1. 1
Josephine McNally
Communications and Marketing Manager
CPD & Public Engagement,
Biosciences

2. CASE STUDY 1 – Outreach Project
2V3 Using evidence-informed approached . . .
In 2011 I successfully applied for a grant from UCL Outreach to:
invite a group of hearing-impaired young teenagers to visit the labs
in the Department of Structural & Molecular Biology
“A Story of Science – DNA, RNA, Protein”

3. 3V2 Promote participation in higher education and equality of opportunities for learners
One of the biggest challenges for academic staff is to reappraise the ways they teach
and support learning when working with a wider range of students, with different
experiences and academic backgrounds1
Objective: to encourage students with disabilities to apply to University to study
science and confirm that UCL will provide the necessary support

4. Professor Bencie Woll
• I contacted Benci Woll Director of DCAL (Deafness Cognition and Language
Research Centre) who gave me contacts of schools and advised me in general.
• I engaged with the UCL Disability Unit
• I contacted RNID
• I talked extensively with Abdi Gas – a UCL graduate who is profoundly deaf
and who is supported by a hearing assistant
Preparation
K1 The subject material K2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning . . .
V1 - V4

5. 5
How did I approach the design of the day?
• I wanted to make the science interesting – as I would
for all pupils who visit the labs
• I wanted the participants to leave UCL with the confidence
to apply to university – and feel they could succeed there
• I used my previous experience and skills from working in
film at the BBC to design the day and film it
A1 Design and plan learning activities . . .
A2 Teach and /or learning support

6. A tour of a lab is meaningless unless there is an
emphasis on a particular problem, and that is why I
created a storyline.
– so that this would make the lab machinery and
processes meaningful to them.
As we moved through the day the story was
built up by talks and visuals. Visuals being very
important for the hearing-impaired1a.
A1 – design and plan learning activities

7. In developing my story and programme I needed to:
1. Understand the needs and limitations in concentration of the
hearing-impaired1b.
2. The strategy of simplifying science by using Frame Analysis 2
K3 how students learn, both generally and within their subject
V3 Use evidence-informed approaches and the outcomes from research . . .
• Using this method the students were not overwhelmed and were able
to concentrate and assimilate information and ask questions.
Frames, in other words, become invaluable tools for presenting relatively
complex issues, such as stem cell research, efficiently and in a way that makes
them accessible to lay audiences because they play to existing cognitive
schemas3

8. www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/public-engagement
Click on the image to view the film (only in slide show view)
I made a video of the day, which can be viewed at
www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/public-engagement
Outcomes
K4 The use and value of appropriate learning technologies

9. Outcomes continued
• Professor Shephard and I compiled a report to UCL
Outreach about the project - as they were very
interested in the outcomes.
• UCL Outreach subsequently set up a Summer School for
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in 2014. In 2015 they
won a HELOA award for best practice and Innovation
A4 Develop effective learning environments and approaches to student support and guidance
V1 – V4

10. CASE STUDY 2 - Continuing Professional Development
“Lab Techniques in Mammalian Cell Biology”
• I have supported Ivan Gout, Professor of Cancer Biochemistry since the
inception of this CPD course, which is aimed at teaching advanced skills in
mammalian cell biology, providing a framework for further experiments
• It is a three-day laboratory-based course entitled ‘Lab Techniques in Mammalian
Cell Biology’
• The course has now run for 3 years and In 2015 I was a member of the team of
3 who was awarded a SLMS team teaching award in recognition of our
achievements in CPD.
Objective: to teach techniques in mammalian cell biology and provide a framework for
further experiments

11. 11
• Website building and design http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cell-biol-cpd
• Marketing
• First point of contact with applicants – continuing through to
selection and end of course
• Organising and planning
• Drafting the course questionnaire
• Collecting feedback and instigating change to improve the
experience
A1 –the design and planning learning activities/programmes of study
A2 - Teach and/or support learning
My Role in supporting the course

