Something interesting happened during this Unit of the PGCert: I had the opportunity to have three different types of Review of Teaching Practice (RTP), instead of the usual two.
As part of our TPP activities, we have RTP from a colleague and from a tutor. Since I am part of the online group, I submitted to be reviewed a resource students have access to that facilitates them to come work in the lab: the Grow Lab form (GLForm). However, while I worked on the RTP, for two weeks the Grow Lab had an anthropology PhD student observing our interactions with students. They sat through our dynamic with different students, courses, practices and challenges, and shared their observations and preliminary notes with us.
So, I ended up with three completely different types of feedback about my practice: an assychronous review from Elena, a synchronous online review by Carys, and observational from the PhD student. Same artifact (ish), no one had previous Grow Lab context or experience, three completely different lenses. And honestly, each one revealed something the others couldn’t.
Elena’s review happened entirely through written exchange. All the information she had come directly from me—my biases, views, and limitations in written communication. As I read through her side notes, I could see her thinking process unfold and identify what was lacking in my communication. This hinted me about how much I assume students already know. Elena’s confusion was student confusion. Because all she had was an asynchronous assessment of a written tool, her feedback was design/format focused.
Carys had the same asynchronous access to the form, plus a 45-minutes conversation online. Therefore ‘virtual’, but also a synchronous conversation. With the opportunity to paint a fuller picture, our chat was actually a scaffold for my reflections (Vygotsky, 1978). Her feedback focused on the priorities and purposes of the form.
The PhD observation was entirely different. They documented what people DO, not what they SAY they do. Or what I SAID they DO. She had access to my actions, students’ actions, and our interactions within the context. And not only once, but several iterations were observed, and my adaptability to each. In this case, the GLForm was only one element of the practice.
Each review method had blind spots. Written feedback reveals design flaws but misses relational aspects. Spoken dialogue clarifies intentions but virtualizes a practice rather than observe it. Observation captures unconscious behaviours but can’t access my internal reasoning. All these methods in some level, show some gap between my intentions and the reality. Having external eyes makes visible aspects I do unconsciously (how I adapt language, how I assume readiness from text or in person). It also revealed my intentions by exposing a big frustration: e.g: students using AI, avoiding reflection, defeating the purpose of the form as a scaffold for students to develop critical thinking and autonomy.
Each review brought different praise but also discomfort. Elena’s made me realize how much I assume. Carys’s made me rethink what my purposes are. The observation made me confront gaps between what I think I do and what I actually do. Which makes me wonder: If I had received only one type of review, I would have missed crucial insights? How to use the focus of each method to highlight the desired outcome when designing new tools or communicating with students?
For now I just know that multiple lenses over my practice have revealed a more accurate, colourful picture than I could have painted alone.
AI Use
Drafts were edited for length using Claude (Anthropic, 2026). My initial text was pasted to it, with the following prompt:
“I want you to help me reduce this text to maximum 550 words. For that follow these rules:
1. I want you to help me reduce the word count without altering any meaning, or writting style. Keep it as close to original as possible
2. correct any typos, grammar or spelling mistakes.
3. Propose changes to the text by: highlighting in bold what is your new proposed version so i can check if i agree with the new parts. strikethrough parts i should delete. put any grammar, typo or spelling corrections in between **.
References
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.