Every lecturer walks out of a session with a private verdict already formed, and I have never met a colleague whose instinct was reliable enough to trust on its own. This note, the second half of the PN15/16 pairing on lecture architecture, asks a plainer question than how it felt: how would you actually know whether it worked?
The evidence is not comforting. Students in active sessions learn more but rate their own learning lower than passive-lecture peers (Deslauriers et al., 2019), and aggregated student ratings do not reliably correlate with learning either (Uttl et al., 2016). If a whole class’s feedback cannot be trusted as a proxy for learning, a single lecturer’s own impression is on shakier ground still.
What closes the gap is not more confidence but more evidence brought in from outside your own head: a colleague observing developmentally rather than evaluatively (Kanuka & Sadowski, 2020; Sullivan et al., 2012), paired with a piece of independent evidence about what students actually did, not how they felt about it. The note sets out a simple three-lens check for building this into your teaching week, not just your annual review.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.