Abstract
Development of skills in bioscience undergraduates is seen as desirable by academic staff, students and employers, and this is reflected across most degree programmes. However, providing the opportunity for students to practise skills may alone be insufficient for their development. With an evident discrepancy between the skills expected of students and those exhibited, there is a clear argument for explicit teaching of skills in degree programmes. However, student engagement with such modules can be low and with large class sizes, this can be a particular challenge. We designed a module to develop a range of skills for bioscience students, from information gathering, literacy, time management, independence and teamwork, to higher levels skills such as critical and creative thinking and practise of the scientific approach. We provided a framework of lectures to introduce each component of the module, but our approach relied on small group sessions with problem-based activities and self-directed learning supported by computer-based resources. There are frequent, varied, low-stakes assessments, including peer evaluation with rapid feedback. This module builds on skills acquired by students in their first year, links to other second year modules and culminates in preparation of individual student plans for third year projects or dissertations. The module is very popular with students, and the increase in marks for student assignments (particularly the project plan), are evidence of its effectiveness.
Introduction
With significant financial implications for students choosing higher education, and an increasingly competitive jobs market, there has been recent emphasis on graduate skills for employability (CitationHEFCW 2010, CitationAGCAS 2011, CitationCBI/NUS 2011, CitationHEFCE 2011, CitationMillion+ 2012). This is reflected in policies across the higher education sector in the United Kingdom, where employability now occupies a central role (CitationTariq & Cochrane 2003, CitationYorke & Knight 2004, CitationYorke 2006, CitationDIUS 2008, CitationRotherham & Willingham 2010, CitationSaunders & Zuzel 2010, CitationHill 2012). Whilst precise definitions of employability vary, it is generally considered to include knowledge, skills, and personal attributes which will help graduates in life as well as increasing their chances of finding appropriate work (CitationYorke 2006, CitationCBI/NUS 2011, CitationPegg et al. 2012, CitationCole & Tibby 2013).
For the biosciences, desirable skills fall into the following broad categories: communication; numeracy; information technology (IT); problem-solving; working with others; improving own learning and performance (CitationMurphy 2001, CitationTariq & Cochrane 2003). These categories include generic skills such as information gathering, critical thinking and time management. Students should become effective learners, with the motivation to enhance their ability to work independently and be self-critical, but they also need to be effective in relationships with others (CitationRosenberg et al. 2012). Subject-specific skills relate to the scientific process, and include designing a research project, analysis and interpretation of results and communicating in a manner appropriate for a particular audience (e.g. writing a scientific abstract).
Rationale for the ‘Bioscience Skills’ module
Within the School of Biological Sciences (SBS) at Bangor University, all first year students take a college-wide module (‘Introductory research skills’) which focuses on information literacy, numeracy, statistics and basic writing skills, and skills development is embedded in modules throughout the curriculum. In addition, students have the opportunity to take further skills-based modules and participate in a variety of co- and extra-curricular activities which contribute to the Bangor Employability Award. However, during a curriculum review in 2010, it became apparent that there were a number of problems with skills acquisition amongst the students:
There was a discrepancy between the skills possessed by graduates and those expected by academic staff, which was particularly apparent in final year honours projects. Problems included inadequate use of the scientific literature, little evidence of critical thinking, inability to apply the scientific approach and poor communication skills.
The students' exposure to skills training was hugely variable, both within and between degree programmes.
Students commented that there were insufficient opportunities to practise skills, or that they received insufficient feedback to enable development.
Having identified gaps in skills acquisition, a new 20 credit ‘Bioscience Skills’ module was introduced in 2011, which was compulsory for all second year students in SBS.
The specific aims of the Bioscience Skills module were:
To develop critical thinking skills and the ability to apply the scientific approach.
To develop literacy and communication skills.
To develop skills in creative thinking.
To prepare each student for their final year honours project or dissertation.
To help students work effectively both individually and as a group member.
To practise time management, teamwork and other graduate skills.
