This week we were looking at the differing forms and values of feedback. First, there were two reading tasks, one in a form of video, the other a short case study.
The video was called Performing With an Invisible Audience by Hattie Walker and Helen King, published in June 2020 so very much after the move to online delivery due to the national lockdown. It covered methods on how to overcome the challenges of performing to an invisible audience and how to take advantage of the opportunities this situation of online teaching provides as well. It referenced Patsy Rodenburg and her Three Circles of Energy (2008) – where you aim for the second circle – when energy is focused and connected to specific points outside of yourself (audience is made of individual people). The encouragement was to let your personality in as it would engage the audience more as you exude your passion, and to look at the ‘black dot’ – the camera on your laptop or webcam, so that viewers can feel like you’re talking to them. I found this irritating to listen to. There was something about this video which made it feel like a performance in itself, completely fake and disingenuous. I didn’t feel like I was being drawn in to the session in any way.
A few of things I liked about the video was how it told you to be kind to yourself, and not to aim for perfection. To be yourself, and to let your personality show through your passion. Lessons being recorded makes it feel like anything you say or do can be permanently recorded and referenced in years to come, making it a bit of a daunting task. What if you stumble, or make a fool of yourself? What if you freeze half-way through a lecture? As much as we need to show the act of care to our students, we need to show ourselves some love and kindness by not aiming for perfection. None of us are perfect. It’s fine to embrace the mistakes.
Next, the short case study excerpt is from Bruce Macfarlane’s 2004 book Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice (Routledge), in which a fictional lecturer, ‘Stephanie’, receives feedback on her teaching in the form of student evaluation forms and a peer observation.
Which aspects of Stephanie’s teaching practice appear to be the most fertile for development?
The feedback suggests that her teaching practice is ‘too theoretical’, so she could perhaps apply the theoretical knowledge to ‘real-life practices’ or deliver interactive workshops where the students apply the theoretical learning to practice. Maybe Stephanie could consider having different formats of the readings, such as video links, podcasts, etc instead of purely academic-heavy theoretical writing.
It also sounds like the students would benefit from having the resources in advance and online, as it would cater for different learning needs. For example, as somebody with dyslexia, I appreciate having the slides in advance so I can annotate as I go along rather than have them separate to my notes. It also sounds like she could do some assessment workshops to go over the assessment criteria and to really break down the assessment requirements. Perhaps having a Q&A session, or an online Q&A space for students to raise any questions regarding their upcoming assessment.
What could Stephanie do to move past her defensive response?
She could consider the benefit towards the students rather than thinking about her own priorities. It sounds like her teaching is stuck in a static, rather outdated method, and she would benefit from speaking to her junior colleague who has some innovative ideas. She could start a discussion group with her students to see what they would prefer, to include them in the decision making of what goes forward, to develop on their feedback to make her sessions more engaging for her students.
Are there any interesting questions or problems that this case study raises for you?
Why is the focus for Stephanie her research, which is more individualistic, rather than on the delivery of a module to students? It sounds like she only teaches to enable her research, and should consider being more student-centred rather than ‘teacher-centred’. Why can Stephanie not be a ‘critical friend’ to her peer, and vice versa? Surely the peer observation is meant to be beneficial for feedback rather than holding back critical feedback for improvements. Stephanie clearly didn’t explain why peer observations / evaluations are useful to the students if the feedback was ‘why should we do it when lecturers get paid to do it’.
Further questions raised in a group discussion included the following:
- How can we ensure better structure and systems for feedback as part of transparent pedagogy?
- Has Stephanie lost some objectivity due to her feeling towards her students, and competing workloads and demands?
- Why is it important to mention that Stephanie was a member of the Church of England?
- How can we constructively use the feedback that has been given to inform our teaching practice, even if we have strong convictions about the feedback?
- How can we present complex material without alienating students?
- How or should teaching excellence be held in equivalence with professional research outputs?
- Who gets to embody the institution, and do institutional demands mitigate against open reflection?
Finally, I will examine the difference between feedback and feed forward. (Open Awards, 2018)
Feedback: providing information to students about where they are in relation to their learning goals. I tallows students to evaluate progress, identify gaps or misconceptions and take remedial action. It is important that all feedback is: constructive, honest, specific and supportive.
Summative feedback and final grades can be considered as opportune moments for feedback. It’s useful to reflect on how an individual has achieved according to the marking criteria. Timely, specific and constructive feedback will enable the students to improve their work for future assessments or in general.
Feed forward: looking ahead to subsequent assignments and offers constructive guidance on how to do better. Some common problems include: timeliness, regularity, approaches to feedback and missed opportunities, passive learners and trouble understanding feedback, and finally a lack of overview.
Examples of feed forward includes formative feedback, tutorials, crit sessions, self-reflection. Feed forward can provide constructive guidance on how to improve or progress the work. It can develop a stunts confidence, expand their research interests or give some reassurance that they’re on the right track.
Finally, it’s important to remember that feedback can be generated by tutors, peers, mentors, supervisors, or by the individual as a result of self-assessment. It should be a cyclical and iterative process, not a linear one.
References
Academic Practice Directorate (2020) Performing with an invisible audience. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl5a_eU_H0o&feature=youtu.be [Accessed 03 March 2021]
Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with Integrity: The Ethics of Higher Education Practice. Routeledge: Abingdon.
Open Awards (2018) Feedback and Feed Forward. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHAXibq2H-Y&ab_channel=OpenAwards [Accessed 03 March 2021]
Rodenberg, P. (2008) The Second Circle: How to Use Positive Energy for Success in Every Situation. Penguin Group: London.