title: How to Become a Good Lecturer - Self-Reflection in a Lecturer’s Work type: Article language: English published: 12 Apr 2016 updated: 12 Nov 2020 category: Pedagogika author: Bc. Radka Zimanová Education is one of the most important attributes in a person’s life, as it fulfills us in the greatest possible measure, opens up new horizons, helps us define the world on multiple levels, and gives us the chance to succeed in life while better understanding what is happening around us. It can also be said that it influences the fulfillment of life ambitions, because it plays a major role in how a person decides what to choose on their life path and what steps to take. Education is closely linked to societal changes. The changes that have been occurring in recent years, especially those affecting an individual living in a rapid information “boom,” expose people to social pressures to which society continuously adapts, and as a result people are forced to deepen, supplement, and improve their qualifications. The process of individual adaptation to society’s fast pace is characteristic not only of everyday life but also to a large extent affects the teaching profession, and one outcome is the educator’s continuous work on oneself. It is precisely the hard work of lecturers, reflection on their actions and teaching approach, analysis and evaluation of the educational process, and not least the acceptance of feedback that are prerequisites of a good lecturer and high-quality teaching.

Lectorship in Slovakia and the Czech Republic

As an educator of adults, the figure of the lecturer has not always been accepted by society in the form we know today. This form was preceded by a series of transformations from its origin up to the present.

The roots of the term lecturer lie in the Latin word lector, which translates as “reader” or “one who reads aloud.” We first encounter this term in ancient Rome, where the lector occupied the position of a slave and whose central task was to read out loud to his masters. Today we understand a lecturer in a different sense, and although there is significant diversity in this field, we can interpret it in one broad way—the lecturer as an educator of adults.

Many Slovak and international authors address the definition of the term lecturer and the area of lecturer training and adult professional education. In her book Andragogická diagnostika (2008), the Slovak andragogist Ivana Pirohová deals with this topic. She focuses on the personality of the lecturer and his or her competencies, characterizing it from a socio-demographic perspective, describing special abilities, and in a separate chapter discussing diagnostic processes in the educational process and self-diagnosis in lecturing work. The lecturer’s personality is also presented by the significant author Viera Prusáková through the well-structured publication Príručka pre lektorov (1999), which, besides the lecturer’s personality, provides information on adult learning and learning objectives. The publication deals with teaching objectives in relation to participants in education and also addresses choosing suitable methods for effectively achieving the set teaching goals. Practical advice for those who want to be good lecturers is provided by Jana Šoferová in Lektorské finty (2008). It includes information on preparing and delivering various trainings so that they are interesting to participants and motivate them to learn right from the start. Olga Medlíková’s Lektorské dovednosti (2010), a manual for successful lecturers, is a core work for all future lecturers. It contains didactics and methodology of educational activities, describes educational processes, offers practical support in teaching, provides many activating elements and aids to improve teaching, and also addresses complex situations frequently encountered in education.

The Lecturer as an Educator of Adults

Our society naturally modifies its requirements for further professional education and seeks to assimilate them to current needs as effectively as possible. Ultimately, these demands arise from the needs of individuals living in society, with whom they are in constant interaction. In light of this, increasing demands are placed on the lecturer’s personality regarding knowledge, abilities, and skills, which naturally also increases his or her responsibility toward education participants. As a result, lecturers continually strive to improve themselves and do not settle for already acquired knowledge, skills, and abilities, but instead develop them as deeply as possible.

The field of adult education offers a broad range of definitions due to many authors addressing this issue. A highly significant definition of a lecturer comes from Kubálek and Liveček (1975, p. 20), who claim that “a lecturer as a voluntary educator of adults is not usually a pedagogue by profession; rather, it is usually an expert in a field who shares his or her knowledge and experience with entrusted participants.” Šoferová (2008) equates the role of a lecturer with that of a teacher, trainer, or manager, understanding this role as a person who consciously participates in changes in approach, knowledge, and skills, teaching people to work in new ways and to do things differently. Palán (2008, p. 121) speaks of the lecturer as the key factor for achieving educational objectives. He introduces the term andragogical mastery, which he defines as “a deep level of theoretical knowledge and practical experience complemented by lecturing knowledge.” Medlíková (2010) defines a lecturer as a highly educated intermediary of theoretical knowledge and practical skills, expected above all to possess knowledge of andragogy, but also of many other fields. The core of this work is to deliver lectures and, when necessary, provide practical training.