12. graduates/unemployed 12%
industry 9%
researcher/lecturer 8%
MSc 11%
PhD 26%
Post-docs 6%
technician 13%
undergrad 12%
Other 3%
PhD
MSC
technician
industry
researcher
grads
undergrad
postdocs
other
Some grads are post MSc
12
V4 – Acknowledge the wider context in which higher education operates, recognising the
implications for professional practice
Participants come from a variety of educational levels 2013,2014,2015
(I have adjusted support to meet participant needs)

13. 13
2013
within UCL
Outside
UCL/within UK
Abroad
57%
10%
33%
2014
38% 38%
24%
2015
14%
43%
43%
V2 Promoting participation in higher education and equality of opportunities
for learners
The proportion of non-UCL participants has increased over 3 years –

14. 14
Questionnaire: Participants are asked to give feedback
K2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area . . .
K3 How students learn, both generally and within their subject
V3 using evidence-informed approaches and the outcomes from research . . .
The feedback was discussed by our CPD team and based on the literature
we considered both explicit and implicit knowledge 3 and how we could
bridge the gap to improve understanding 4,5
Responses indicated:
• Participants needed more explanation of background to
the methodologies
• Wanted to learn about how the methods were used in real-
life science

15. 15
“Students are led to believe that the activity is the learning
itself instead of the connection to a larger focus within the
content. In short, the activity-oriented sin is “hands on
without being minds-on”5

16. year high
quality
Good
quality
Average
quality
Poor
quality
Sample feedback
2013 26% 69% 5% 0 Hands-on experience with tissue
culture and lectures from experienced
scientists. Social interaction with a
group of individuals from diverse
backgrounds
2014 33% 60% 7% 0 I thought all the instructors were all
very available to answer questions and
engage in discourse on the topics
presented in the lectures. I liked that
there was a combination of practical,
tutorial and lecture sessions.
2015 67% 33% 0 0 The practical sessions and the short
presentations before each practical
were the most relevant to why I
chose to take part in the course.
They were very informative and were
made simple for those who were
inexperienced . . .
. . . The lecturers focused on
discussing their thought process and
methodology behind their research
rather than just state what results
were obtained.
K5 – methods of evaluating the effectiveness of teaching
Table 1: Comparison of feedback and evidence of improvement
in response to participant needs
Additional feedback comments
are given in the appendix slide

17. 17
Post-doctoral researchers assist
on the practicals – giving them
an opportunity to teach
V4 acknowledging the wider context in
which higher education operates (i.e. for the
post docs) recognising the implications for
professional practice
2015 saw the introduction of a bursary,
which in future will be used to support
someone who could not otherwise afford
to attend.
V2 promote participation in higher education
and equality of opportunities for learners
Further additions that I have suggested and facilitated to improve
teaching and learning through the CPD course

18. 18
Outcomes
• Review of course by CPD team – respond to participant feedback
• Satisfaction improved as we have tackled implicit and explicit
understanding and bridged the gap
• The course is now over-subscribed
• SLMS Team Teaching Award to Ivan Gout, Josephine McNally,
Snezana Djordjevic

19. 19
Bibliography
1. Allen L & Storan J (2005), Widening Participation, Action on Access p21
1.a NDCS Handbook, Supporting the achievement of hearing impaired children
In special schools (www.ndcs.org.uk).
2. Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience
3. Scheufele DA & Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming:
The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models, Journal of Communication p12
https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/articles/J-Communication-2007-1.pdf
4. Berry DC and Broadbent DE (1984) On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable
knowledge, The Quarterly Report of Experimental Psychology. 36A, Experiment 1,215–218
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14640748408402156
5. Carlson DL and Marshall PA (2009) Learning the science of research, Learning the art of teaching:Planning
backwards in a college genetics course. Bioscience Education p2-6
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/beej.13.e.pdf
6. Healey M and Jenkins A (2009) Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. The Higher Education Academy P28
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/developingundergraduate_final.pdf