I delivered an instructor evaluation lesson without speaking. Twice. In two separate instructor certification programs, I was assigned a topic, given learning objectives, and asked to design and deliver a short lesson to meet those objectives within a fixed timeframe. I wanted to push myself, so I ran the same experiment in both programs:
I delivered the entire lesson without speaking. No verbal explanation. No lecture. No instructor talk. Instead, I designed the session around:
- Written prompts
- Visual diagrams
- Structured learner tasks
The objectives were met in both cases. Learners were engaged. The outcomes were achieved. But the evaluations were completely different.
Program one
Marks were deducted specifically because I did not speak. There was no requirement in the rubric that the instructor had to deliver content verbally. The deduction wasn’t tied to the stated criteria. It reflected an expectation of what teaching should look like.
Program two
The evaluation stayed anchored to the rubric. The questions were simple:
- Were the learning objectives met?
- Was the session aligned to those objectives?
- Did learners demonstrate understanding?
The session was evaluated highly.
Same instructor. Same approach. Same results. Different evaluation systems.
The takeaway
When assessment is outcome-based, unconventional methods can succeed. When assessment is preference-based, innovation gets penalized. Talking is not the same as teaching. Meeting objectives is the standard. And how we evaluate instructors says more about our systems than about their experience.