In public understanding, the lecturer is seen as a person who directly influences participants in a specific environment and educational event, using many methods, forms, and tools. The lecturer is an expert teaching participants practical knowledge usable in professional practice. It is indispensable that the lecturer has practical experience that can be conveyed to others in an engaging and understandable way (Sehnalová, 2011). According to Barták (2003, p. 129), “a lecturer in the corporate sphere is usually an expert who implements adult education in a company and is responsible, together with the client and organizer, for managing the study process.” Prusáková (1999) believes that a person is not born a good lecturer, i.e., lecturing ability is not innate, but can be developed through challenging and professional preparation over one’s lifetime.

The Lecturer as a Master of the Trade

Closely connected to the profession of adult educator are capabilities that play a key role not only in the educational process itself but also in shaping the personality of the learner. According to Pirohová (2008), these capabilities cannot be captured in one concise or definitive formulation, as they include a full set of cognitive, emotional, motivational, and creative abilities that appear in varied forms among these professionals. The author places significant emphasis on social competencies and emotional prerequisites that frame agility and effectiveness in working with people. They include numerous capacities such as activity, authority, empathy, initiative, and organizational skills, all of which are essential for the lecturer’s profession. She notes that “the lecturer is an educator of adults, but not every educator is a lecturer” (Pirohová, 2008, p. 41). From this it follows that the path to becoming a good, quality lecturer is highly demanding and requires strong commitment. Above all, to distinguish a lecturer from an ordinary expert, one must have the ability to admit that they must learn how to learn (unknown author).

Palán and Langer (2008) understand the lecturer’s role more broadly and believe that activity does not end with lecturing, but also includes preparation, implementation, and evaluation of the educational event. They see the main role as developing adults’ learning possibilities rather than merely teaching.

Within personal qualities and lecturer prerequisites, many authors differ, but in the end each emphasizes what they individually consider desirable for high-quality lecturing. Regarding personality qualities, we follow Malach’s (2003) view, who stresses the importance of broad perspective in a good lecturer’s work, enabling them to respond dynamically to current problems. He also emphasizes ethics, which becomes meaningful wherever one works with people. From ethical principles it follows that a lecturer should act honestly, conscientiously, and objectively toward participants, should protect their rights and interests, and should keep confidential all information learned in connection with educational preparation when disclosure could harm the participant. Optimism and humor also have their place in a lecturer’s work. Every good lecturer is an optimist because they count on learning outcomes being achieved and encourage participants to overcome obstacles and avoid giving up easily. “Humor means cheerful, pleasant, entertaining conduct, combined with goodwill and a positive emotional relationship with other people... It helps a person view themselves objectively, critically, and realistically, which is the basis for personality change and development” (Malach, 2003, p. 18).

As mentioned, in andragogical practice, the relationship and approach of the lecturer toward participants are decisive. It is highly desirable that the lecturer demonstrates interest in achieving participants’ best outcomes and shows personal commitment to the successful progress and completion of training. Malach (2003) calls this didactic engagement.

A central focus of a lecturer’s professional activity is also creating a positive atmosphere among participants and, through creativity and diverse experiential methods, fostering their willingness to learn. Creativity is an irreplaceable educational means and must be practiced and developed. In creativity, flexibility of thought is decisive—flexibility and, if we want to develop it in education, we must talk not only about what is, but also why it is so, and motivate participants to think about how things could be better. Creativity in educational processes has no limits, and a lecturer can use this ability not only during content presentation—where creativity is often taken for granted—but also in communication with participants and in evaluating them (Prusáková, 2008). Malach (2003) maintains that a lecturer’s creativity should be most visible in lesson planning through finding current, lively, interesting, and nontraditional methods for presenting content and applying acquired knowledge and skills. It is the lecturer’s creativity in the educational process that attracts participants to educational content and evokes positive motivational feelings related to learning.

A basic prerequisite of a good lecturer is also mastery of effective communication, not only verbal but nonverbal as well. If a lecturer adapts both verbal and nonverbal communication to participants, proceeds at an appropriate pace, chooses suitable teaching methods, and gives participants opportunities to express themselves, the learning atmosphere is likely to be positive. Adult learners want to participate in education, want to be respected, and need to feel competent. Diagnostic activities understood as ongoing dialogue with the learner can positively influence the learning climate (Pirohová, 2008).