Module design
In designing the module, it was hoped that student engagement could be improved and confidence increased. By providing a supportive, non-threatening, small-group environment, students were encouraged to actively contribute to discussions. They were presented with topics about which they knew little, and they were encouraged to explore areas of potential interest for research, which they were subsequently able to investigate further. Without existing pre-conceptions, they were encouraged to be creative, and with increased confidence to question accepted wisdom (CitationBohm 1998, CitationCousins et al. 2012).
The programme of skills development is based on frequent, varied formative and summative assessments, rapid feedback and experiential learning (CitationKolb 1984). The assessments are closely linked to learning outcomes, to promote good learning (CitationTennant et al. 2009). A synthesis of literature on assessment by CitationNicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006, p205), highlighted the function of good feedback: to clarify good performance, facilitate reflection, provide high quality information to students about their learning, encourage dialogue between learner and teacher, encourage motivation and self-esteem, provide opportunities to improve performance and not least to inform future teaching practise. Formative feedback can enhance learning by giving credit for achievements, correcting errors and alerting learners to other possibilities. This module involved discussion of marking criteria, written comments on work, rapid responses to groups and provision of model answers, but also oral feedback in groups and individual face-to-face discussions when requested, since the benefits of discourse are well-documented (CitationCarless et al. 2006, CitationGlover & Brown 2006). Peer feedback provided an additional opportunity for students to learn, since students may reveal their own misunderstandings in the process of assessing (CitationRamsden 1998, CitationTariq 2005).
During this module, students are asked to use knowledge acquired elsewhere, and they are expected to accumulate and consider subject knowledge which is not directly taught in this module. The establishment of links between the skills module and others (both practical and theoretical) and between levels of the degree programme, is designed to reinforce skills acquisition and learning. By including exercises and assessments on a range of topics, it is also possible to highlight connections between research and teaching, and to increase the relevance of subject matter to particular degree programmes. The inclusion of an element of planning for the final year project or dissertation is an acknowledgement of the importance of student choice in this matter, and an attempt to encourage serious consideration of available options.
Methods are focused around a problem-based approach with small group tutorials, peer-assisted learning, self-directed study (with online resources), and a framework of lectures to orientate students. The module is largely learner-led and it makes considerable intellectual demands of students.
The module has explicit skills-related learning outcomes, and expectations of students are made clear. From the beginning, we encouraged students to take responsibility for their learning, to increase motivation and engagement, and altogether improve the quality of their learning experience.
There are four, equally-weighted components to the module, each building on the skills already introduced (see ). The contact hours for each component are variable, but nominally students would be expected to spend approximately 50 hours on each. The final test of these skills is production of an individual plan for the final year research project or dissertation.
Table 1 The four components of the new Bioscience Skills module.
The activities are directed by two academic staff and supported by post-graduate and post-doctoral researchers, who have received specific training as facilitators for problem-based sessions with small groups (i.e. Graduate Teaching Assistants, GTAs), so we can ensure that they are both committed and well-prepared.
Component
Critical thinking
This component aims to develop skills for information gathering and critical thinking, and lead to an appreciation of the need for the scientific approach (including framing and testing hypotheses, experimental design, random trials, controls, analyses, conclusions, the peer review process, meta-analyses, etc.). It also aims to develop students' confidence and ability to communicate in a clear, concise, reliable and logical manner. By considering scientific literature and other media, it raises awareness of the importance of appropriate communication for different audiences, the role of science in the community, and the public understanding of science.
The introductory lecture introduces the debate on the triple vaccine for Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) and its presentation in the media, and by the end of the week, students are asked to review a scientific manuscript on the topic, for online submission to the module's Blackboard site, which is formatively assessed. Rapid feedback is provided in the form of graded example answers (from a previous cohort of this module) that are made available immediately after the assignment deadline. Students then have three small group workshops, each lasting two hours (with a facilitator present for the first hour). In the first session, students are presented with articles from a variety of sources on potentially controversial topics, with which they may be familiar (e.g. badger culling, creationism, and gender differences).
