Introduction

In our discussion of our three-stage model of expertise, we concluded that most scientists don't need to be expert software developers; it's enough for them to be able to solve a recurring cast of coding problems in more-or-less familiar circumstances, which is the halmark of a competent practitioner. Teaching, however, is in some sense always a novel problem. Students will always come up with new ways to misunderstand things, and so the flexibility afforded by mastery in teaching is always valuable. How does one go about becoming a master instructor?

The popular ten thousand hours number is certainly a myth. Many people have driven for more than ten thousand hours, and are little closer to mastery than after their driver's exam. Something more than mere repetition is required.

Positing additional linkages between ideas is necessary but also not sufficient; there needs to be some mechanism to scrutinize and validate those new links and the strategies that come out of them.

Musicians, athletes, actors and politicians have been doing it for years - the key is simple feedback. By having a teacher or even a colleague observe and give constructive criticism that is specific and actionable, we can iterate on our practice and get that invaluable second perspective on whether what we're doing is working, and where it's falling short. In time, with enough criticism, we can begin to usefully criticize our own practice, and this self-reflective criticism greatly accelerates the process of gaining mastery. But to begin with, getting feedback from our colleagues starts the process.

Anatomy of Feedback

The practice of giving feedback can be incredibly powerful in its ability to expose things we couldn't perceive in ourselves in the intensity of the stage, but it can also be a very fraught process. Criticism can challenge our self image, and chafe on our insecurities and doubts; receiving criticism can feel like a place of powerlessness. If we are to successfully critique each other, we must find a way to speak our minds in a way each other can hear - how do we criticize each other in a way designed to empower and not to tear down? Giving good criticism consists of three cardinal rules:

• Be specific. By keeping our feedback specific, we circumscribe its scope, which accomplishes two things. First, it gives the subject a clear idea of exactly where problems lie; if feedback is too nebulous, it becomes impossible to address. Second, articulating exactly what needs attention helps the subject to separate the thing being critiqued from their practice as a whole, and adds distance between the criticism and the individual's identity. Broad, vague criticisms feel like they are about us; specific criticisms feel like they are about our practice.

  In addition to keeping criticism specific, keep the list short, too - pick the biggest problem to call out, and leave the rest for next time. If your subject can fix one thing every time they teach, they will reach mastery plenty fast.

• Be actionable. Actionable feedback is feedback that comes with some clear ideas on exactly what to do in order to improve. By giving a clear roadmap for addressing the problem, we help put the power back in our subject's hands, and build up their sense of agency; now instead of a giving a criticism that feels like an inescapable condemnation, we've given a few short and manageable steps to overcoming the issue we called out, and becoming an even stronger instructor.
• Be polite. While it seems trite in writing, social gaffes are never far away when giving criticism. A critical conversation often can't help but exceed the usual boundaries of frankness and honesty; best then to be especially mindful of framing comments in a positive light, describing opportunities to improve, and not going further than we must.

Exercise

1. Basic Feedback

Structured Feedback

Trying to articulate exactly where your fellow instructor should turn her attention to in order to improve can be a nebulous and difficult task in practice. Things can go much more smoothly with a bit of structure to the process.

Outside-In

'Outside-In' feedback is a technique for loosely structuring feedback popularized in theater. It groups feedback into three main categories: physical, presentation, and content.

• Physical feedback focuses on the raw physical actions of the presenter; are they doing anything physically that distracts from or interferes with their lesson? Common examples are facing the board while speaking, nervous fidgeting like fiddling with hair or juggling things in their pockets, and extreme pacing.
• Presentation feedback focuses on the manner of delivery of the lesson; is the presenter effectively commanding the attention of the room? Common mistakes are mumbling and speaking too quietly, growing impatient with mistakes or questions, and speaking too fast to follow.
• Content feedback focuses on the actual material and its layout in the lesson; is the lesson planned and constructed as well as possible? Common mistakes include skipping 'obvious' steps, making forward references to things that haven't been explained yet, and dwelling on minuta when the basics haven't yet been clarified.

Outside-In feedback's great strength is to narrow the scope of the question posed to us as reviewer; rather than a nebulous 'what's wrong with this picture?', we have three smaller and more specific categories of things to look for. This technique can be used in two main ways; first, try composing a list for each category of common mistakes you have seen before, and refer to that list when reviewing a colleague - do they repeat any of those classic mistakes? By laying out the greatest hits of bad presenting beforehand, we turn the previously nebulous exercise of giving feedback into a series of yes/no questions. Second, Outside-In can be used in a more open ended sense, to watch for quirks unique to the presenter at hand; by parsing the question along the three main components of presenting, even open-ended feedback becomes easier to generate.

Rubrics

A pedagogical classic, setting out a clear rubric to define success beforehand can reduce the question 'is this any good?' to a much simpler array of more specific questions. A standard rubric identifies a short list of attributes good instruction should exhibit, and provides a way to gauge gradations of performance on each; see an excellent and relevant example here.

One common pitfall of rubrics is in coverage - does top marks on all the categories in the rubric guarantee good instruction? Usually not - but nevertheless, having a finite list of things to look for and scales on which to judge them is an excellent start.

Exercise

1. Structured Feedback

Personal Checklists

A variation on the theme of outside-in checklists and rubrics is the personal checklist. What are the things you know you regularly do when teaching, which you'd like to stop? You may have discovered these from previous feedback sessions, or from watching recordings of yourself teaching. Write these down, hand them to someone charged with providing you feedback, and ask them to watch you like a hawk for those things.

Group Feedback

Substantially different from the feedback we get from our peers, is the feedback we get from our students. While our peers might be better versed in the pedagogy we are trying to use, only our students can tell us if they felt engaged and comfortable, and what they were disappointed by; both channels of feedback are valuable.

Because of the instructor / student power differential we discuss in Session 3, students may often be reluctant to offer honest critical feedback. In order to bring them out of this shell, consider the following:

• Cue cards handed out at the end of a lesson can give students a private channel for feedback. Ask them to write one thing they liked about the lesson on one side, and one thing they think needs improvement on the other; this explicitly gives them permission to call out things they didn't like, and the anonymity to express themselves freely.
• Lightning comments are similar to cue cards, but done publically; at the end of a lesson, require everyone to call out one short piece of feedback, alternating between positive and negative comments, and also insisting on no repeated comments. The public discourse emboldens the class to speak as a group, and the requirement of no repeats eliminates the harmlessly superficial negative comments early, forcing later commenters to call out things they otherwise might have politely declined to criticize.

One unique added benefit of group feedback is its relative rarity; for many of your students, it will be the first time an instructor ever made a substantial effort to ask their opinion. If you can demonstrate an active (and positive) response to their feedback in a future lesson, all the better - your students will trust and respect you all the more for it.