Communication is a productive tool for a lecturer, and for it to be effective it must be continuously improved and maintained in all parts. We are mainly referring to nonverbal communication, to which the lecturer profession attributes greater importance than verbal communication and which “has the strongest influence on the success or understanding of ordinary expression” (Kazík, 2008, p. 72). In nonverbal communication, we can speak about basic expressions that every lecturer should attend to. First is the lecturer’s image, which creates an overall impression of the educational process and strengthens first impressions. In general, the course of the first contact, or first impression, strongly affects the success of the educational process. In addition to outward image, other elements such as behavior, experience, opinions, or reputation strengthen the lecturer’s personality (Medlíková, 2013). As far as appearance is concerned, every adult educator should be neatly presented, at least one level more formally dressed than the participants, should consistently use eye contact to help participant concentration so each participant feels the lecturer is speaking directly to them. Likewise, one must not forget the lecturer’s loudness and intonation, which play a strategic role even when the lecture content is less compelling (Kazík, 2008).

It is said that the idea is more important than speech, and likewise one should be alert not only to one’s own body language but also to participants’ body language. Through it, one can observe interest or lack of interest in the presented material, and from the lecturer’s facial expression and gestures one can also read authority. Medlíková (2013) emphasizes that in terms of facial expression, we can speak about the lecturer’s work with the face: for example, a smile not only creates a pleasant mood but also helps relax the face; a slight tilt of the face to one side can indicate interest or attention; raised eyebrows may add emphasis or meaning to speech. The area of gesture is closely tied to personality, current mood, and stress the lecturer feels or does not feel while presenting. Most important is hand movement, so it is desirable that hands remain visible rather than in pockets or crossed, which can signal stress and disinterest.

Learning to read one’s own body language and to perceive one’s qualities—such as proper communication, sufficient professional preparation, creativity—and one’s deficits is very demanding and time-consuming, characterized by continuous evaluation of one’s own work. Such evaluation is often part of professions such as adult educator or lecturer, who in seeking to remove shortcomings and improve teaching systematically review their work with an objective view into a mirror. In this context we speak of self-reflection, which is an essential component of effective education and, like communication, creativity, assertiveness, and ethics in lecturing, is one of the key competencies for a high-quality educational process.

Self-Reflection in a Lecturer’s Work

Modern society increasingly feels the urgency and relevance of self-reflection in public practice, especially in professions such as teacher, lecturer, or adult educator, which is why this issue has an immediate character. The power of self-reflection itself is highly inspiring and arouses the interest of many andragogical and pedagogical theorists and practitioners, helping them gain the status of a high-quality teacher or lecturer. W. Wallace (1991, in: Dytrtová, Krhutová, 2009, p. 55) acknowledges that only if lecturers are capable of thorough self-reflection can we speak of a positive retroactive effect of experiential knowledge on acquired theoretical foundations. Although self-reflection is not yet a fully established term, it should be noted that it represents a strategic means allowing lecturers to use their experiences and skills in a meaningful way and also stimulates professional and moral growth (Hupková, Petlák, 2004).

Self-reflection is generally understood as the process in which a lecturer systematically and intentionally obtains feedback information from others (Nezvalová, 1994). Its meaning is also found in a psychological dictionary (2000), which defines it as a person’s awareness of their reflection in the surrounding social reality. Self-reflection motivates a person not to be satisfied with the current state and to strive for self-improvement based on aspirations and ideals. Self-education and self-improvement are possible only if a person knows their value, strengths, and shortcomings and adopts an unbiased stance and perspective on their own personality” (Hupková, 2006, p. 22). Self-reflection represents a kind of “driving force” that does not allow stagnation; on the contrary, it is a tool for continuous self-work, pushing us forward and preventing us from being trapped in routine stereotypes.

In relation to a lecturer’s work, self-reflection is often defined as awareness of one’s so-called teaching (lecturing) knowledge, experiences, or lived events from pedagogical activity and especially from solving varied problems to which teaching is exposed (Petlák, 2000). It is an inner dialogue conducted by the lecturer with oneself, reflecting on how one performs one’s work. One can then assess participants’ actual work, one’s attitudes toward them, or communication with colleagues. Petlák and Hupková (2004) hold that when self-reflection is present in a lecturer’s work, it leads to the lecturer’s self-development and simultaneously acts as a factor preventing decline. They claim that efforts toward self-knowledge and self-evaluation are conditions for personality development of the lecturer not only in professional and personnel terms but also in the moral realm, and that reflective lecturers are more open to new ideas and changes, since self-reflection deepens their capacity for empathy, helping them recognize their own motives, needs, goals, and values. Self-reflection fulfills a strategic function in the lecturer profession. The lecturer reflects on themselves, on their teaching method and its effectiveness. For it to be effective, feedback from education participants or colleagues who assess the lecturer’s work is indispensable. It is essential that the lecturer also reflects on the course of their teaching and conducts retrospective evaluation.