They are asked to browse the literature and each choose one article to present to their peers. After discussion, the group decide which topic they would like to research in more depth. For the second assignment, individual students have to read and upload scientific manuscripts on the topic and submit a précis of each of these to a group blog. At the second group session, they present their findings to the rest of the group and during discussion, any controversies in the topic are identified. The group are encouraged to decide on the subject of debate and to divide into two teams, who will then prepare for one side of the argument or the other. After gathering more evidence, the final workshop is a facilitated debate. Finally, students are asked to prepare a wiki to summarise their arguments. For the summative assessment, 10% of module marks are awarded for engagement in group work (judged by participation in workshops, completion of formative assessments and online activity) and 15% for a critical review of a scientific paper, by individual students, which is submitted online.
Online links, references and a variety of resources (podcasts, TV programmes, news articles, primary literature, meta-analyses), are provided on each of the topics, to show different perspectives, some of which are contradictory. The strengths and weaknesses of the different viewpoints, sources and presentations are discussed in the workshops. Students are asked to consider and discuss the quality of different sources of information, identify errors and discrepancies, explain use and abuse of statistical analysis and erroneous or misleading presentation of results.
Scientific writing
This component aims to develop the skills of finding and critically evaluating scientific information, and of scientific writing. Most of this component involves self-directed study, with formative exercises on writing and referencing to complete, in class or online. The summative assessment is an essay with scientific abstract (on a topic chosen from a list of diverse topics that cover the breadth of degree programmes studied in SBS) with appropriate referencing, which is worth 25% of the module mark.
Creative thinking
This component aims to develop skills for creative thinking and problem solving, which are employed to produce a research project proposal as a group. After an introductory lecture, small groups are given several short, summaries of real-life systems from a range pertaining to their degree programmes (e.g. mimicry in butterflies, Australasian mammals, speciation in cichlid fishes). The group identify one system of particular interest and discuss areas worthy of further investigation. Over the remaining two group workshops, and with self-directed learning, students generate a group project proposal, and practise appropriate deployment of the scientific approach (with consideration of hypotheses; experimental design, appropriate tests, data analysis and interpretation and identification of possible areas for future research). They are asked to consider logistics, ethics and finance of research. Summative assessment is based on a written group project proposal (one A4 page) and individual contributions to the group's oral presentation, where each student will have approximately one minute to present two slides. These assessments are equally weighted.
Planning for the third year project
Following an introductory lecture on project planning, and another on experimental design, individual students identify research projects or areas of research interest, from a list drawn up by most academic staff within the SBS. After further discussions with potential supervisors, individual students choose their preferred honours project or dissertation, and attend a series of individual or group tutorials with their supervisor, to assist them in preparing a project plan. The project plan is the summative assessment for the final part of this module, and to proceed to an experimental project in their final year, students much achieve at least 60% for this piece of work. Marking is done by future project supervisors.
Methods for evaluating the success of the module
For the past three years we had between 137 and 154 students on the module. The mean marks for the honours project plan on this module were compared with the equivalent assessment from the previous module [one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test]. The mean marks achieved by the same students in their final year honours project or dissertation were also compared.
Individual student performance on the new module was compared with performance on their other modules at the institutional level using specifically commissioned statistical software (ARQUE, Acadvent Ltd, Swansea). Mean module marks were compared to those of the module it replaced, and mean marks for oral presentations and essays were also compared between the old and new modules.
Numerical data were gathered from student feedback questionnaires, one following an institution-wide format, and another asking students how helpful the module had been on developing a range of skills. Responses to both were on a Likert scale, with scores ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree).
Qualitative feedback was collected from questionnaires by asking students to comment on the usefulness/enjoyment of the module (in terms of module delivery, content, assessments); to identify good and bad points, and to provide suggestions for improving the module.
