Seminar 18 Jan 2023 & Reflection

Reflection on Macfaralane 2004

The final version of 250 words

Macfarlane’s 2004 text provides a critical and oversimplified portrayal of Stephanie, a self-centred researcher who disregards student feedback. However, a potential solution to this problem could be to incorporate an open discussion within the lecture to allow students to express their opinions and provide feedback. Though the author acknowledges that Stephanie is a fictional character, he does not recognise educators’ challenges in balancing workload and student needs, leading to frustration and a desire to please students at any cost.

Ideally, universities should prioritise freedom and not limit students and instructors to predetermined market parameters. Unfortunately, the current system often fails to provide students with the ability to select courses that best suit their preferences and needs. While Stephanie may have many options, unintended consequences could be considered part of the learning process. Anyone is accountable for their ego and fear, but I question the validity of university feedback methods such as the National Student Survey and the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey.

In our course, to address this issue, they hold feedback sessions with our students to openly discuss the validity of the feedback received. Still, it is also debatable how much this benefits the students.

In conclusion, this example demonstrates instructors’ challenges in the academic world. The balance between personal reactions, interests, and institutional pressures must be addressed to improve pedagogical approaches effectively. Universities should prioritise freedom and allow students to select courses that best suit their needs rather than limiting them to predetermined market parameters.

Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice. Abingdon: Routledge.

Revised text to format to the academic standard

The 2004 text by Macfarlane is a simplified and judgmental non-realistic overview. The author characterizes Stephanie as a self-centred researcher who neglects student feedback. However, if Stephanie were indeed self-centred, a possible solution would be to have an open class discussion at the end of the lecture, where students can assimilate the theoretical information in their way. Time could be allocated within the class to allow students to express their opinions before providing final feedback on the paper, enabling Stephanie to address her methodology more effectively.

However, it should be noted that Stephanie is a fictional character, and the author has never met anyone who fits this description. Most educators are student-centred and open to feedback. While receiving feedback can be challenging and requires time to assimilate, most instructors are willing to engage with student feedback. Nevertheless, the constant pressure of university regulations and the need for more time for research and preparation can make it difficult for instructors to dedicate themselves fully to their students. The result is often a crushing workload that leaves little room for additional discussion sessions.

In contrast, the author and their colleague actively listen to and incorporate student feedback, often without hesitation. However, the nature of student complaints changes each year, creating a cycle of frustration that can undermine the author’s pedagogical approach. This can lead to a sense of aimlessness and a desire to please students at any cost.

Ideally, universities should be free and not be treated as a marketplace. Students should be given a choice to pick the courses that best suit their preferences and needs. Unfortunately, the current system forces students and instructors into predetermined market parameters, limiting the potential for growth and self-discovery.

Stephanie may have many options, but they will likely lead to unintended consequences, which can be considered part of the learning process. However, she may need more peace of mind to try her best according to her beliefs, as the institution will monitor her. Instead, she will be forced to react rather than act on her will.

I am also occasionally accountable for ego and fear; on the other hand, university feedback methods (NSS and PTES) can be misleading. To address this issue, the author now holds feedback sessions with their students, where they have open discussions about testing the validity of the feedback they receive. These discussions are not meant to be used as marketing tools but rather as a means to improve the author’s pedagogical approach.

In conclusion, this example highlights the challenges instructors face in the academic world. While personal reactions and interests play a role, the institution must also be held accountable for instructors’ challenges. A more balanced approach is necessary to address these issues effectively.

First Notes

I found the text a simplified judgemental non-realistic overview. Stephanie is described as a self-centred woman doing her research and not paying attention to the feedback. If she were so, her opportunity would be for me to have an open class discussion at the end of the lecture to allow the student to assimilate the theoretical information in their way. Implement time within the class to enable the student to express their opinion before final feedback on paper so she can address her methodology more efficiently.

But to my knowledge, Stephanie does not exist; I have never met a Stephanie and never will: all the people I met always were very student-centred and listened to student feedback. I don’t deny that we all go through a process of ego control: it is hard to receive feedback, so it takes a little time to assimilate and comparing with another tutor is not helpful. But the truth I hear is that everyone I have ever spoken with wants to engage with student feedback. Still, the time and constant university judgement make it feel like a crushing activity rather than an opportunity. The university demands that no one has any time to do research and almost to prepare sessions. The university regulation of space and timetable barely allow the classes to be performed, never mind adding discussion sessions.

What is in witness is that the other lecturer and I usually listen and add changes, almost without a beat of discussion. But the complaint became different the following year. And it all goes in a circle after a few years of chasing my tail and almost losing the centre of what you believe: I have become a total people please and spread myself across all ways I can change myself for the students.
The reality is that institutions should be free and not a marketplace where students feel they are buying a product,e, a fixed MA/BA rather than a grade collated by a different chosen unit. This way, both Stephanie and the student would have the choice to pick what suits them best and select their preference. Instead, we are all shoehorned into fixed market parameters.

So Stephanie certainly has many options, and she can use them. Still, they will all backfire another way, which is also part of the learning. She will just be monitored about something else without having the peace of mind to try her best according to her belief, but she will react rather than act on her will with the peace of mind to change herself.

Personally, I passed the first seven years at UAL chasing all the changes, but now after covid, I am reconsidering my position, and I stopped blaming myself for everything. I am accountable for ego and fear; I am human… but in my case, I followed feedback religiously to then always almost punished by the university methods of feedback ( NSS and PTES), which are misleading. These days I hold sessions with my students where I ask them for direct feedback, we open the discussion, and we have the chance to test their input together. But they need not reach the university: these are for us and for me to learn, not a marketing tool to be used.

This example is very misleading in academic life, blaming only personal reaction and interest but not the institution. A more balanced piece could have approached both views.

On the plus side, the emotions made me write a whooping 572 words… a miracle for me 🙂