So, new year and straight back in to the thick of it on the 2nd Jan for a 3-day course on teaching and learning in Higher Education as part of my postgraduate certificate.
As part of the course we did some microteaching which was filmed. The slides can be seen
here and the video
here. The session time was capped to 7 minutes and to a lay audience. My session was on identifying who a director is. As the slides show it only focused on de facto and de jure directors and did not go in to shadow or nominee directors. Its main focus was the definition given to director under the Companies Act 2006, s. 250 and the courts interpretation.
Unfortunately, the questions after the session were not recorded but demonstrated a benefit of face-to-face teaching of instant feedback. Being asked the question as to whether it matters if you call yourself a director as to identifying one, not only gave the opportunity to explain that point clearly but would allow for the session to be tweaked accordingly for the future. For those wondering, it does not matter whether an individual is called a director as to whether they are. What matters is whether they assumed responsibility for the company.
On my own session, I was able to reflect a little on myself. It was suggested that I engage more with the audience. However, from a lecture perspective I have always preferred to avoid direct student engagement with a big class or at least avoid verbal interaction in a lecture. I have always sought to seek student engagement in skills sessions and workshops where I allow for more diverse teaching styles such as group work or student led teaching, for example.
Moving on, ideally for lectures I would have a clicker to change slides and move a bit more so the technology slightly restricted movement in the session.
A note on my fellow presentees from the microteaching session, they were all excellently delivered, a great opportunity to learn something new and to view different teaching styles.