Reflective and Non-Reflective Lecturer Approaches in the Educational Process

Self-reflection in a lecturer’s work is desirable, yet not every lecturer practices it, and not every lecturer follows principles of reflective teaching. Kasáčová (2005, p. 39) defines reflective teaching as “active interest in the goals and consequences of educational activity with the intent of achieving optimal effectiveness” and states that the starting point of reflective teaching is a lecturer’s ability to reason on information obtained through self-reflection and also pedagogical-psychological knowledge. Obst (2002, p. 108) delimits situations of reflection on one’s work, stating that lecturers most often encounter self-reflection and self-evaluation when they:

  • face a problematic situation they had to, or will still have to, solve;
  • test a new approach and evaluate its results,
  • are in a situation where they are prompted to express their opinion on a current issue,
  • compare themselves with a colleague they observed directly at work or through video recording,
  • come into contact with new knowledge in educational sciences and consider integrating it into their own pedagogical practice,
  • find themselves in a situation where they are prompted to self-evaluate.

Self-reflection in a lecturer’s work represents one of the key competencies that serves the development of reflective thinking and also allows professional growth. For the work of both teacher and lecturer, reflection and evaluation are natural, even necessary, components of work, because without them it would be impossible to meet all demands placed on teaching. Hupková (2006) maintains that only a lecturer, teacher, or educator who reflects on their own work can continuously improve and renew the educational process. In current times, no successful educator can forgo self-reflection and professional educational practice.

Based on Pollard (1998), Kasáčová (2005) identifies six basic characteristics of reflective teaching that every good lecturer should follow:

  1. In reflective teaching, the lecturer stimulates active interest in the goals and consequences of the educational process.
  2. Reflective teaching has a cyclical, spiraling character. During such teaching, the lecturer continuously monitors, evaluates, and revises their own performance.
  3. This type of teaching requires in the lecturer the capacity for diagnosis, which means obtaining information about participants in education.
  4. Unbiasedness, responsibility, and enthusiasm are primary attitudes of reflective teaching.
  5. It is based either on lecturers’ reasoning using information from self-reflection, or on lecturing knowledge.
  6. Reflective teaching develops through collaboration and dialogue.

In educational practice we usually encounter different conceptions of education rooted primarily in the personalities of educators. On the one hand, we can speak of lecturers who apply self-reflection and follow elements of reflective teaching. On the other hand, we frequently encounter the opposite in practice, where lecturers do not use self-reflection and consider it unnecessary. Based on this position and the findings of Hupková (2006), we can compare individual educators.

Among lecturers who practice self-reflection, there is a clear orientation toward the education participant and their needs, while the lecturer does not appear only as the presenter of a given topic but also as a facilitator, seeking to make learning easier for participants. Reflective lecturers are open to further learning and professional development and plan educational processes well. They feel the need for feedback and are oriented toward enriching themselves based on experience. They draw general conclusions from thorough knowledge not only of themselves and participants but also of the situation. Gipe (in: Švec, 1997, p. 9) defines additional characteristics of reflective educators:

  • they are oriented toward understanding people,
  • they are spontaneous,
  • they are curious and adaptable,
  • they are open to new ideas and change,
  • they are tuned to their own values and also the values of other people,
  • they are characterized by creativity.

By contrast, non-reflective lecturers focus on themselves or the educational content and rely on personal experiences, teaching by trial and error. Their future perspectives are short or nonexistent; they tend to make hasty generalizations without examining the causes of observed phenomena. They usually act as transmitters of information and have neither the need nor interest in further education.

From this comparison it follows that self-reflection and a reflective teaching style have an enormous impact not only on the quality of the educational process but also, to a high extent, on the participant’s own interest in the presented topic.

Conclusion

The most striking influence within the educational process is precisely the lecturer’s personality, who provides participants with ideas, knowledge, and abilities. The purpose of our paper builds on this idea and discusses personality prerequisites that create the status of a good, quality lecturer; based on a comparison of reflective and non-reflective teaching, it highlights self-reflection as one of the primary competencies in the educational process.