Evaluation of the ‘Bioscience Skills’ module
Comparison of assessment marks with previous modules
Perhaps the best indication of success is the increased quality of honours project plans produced by students on the Bioscience Skills module, when compared with its predecessor. The project plans are marked by academic staff, the majority of which are not involved in module delivery, but who will act as supervisors for final year research projects. Mean marks for this assessment rose significantly from 57.4% in the old module to 65.7% and 64.2% in the first two years of the new module (one-way ANOVA, f = 9.3; p < 0.001; 2,427 d.f.). Tukey's post hoc test shows that results from the first two years of the new module were significantly higher than those from the old module (p < 0.05) (see ). In addition, students doing the new module went on to achieve higher grades in their final year honours project or dissertation, when compared to students who had taken the earlier module (see ).
Figure 1 Percentage achieved for student honours project plans in 2010–2011 (the old module) and the first two years of the new Bioscience Skills module (means with 95% confidence intervals).
Figure 2 Percentage achieved for student honours projects and dissertations by students before the new Bioscience Skills module, in comparison to marks achieved after the new module (means with 95% confidence intervals).
Marks for oral presentations were better in the new module (mean 72.6% over two years, compared to 59.4% in the old module), although there was no evidence for improvement in essay writing skills (mean marks were between 57.9 and 59.4% for both old and new modules). However, for these two assignments, marking criteria were more explicit in the new module, and so marks may not be directly comparable.
Students attained a higher mean mark on this module (65.9 in 2011–2012 and 66.9 in 2012–2013) than its predecessor, which was also focussed on development of skills (59.1 in 2010–2011). However, there were differences between the aims of the two modules, as the former included practical field and laboratory skills which are excluded from the new module. Comparison of module marks show that on average, individual students scored 4.9% higher on the new module than on others they were taking in 2011–2012 (n = 156, tstat = 6.41, p < 0.01) and 6.4% higher in 2012–2013 (n = 131, tstat = 9.71, p < 0.01).
Module evaluation feedback from students
In the current academic year (2013–2014), 96% of students (n = 112 responses, 81% returns) thought the module was ‘useful for their degree and afterwards’, and the mean score awarded was 4.5 out of 5 in this regard. They rated the module as most helpful for planning a project (score 4.4 out of 5); but also perceived it to be very useful in developing skills for planning the honours project or dissertation; experimental design, applying the scientific method, scientific writing, teamwork and interpersonal effectiveness, all of which scored 4.3 out of 5 in student ratings. Skills for formulating hypotheses, critical thinking and referencing literature were also perceived to be enhanced by the module (scores 4.1–4.2 out of 5).
Qualitative feedback showed that a number of students appreciated having the opportunity to prepare for their final year honours project/dissertations. Typical comments included ‘helpful doing practice projects’, ‘good being given the resources to (hopefully!) produce a successful project proposal and dissertation’, ‘helpful for the final year project’.
Some students perceive development of skills which were not explicitly taught. Examples of comments include ‘Enjoyed working in a group at the same time as doing things individually, which led to an improvement in time management and prioritising’. However, only 64% of students agree or strongly agree that the module assisted with this particular skill, whilst 28% expressed no opinion or thought the question was not applicable (n = 112 responses; 81% returns).
The small group activities were very popular. Comments included ‘useful workshops’, ‘enjoyed working in a group’; ‘group workshops helped me to consider different viewpoints’; ‘group activities helped me to think about things in a different way’; ‘good to be in groups that we hadn't chosen’. Several students also commented that they enjoyed forming relationships with their peers. However, the major cause of dissatisfaction amongst students was the group project proposal and presentation where some felt that marks awarded did not reflect individual effort. We plan to give more guidance on group work and managing group dynamics in future.
Students were positive about interactions with GTA facilitators, and typical comments were: ‘friendly, helpful staff’; ‘plenty of opportunities to talk to staff’; ‘staff always very helpful’.
