I’ve been reading the case study from Bruce Macfarlane’s 2004 book Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice (Routledge), in which a fictional lecturer, ‘Stephanie Rae’, receives feedback on her teaching in the form of student evaluation forms and a peer observation.

How relevant is it to get feedback from our students and colleagues to elevate our lectures and ourselves as practitioners.

It’s always a vulnerable position being observed, specially by other colleagues, as it’s easy to get used to a regular way of working that allows us to operate in our comfort zone. However, what we fail to recognize is that we could be seen as being boring, lacking innovation, interaction and engagement with the students. We could also be guilty of being confusing or obsolete. Like Stephanie, who was being compared with other colleagues who were apparently more dynamic, charismatic and thought provoking.

I believe the Peer Observation Exercise will challenge me; however, I am looking forward to it. It’s a sweet and sour feeling which will help me to move forward.

Stephanie had a time constraint and her focus was her research work. That is the reason given by her not to rewrite her lectures as she didn’t have enough hours to do it due to her research workload. However, I wonder, does time really impact teaching quality?  Don’t we need the same time to be interactive than delivering a solo speech? Don’t we need the same time to be boring than charismatic? Of course, time matters as it is a resource that allows you to prepare more interesting sessions, but till which degree is it about preparation vs being skilled?