The paper also points to the most important prerequisites of lecturing activity and especially emphasizes optimism, showmanship, and self-reflection in a lecturer’s work. An optimistic lecturer has a major impact on the entire course of instruction. They are a personality who trusts participants and encourages them in fulfilling life ambitions even when those participants themselves are skeptical about such fulfillment. They are motivating and always strive to achieve the set goals. In practice, we do not encounter showman lecturers very often, but when we do, their teaching leaves a deep impression and becomes an unforgettable experience. Lastly, self-reflection occupies an irreplaceable place in the educational process. It is very important that it is a natural aspect of a lecturer’s work, because only through this competence can a lecturer judge whether they selected an appropriate teaching strategy and respond appropriately to participants’ needs. Based on analysis of professional literature, we have concluded that self-reflection is a personal matter for every lecturer, and one can speak of its importance and effectiveness only when it emerges from the educator’s own internal motivation and interest in self-improvement. It is also important to note, however, that the lecturer’s task is not only to achieve educational goals and transmit information but also to shape ways of thinking and develop the ability to independently acquire new knowledge.

Although interest in practicing the lecturing profession is increasing, it should be noted that high-quality lecturers with a talent for this profession, with a sense of tact, natural authority, or optimism are still few, and it is necessary to continue developing the idea of self-reflection and introducing it already in preparation for this profession.

Author: Bc. Radka Zimanová

List of Used Literature

BARTÁK, J. 2003. Základní kniha lektora trénera. Praha : Votobia. 222 s. ISBN 80-7220-156-1.
DYTRTOVÁ, R. – KRHUTOVÁ, M. 2009. Učitel. Příprava na profesi. : Grada Publishing, a.s. 128 s. ISBN 978-80-247-2863-6.
HARTL, P. – HARTLOVÁ, H. 2000. Psychologický slovník. Praha : Portál, s. 524. ISBN 80-7178-303-X.
HUPKOVÁ, M. 2006. Profesijná sebareflexia učiteľov. Nitra : PF UKF. 203 s. ISBN 80-8094-028-2.
KASÁČOVÁ, B. 2005. Reflektívna výučba a reflexia v učiteľskej praxi. Banská Bystrica : Pedagogická fakulta UMB. 199 s. ISBN 80-8083-046-0.
LIVEČKA, E. - KUBÁLEK, J. 1975. Vademecum lektora dospělých. Co musí umět a vědět lektor dospelých. Praha : Práce. 99 s.
KAZÍK, P. 2008. Rukověť dobrého lektora. Praktické tipy a návody pro začínajíci i zkušené přednášející. Praha : Grada Publishing. 112 s. ISBN 978-80-247-2453-9.
MALACH, J.. 2003. Klíčové kompetence lektora. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita v Ostrave,, 2003. 58 s. ISBN 80-7042-945-3.
MEDLÍKOVÁ, O. 2013. Lektorské dovednosti. Manuál úspěšného lektora. Praha : Grada Publishing. 176 s. ISBN 978-80-247-3236-7.
NEZVALOVÁ, D. 1994. Reflexe v pregraduální přípravě učitele. In Pedagogika, roč. XLIV, č. 3, s. 241-245.
OBST, O. 2002. Učitel ve výuce. In. Obst, O. – Kalhoust, Z. et al. Školní didaktika. Praha: Portál, s. 92-120. ISBN 80-7178-253-X.
PALÁN, Z. – LANGER, T. 2008. Základy andragogiky. Praha : Univerzita Jana Amosa Komenského. 184 s. ISBN 978-80-86723-58-7.
PETLÁK, E. 2000. Pedagogicko-didaktická práca učiteľa. IRIS. 118 s. ISBN 80-89018-05-X.
PETLÁK, E. – HUPKOVÁ, M. 2004. Sebareflexia a kompetencie v práci učiteľa. Bratislava : IRIS. 135 s. ISBN 80-89018-77-7.
PIROHOVÁ, I. 2008. Andragogická diagnostika. Prešov : Akcent Print, 162 s. ISBN 987-80-89295-11-1.
PRUSÁKOVÁ, V. 1999. Príručka pre lektorov. Bratislava : Inštitút pre verejnú správu, 34 s. ISBN 80-968308-0-5.
PRUSÁKOVÁ, V. 2008. Poradňa: Niekoľko poznámok k tvorivosti lektora. In: Vzdelávanie dospelých. roč. 42, č. 3-4.
SEHNALOVÁ, I. 2011. Žádny lektor z nebe nespadl...i učit se musí člověk naučit. [online]. EVERESTA [cit. 02. 03. 2014]. Dostupné na internete: .
ŠOFEROVÁ, J. 2008. Lektorské finty. Jak pripravit a zrealizovat zajímavá školení. Praha : Grada Publishing. 112 s. ISBN 978-80-247-2483-6.
ŠVEC, V. 1997. Sebareflexe jako nástroj profesionálního (sebe)rozvíjení začínajícich učitelů. In Pedagogická orientace, č. 3, s. 2-13.