There was no feedback from students on the module in its previous format (second year tutorials), but module evaluations from the last academic year (n = 108 responses, 75% returns) suggest that our interventions have been successful. The mean scores for module organisation, clarity of objectives, quality of teaching materials and helpfulness of staff were between 4.4–4.5 out of 5. We placed significant emphasis on ensuring prompt and useful feedback on assessments, and returned all assessed work within 13 days of the submission deadline. Students rated ‘useful and timely feedback on assessments’ at 4.6 out of 5, and typical comments included ‘fastest ever module feedback!’, ‘rapid useful feedback’ and ‘very useful to have specific points on how to improve’.
It was interesting to discover that students often appreciated the challenges of the module though they may not have done so at the time. Comments included ‘the oral presentation was an excellent idea as it showed me I was more capable than I thought so I won't worry about it as much in future’; ‘challenging but very useful’; ‘helped build my confidence’. Students also liked having a choice of topics and in general found the workshops useful and enjoyable. Several of them set up Facebook groups, which continued as an informal peer support group.
Not all students appreciated being given responsibility for active learning, with one commenting: ‘doing a project plan on a fake subject was pointless. I didn't learn anything by doing this and it would have been better to do more lectures’.
Discussion
Student engagement and demonstration of a range of skills improved over the course of the module (judging by participation in group and online activities and the amount and quality of work submitted) and students clearly recognised the value of the module in skills development. The element of planning for the final year honours project or dissertation was particularly successful. However, students also developed skills which we had not specifically identified as lacking. For example, in the first workshop on critical thinking, we observed students having difficulty skim-reading papers, and extracting salient points, and despite time pressure, most of them wanted to read the papers in their entirety. Also, many seemed to give equal credence to articles regardless of their origin. With practise and encouragement, they became more discerning about the quality of the sources of information (whether primary literature, opinion piece, empirical study, review) and more able to extract the main points for informal presentations to their peers. These presentations also helped build confidence towards more formal, short presentation at the end of the module, which students mentioned in informal feedback.
We placed considerable emphasis on frequent and varied formative and summative assessments and rapid feedback. The need for frequent formative assessment in skills development has already been recognised (CitationFraser et al. 2007). Whilst students appreciated the rapid feedback on assignments, several also commented that the frequency of assessments had the added benefit of helping them to develop time management skills.
In the first year of running the module, some students were reluctant to engage with a module which was deliberately designed to be challenging, as they had no relevant preparation in their first year of studies. They found themselves in unfamiliar territory (commenting that they ‘had never been expected to do this type of thing before’ and that ‘someone should have told them what to do’), so were not confident to take responsibility in student-directed activities. We have since tried to ensure that students feel adequately supported to fully participate in all activities, by improving guidance for facilitators and ensuring that more comprehensive course information is available on Blackboard.
Often skills development is embedded into the curriculum, but our experience showed this to be problematic in terms of quality of skills demonstrated and variation in the student experience. In addition, students complained of inadequate opportunities for practise of skills and feedback on their development. Our success with the new, stand-alone skills module is in agreement with CitationCousins et al. (2012), who found that small group work on a skills development module increased student confidence and intellectual curiosity. A similar process of active engagement in the scientific process was met with success on the STARS project (CitationFinn & Crook 2003).
The need for improved diversity and quality of skills acquisition in students must be balanced against the many other demands on staff time. Small group tutorials may be a good way of engaging students and developing skills, but unreasonable expectations of input from academic staff will lead to problems at an early stage (CitationBonanno et al. 1998, CitationSander et al. 2000). Also, tutorial-based systems involving many staff, who differ in terms of commitment and approach, may lead to unacceptable variation in the quality of learning experience on offer. By training and using post-graduate students as facilitators, we were able to manage small problem-based learning groups on a variety of subjects, and ensure some consistency of approach (CitationDawkins 2002).
