1. The Undergraduate Ambassador Scheme at Southampton Professor Ray d’Inverno School of Mathematics University of Southampton

2. Plan of Presentation  The origins of the scheme  Aims of the scheme  Four stage approach  Assessment and feedback  Selection  Partner schools  Training and monitoring  Outcome  Dissemination  Second year 2003/4  Third year 2004/5  Issues  Conclusion

3. The origins of the scheme  Author, journalist and broadcaster Simon Singh  Shortage subjects  The current viscious circle  Design of a flexible credit bearing course for final year undergraduates

4. Aims of the scheme  Provides a “taste of teaching”  Provides pupils with student ambassadors for their discipline  Raises pupil aspirations for Higher/Further education  Develops transferable skills in students

5. Transferable Skills Communication skills Understanding the needs of individuals Interpersonal skills Staff responsibilities and conduct The ability to improvise Giving and taking feedback Organising skills Handling difficult situations Public speaking Team work Teaching methods Lesson preparation Employability skills Personal confidence

6. Four stage approach  Classroom observation  Classroom assistance  Whole class teaching  Special project Design of an innovative project Implementation Evaluation

7. Other activities Revision classes Lunch clubs After school clubs Talks on university life University visit days

8. Assessment and feedback 20% Weekly journal (open) 30% Final report (2,500 words) 20% Presentation on Special Project 30% Teacher assessment 15 CATs point unit = 150 hours of study Written feedback on all 4 assessments Teacher assessment not moderated

9. Selection  21 students applied for selection in semester 1  400 word essay requested on why they wanted to take the unit and what they could offer (1-4 rating)  10 minute structured interview (Paul Cooper/RAd’I)  Selection: 5 -> 10 -> 13  Interview used to place students  Unsuccessful candidates given feedback What makes a good teacher Proactivity in classroom Dealing with pupil blocks Type of placement preferred Did they have a car 12 mathematicians (9 female, 3 male) 1 chemist (female)

10. Five partner schools [Placements]  High achieving girls selective grammar [2]  High achieving catholic girls comprehensive (WP) [4]  Low aspiration girls technology college (WP) [3]  Mixed ability mixed comprehensive including catchment area of social deprivation (WP) [2]  Boys catholic comprehensive with some behavioural problems (WP) [2]

11. Training and monitoring  5 hour “mini-PGCE” training session (Paul Cooper)  “Meet the teachers” session  4 tutorials  Regular email contact  Wrap-up meeting (videoed) Initial impressions Journals and planning the Special Project 1 Planning the Special Project 2 Tips on presentations

12. Training session One of the two half day workshops for 20 students 2004/5

13. Placement requirements  Initial meeting with school to negotiate a timetable  3 / 4 hours a week throughout 12 weeks of semester 2  Minimum of 10 placements required

14. Outcome  Performance on unit (10 I, 3 IIi)  Special projects  Teacher questionnaires (5/5)  Student questionnaires (11/13)  Publications (3)  PGCE (12/13 eventually)  Development of personal confidence

15. Special projects  Development of revision materials (x 4)  Starters (x 2)  Learning styles  Fibonacci numbers extension  Developing communication skills in “quiet” pupils  Problem solving skills  Use of interactive white board and laptops by staff  Use of “Autograph” software  Use of “Geometer’s sketchpad” software

16. Teacher questionnaires 5.0 Helpful intro to teaching 4.8 Student preparation for placement 4.7 Working relationships with students 4.0 Benefit to school 3.8 Demands made on school 5/0 Continuation with scheme

17. Student questionnaires 4.8 Skills development 4.7 Overall rating of unit 4.2 School placement experience 4.2 Training session relevance 4.1 Training session quality 4.0 Unit coordinator 3.8 University support on placement 3.6 Satisfaction with assessment

18. Dissemination Website 3 publications (Paul Cooper and RAd’I) THES article (6/2/04) TES article Presentation to engineers National UAS conferences Regional meeting of ILT 2 internal seminars National UAS website www.maths.soton.ac.uk/staff/d’Inverno/UAS www.uas.ac.uk

19. Second year 2003/4  Scheme extended to include Chemistry and Physics Schools  27 applicants  22 selected  5 new partner schools (all WP) giving 10 in total  Morning meeting/lunch with link teachers  Assessment changes  Tutorials doubled 15 mathematicians (11 females 4 males) 5 chemists (4 females 1 male) 2 physicists (1 female 1 male) 3 sink comprehensive community schools 1 lower middle class comprehensive community school 1 boys language college Final report 30 -> 30 Weekly journal 20 -> 25 Presentation 20 -> 25 Teacher assessment 30 -> 20

20. Third year 2004/5  Scheme extended to include Computer Science, Oceanography, Music and Modern Languages  45 applicants  38 selected  7 new partner schools (2 WP) giving 15 in total (2 discontinued)  Assessment changes  Tutorials trebled 13 mathematicians (9 females, 4 males) 3 chemists (1 female, 2 males) 2 physicists (1 female, 1 male) 2 computer scientists (1 female, 1 male) 10 oceanographers (8 females, 2 males) 7 musicians (6 females, 1 male) 1 linguist (1 female) 2 sixth form colleges 1 ethnically mixed girls comprehensive school 3 mixed (1 high achieving) comprehensive schools 1 boys comprehensive with some behavioural problems Final report 30 -> 35 Weekly journal 25 -> 25 Presentation 25 -> 25 Teacher assessment 20 -> 15

21. Performance on unit  Year 1: 10 3 0 0  Year 2: 14 6 1 0  Year 3: 20 16 1 1 I IIi IIii III

22. Student questionnaires Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 4.8 4.1 4.4 Skills development 4.7 4.2 4.4 Overall rating of unit 4.2 3.9 3.8 School placement experience 4.2 3.6 3.7 Training session relevance 4.1 4.1 4.0 Training session quality 4.0 4.2 4.0 Unit coordinator 3.8 3.7 3.4 University support on placement 3.6 3.8 3.9 Satisfaction with assessment

23. Issues  Academic approval by School boards  Teacher assessment not moderated  Standard format vs Project format  Resource  Course secretary  Team consisting of 1 academic and 3 Learning and Teaching Coordinators for Interviews/Training/Tutorials/Email support/Assessment  Confusion in schools over various mentoring-type schemes  Student workload  Underperforming students  Students with disabilities  Convenor not a “champion” of scheme  Spreading the scheme internally/externally Credit bearing Paid (UG and PG) Volunteering Initial University grant for WP TTA support from UAS Work harder: Yes; Interfere with other studies: No

24. Conclusions  Flexible scheme  Produces PGCE applicants  Develops employability skills  Develops personal confidence  Highly valued by students