her reasoning and discussing why that was an important factor to consider and
provided feedback. Thus, by elaborating on the situation and by using Bloom’s later levels of
taxonomy we created new knowledge and principles (Taylor and Hamdy 2013: 1563-4).
Extract from a Distinction Grade Essay (70% + band)
Reflecting on past classroom sessions I have delivered, those with the poorest feedback have
tended to be didactic presentations with relatively little input from the learners beyond
responding to closed questions. I now recognise this as an example of behaviourist learning,
likely to be passive, superficial, and equating to the lowest level of Miller’s pyramid (Miller,
1990). It imparts facts, but does not promote analysis, reflection and development.
Moreover, it fails to make best use of a key learning resource: the diversity of the learners
themselves.

Conversely, the best-received teaching sessions I have given have actively involved learners
in the process. One example would be a teaching session on acute heart failure, where I
divide the classroom into small groups, and give each a different clinical vignette with open
questions attached [“what are the management priorities in this case?”]. After discussing in
their groups, the learners reconvene, and each group in turn presents their case and
conclusions to the wider audience broadening out the discussion with myself as facilitator.
This is an example of social constructivist learning, central to which is the learner assimilating
new thoughts and facts and into their existing experience bank, refining their mental model
of a problem or concept in collaboration with and informed by their peers.

The importance of group engagement can also be usefully conceptualised through the Johari
window, which models a process of learning where “discovery through discussion” between
learners is a rich source of sharing both information and understanding (Luft & Ingham, 1961).
Most of the required understanding will be found in the collective brain of the group, and
facts not known to one member may be known to others. These can be shared within the
group rather than being imparted by the teacher (myself). In this framework, my role is to
facilitate this process and supply or highlight “unknown unknowns”, those pieces of
information that are not yet in the collective consciousness. The presence of a disparate
group of learners becomes an asset rather than a problem. This is neatly summarised below
with reference to social constructivist theory (Taylor & Hamdy, 2013: 1565):
“Two things are immediately apparent from this construction – namely that discussion
between individuals will increase the amount of practical knowledge, and that some
things remain a mystery until we talk to someone else with a different range of
knowledge or understanding. It follows that the more diverse a learning group’s
membership is, the more likely the individuals within the group are to learn”.

This social constructivist approach is not without risk: it may be disadvantageous to

introverted learners who will be less inclined to participate, and also be hampered by
extroverts who tend to monopolise the discussion. It can also be viewed as inefficient, with
time wasted coming to collaborative understanding of what a majority of the group knew in
the first place (Clark, 2013). Balancing the two sides of the argument, I aim to give my learners
room to draw appropriate conclusions and facilitate rather than lead their discussion. I also
ensure I impart a few key messages if the trainees have not fully realised these by the end of
the session.