Since facilitators are not required to convey specialist knowledge, their main role was to provide a supportive, non-threatening environment, to increase student's confidence and encourage them to participate to the best of their ability (CitationWood 2004). The facilitators enjoyed their experience, saying that they felt adequately prepared to manage the groups and that they found the experience enlightening and useful in terms of professional development and scientific engagement. It provided good experience for individuals already committed to developing their teaching, but encouraged reflection on practise and consideration of pedagogical approaches in those who had not previously given it much thought. Comments from facilitators suggest that involvement with this module would have beneficial effects on their contribution to other modules. In the same way, the opportunity to interact with students in small groups and to observe student-led activities provided academic staff with valuable insights into student attitudes and approaches to learning. Qualitative feedback from staff and students suggest that working in small groups with facilitators improved students' confidence over the course of the module, and this is likely to be correlated with academic success (CitationGoldfinch & Hughes 2009). Personal observations from facilitators suggest that other desirable attributes, such as enthusiasm, motivation and aspirations also increased in students over the course of the module (CitationCreasey 2013).
Conclusion
We designed a module to develop skills in second year bioscience students, after identifying a discrepancy between the skills we expected and those demonstrated by students. We specifically aimed to improve the ability of students to design their own research project. Judging by the increased quality of research project plans produced at the end of the new module, and the increased quality of actual projects and dissertations the following year, we believe that we have achieved our aims. We were also encouraged to discover that most students enjoyed the module, even though the frequent assessments placed considerable demands on their time and it was intellectually challenging. Since we introduced this module we have redesigned the first year tutorials module to be similarly challenging, in the hope of increasing student engagement and improving the transition to university life (CitationMcDonald & Robinson 2014). We feel confident that if our expectations of students are made clear at the outset, they will feel empowered to take responsibility for their own success, secure in the knowledge that there is support available when required.
Acknowledgements
This module was developed with funding from the Higher Education Academy's UK Centre for Bioscience grant (£3996), awarded to RLR in 2010 for ‘The enhancement of employability skills for bioscience undergraduates’. Thanks are due to Beatrix Fahnert of Cardiff University (project partner) and especially to Graham Scott of Hull University (critical friend) for helpful comments and suggestions in the planning stages. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution of both academic and support staff and also post-graduate students from the College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, involved in the delivery and evaluation of the ‘Bioscience Skills’ module. The success of this project is entirely due to the enthusiasm of those involved in module design and delivery.
References
- Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS) (2011) Position statement on employability. Available at http://www.agcas.org.uk/assets/download?file=3154&parent=725 (accessed 15 January 14).
- Bohm, D. (1998) On creativity. London: Routledge.
- Bonanno, H., Jones, J. and English, L. (1998) Improving group satisfaction: making groups work in a first-year undergraduate course. Teaching in Higher Education 3 (3), 365–382. doi:10.1080/1356215980030306.
- Carless, D., Joughin, G. and Liu, N. (2006) How assessment supports learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
- CBI/NUS (2011) Working towards your future: making the most of your time in higher education. London: CBI: London. Available at http://educationandskills.cbi.org.uk/reports/ (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Cole, D. and Tibby, M. (2013) Defining and developing your approach to employability: a framework for higher education institutions. York: HEA. Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/employability/A-framework-for-higher-education-institutions (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Cousins, N.J., Barker, M., Dennis, C., Dalrymple, S. and McPherson, L.R. (2012) Tutorials for enhancing skills development in first year students taking biological sciences. Bioscience Education 20. Available at http://journals.heacademy.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.11120/beej.2012.20000068 (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Creasey, R. (2013) Improving student employability. Engineering Education 8 (1). doi:10.11120/ened.2013.00006.
- Dawkins, R. (2002) Evolution in biology tutoring? In OxCHEPS Coccasional Paper No. 1 ( ed. D. Palfreyman), pp32–36. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, New College. Available at http://ebookbrowse.com/oxcheps-op1-doc-pdf-d14083554 (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) (2008) Higher education at work – high skills: high value. In Consultation Report prepared for the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills by the Central Office of Information. Available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/higher-education-at-work-high-skills-high-value? (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Finn, J. and Crook, A. (2003) Research skills training for undergraduate researchers: the pedagogical approach of the STARS project. Bioscience Education 2 (1). Available at http://journals.heacademy.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.3108/beej.2003.02000002 (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Fraser, G.A., Crook, A.C. and Park, J.R. (2007) A tool for mapping research skills in undergraduate curricula. Bioscience Education 9 (1). Available at http://journals.heacademy.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.3108/beej.9.1.pdf= (accessed 14 March 2014).
- Glover, C. and Brown, E. (2006) Written feedback to students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education 7 (3). Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/bioscience/bioscience-education-7-3.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Goldfinch, J. and Hughes, M. (2009) Skills, learning styles and success of first year undergraduates. Active Learning in Higher Education 8 (3), 259–273. Available at http://ganymedes.lib.unideb.hu:8080/udpeer/bitstream/2437.2/11819/1/PEER_stage2_10.1177%252F1469787407081881.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2011) Strategy statement: opportunity, choice and excellence in Higher Education. Available at https://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/about/howweoperate/corporateplanning/strategystatement/HEFCEstrategystatement.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) (2010) Available at http://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/publications/circulars/circulars_2010/W10%2032HE%20employability%20statements.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Hill, F. (2012) Briefing paper: National policy context and HEI strategies for student employability. In HEA Teaching and Learning Summit on Employability: Manchester, 2012. York: HEA and NCCPE.
- Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- McDonald, J.E. and Robinson, R.L. (2014) Enhancing first year undergraduate student engagement via the school of biological sciences tutorials module. Bioscience Education. doi:10.11120/beej.2014.00025.
- Million+ (2012) Teaching that matters. Available at http://www.millionplus.ac.uk/filedownload/397/TTM FINAL.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Murphy, R. (2001) A briefing on key skills in higher education. Assessment Series 5. York: LTSN.
- Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31 (2), 199–218. [ Cited in National Student Forum (NSF) (2009). Annual Report 2009. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100816172332/; http://www.nationalstudentforum.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/NSF_annual_report_2009.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014)].
- Pegg, A., Waldcock, J., Hendy-Isaac, S. and Lawton, R. (2012) Pedagogy for employability. York: HEA. Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/employability/pedagogy_for_employability_update_2012.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
- Rosenberg, S., Heimler, R. and Morote, E.-S. (2012) Basic employability skills: a triangular design approach. Education & Training 54 (1), 7–20. Available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17015203&show=abstract (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Rotherham, A.J. and Willingham, D.T. (2010) ‘21st-century’ skills: not new, but a worthy challenge. American Educator. Available at http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2010/RotherhamWillingham.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Sander, S., Stevenson, K., King, M. and Coates, D. (2000) University students expectations of teaching. Studies in HE 25 (3). Available at http://jisctechdis.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/database/id497_research_our_students_part2_sander.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Saunders, V. and Zuzel, K. (2010) Evaluating employability skills: employer and student perceptions. Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/bioscience/bioscience-education-15-2.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Tariq, V.N. (2005) Introduction and evaluation of peer-assisted learning in first-year undergraduate bioscience. Bioscience Education 6 (3). Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/bioscience/bioscience-education-6-3.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Tariq, V.N. and Cochrane, A.C. (2003) Reflections on key skills: implementing change in a traditional university. Journal of Education Policy 18 (5): 481–498.
- Tennant, M., McMullen, C. and Kaczynski, D. (2009) Teaching, learning and research in higher education: a critical approach. London: Routledge.
- Wood, E.J. (2004). Problem-based learning: exploiting knowledge of how people learn to promote effective learning. Bioscience Education 3 (5). Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/bioscience/bioscience-education-3-5.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).
- Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: what it is — what it is not. York: HEA.
- Yorke, M. and Knight, P. (2004) Embedding employability into the curriculum. Learning and Employability Series. York: LTSN Generic Centre. Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/employability/id460_embedding_employability_into_the_curriculum_338.pdf (accessed 15 January 2014).