1;mwfiww,mmfig Hgfi

The Cadre, February 10, 1976, pagele'

Evaluations and Examin'at

Editor's note - the fol— lowing article came to the Cadre via (God help us) the office of President Baker. We unfortunately have no i- dea where he obtained it from, although it was prob-’ ably some British journal. It represents one of the most cogent arguments I have ever seen (although I} would say that the measures it proposes are insuffici— ent). As such we felt that it was worthy of publication.

Good teaching should be enc- ouraged and rewarded. 'Unan— imity in higher education is rare but this sentiment seem to commend it. There is pe— rhaps almost as much agreem— ent that bad teaching should be discouraged and penalized. Why do we do so little about it? f

The common explanation of

‘our inaction is that teaching

is difficult, even impossible, to assess objectively., This is an excuse, not a reason. Some objective discrimination is only too easy and the re- ason for our reluctance to exercise it is that it would require a drastic change of current practices in tenure and promotion of teachers. .If we were serious in our to- cern about the quality of teacher nmny teachers would be sacked and many would be demoted.

It is paradoxical that we claim the ability to as— sess the_competence of our students, often to an accur- acy of l per cent, yet resi- st the idea that our compet- ence in the classroom can be assessed at all. The recent suggestion of a salaries re— port that some assessment of teachers‘ performance should be made was ridiculed because it was accompanied by the idea that the opinion of st- dents might be taken into account. Whilst not dismis- sing assessment by students I think that this was an unJ’ fortunate red herring. Cer- tainly some simpler and more objective tests could be ap- plied and would be relevant.

The first is that teachers should turn up for their cl— asses as scheduled. Most people who have no experience of higher education would be astonished that this test could be significant. Those ' who are more familiar with ourxcolleges_and\universities know that carelessness about this is quite common and that it is not always an obstacle to promotion.

Perhaps more exacting, and even more widely neglected, is that teachers should main—

, competence .

_of his consistency.

tain accurate written records of their teaching and of the progress of their students. We require of our students coherent written work. Do we require it of ourselves? Assessment of the qual—‘ ity of a teacher's records, his teaching schemes and his lecture notes could be a ma—

:tter of controversy and ade- quacy of records is no suf-

ficient conditiOn for good teaching. But is it not a necessary condition for com— petence in a teacher that he should maintain such docume- ntaEion, that he should be able to produce written eviv dence of effective planning, monitoring and recording of his work? The demand for this evidence is my second test. _ The third is that it sh- ould~be demonstrated that this documentation reasona— . bly corresponds with the published prospectus of his course and with what actua— lly happens in his lectures, seminars and tutorials. Student assessments prov- ide readily available mater— ial for a further test of There c0uld be controversy about an exami- ner's correctness.in sett— ’ing and assessing but there' is one easy objective test- _ The ob“ jectivity of examining can be assessed by requiring an examiner to mark afresh the papers he marked last year or the year before. Those' who assume that this test is easily passed should try it. I We have not yet entered the classroom. How many will let us in? The immediate reaction of students to a ledture may not be a satisfé actory assessment of the qu— ality of teaching although it is surely relevant. Stu- vdents can be swept along by charisma; they can be sulky about serious challenge. The fact that there are di-

fficulties does not mean that , ,_no objective tests are poss—

ibie. : ; Certain extremes of inco- mpetence can be identified

, beyond any possibility of

controversy and these, if

we are to believe the commee nts of many students or ass- ume that things have not co— mpletely changed since we were students, are of not infrequent occurrence.

The lecturer who cannot be heard at the baCk of the room, the lecturer who does not lecture but merely trans— fers his notes to the board is identifiable, with little room for doubt. And perhaps

we can beufairly sure-of in..-“

competence in some cases in

/

.which a lecturer loses the

whole of his class, whether metaphorically or physically. The competence of a teac- her in the classroom must include a measure-of awaren-

ess— of himself and of his \J

students- which in some re: spects could be tested obje-

ctively. When he comes out of a classroom does the tea— cher know what he and his st— udents have done? -, For example, how many te—, achers are unaware that they have spent most of the hour '

of a so—called seminar in ta-—

lking rather than listening? How many are aware after a lecture that they have been addressing only a half or'a third of those present. Ha- ve lecturers any idea how ma- ny students have taken notes, how many have done "The Times crossword" and how many have written letters home during V the lecture?

‘And if all these methods of testing competence and incompetence of teachers are

V deemed inadequate there is a I

further alternative of attr— active simplicity. Why not Whyant place on each teacher the Onus of proving his com— petence?

Too often the work of te— achers is defined merely in terms of individual teaching and "administration", a word that covers a_multitude of sins of Omission and commis—' ion. Too little emphasis is placed on the collective res sponsibility of a section or _department for the whole cu— rriculum. 7

An assessment of compet—

ience in teaching sh0u1d be

made of the group as well as the individuals; Often the individual teacher passes on to an undefined authority the responsibility for some of the worst inadequacies of te— aching.

A friend of mine last mo— nth Started a degree course. When he asked for an explana— tion of the assessment system and an outline of the curric- ulum of the final year he' was told that these were not yet decided. Incompetence and irresponsibility of this kind are not diffiCult to id— entify with objectivity.

That a course plan exists that the teaghers involved are aware of it and that they work according to it can and should be easily ascertained. Obviously there must be fre—‘ edom for teacher, and stude- nts, to follow their indivi— dual preferences.‘

Equally obviously, there must be limits to this free— dom. If the students go be—

are quick to apply sanctions

yond these limits examinerswmw

rion‘s ror ; "P r SsMs “Needed .

and do not find this diffi— cult. Sanctions could be applied to teachers who si— milarily go out of bounds. The incompetence of teac- hers can be particularly da— maging in the processes of the assessment and examinat- ion of students. I was rec— ently told by the registrar vof a university that the de— cisions of its examiners co~ uld be challenged only by appeal to the Privy Council. If this is true, and I do not doubt his word, it impls ies a heavy responsibility indeed upon the examiners. From other professions that exercise authority and responsiblity of this magn— itude the public is usually protected by a professional code of conduct and the pro— ision of severe penalties for those who act in contempt of it. 'I wonder what prtec— tion the public has from the

4‘possible operation of an ac—

‘ademic conspiracy of mediocw rity veiled by the secrecy that sUrrounds the proceed— ings of examining boards. Some easily available rtests can'and should be ap— plied to assess; albeit in- completely, the competence of teacher, departments and examiners. The failure and the unwillingness to apply them could fairly be asCrib- _ed to a conspiracy of acade— mics.4 "We will ask no awkw-

’ ard questions about your wo—

rk if you ask none about

. ours" is a popular formula.

Its use is an abuse of acad— 'emic freedom and it.invites external intervention in ac- ademic matters. *-

In British education, in- deed in BritiSh society gen- erally, our tolerance of in— competence is a greater weak- ness than our neglect of ex- cellent. Wrong priorities within lour institutions ref- lect wrong priorities at the top. Lip service is often

'paid to the need to encourage

good teaching in colleges and universities. It generally remains no more than lip se— rvice because the Universitys Grants Committee and the De— partment of Education and , Science offer\to institutions no tangible encouragemenfi“qi1' reward for_competence..nx”1h .If we are to engage in the fascinating exerciSe of sele- cting universities, polytec- hnics or colleges to be clo— sed what criteria shall’we use?_ Do we wipe out those at the foot of the league table for Nobel Prizes or research publications? Or do we seek out the incompetent? I think I know the answer the general

“public would ‘gIVE‘fiTH‘TTbeli‘

eve it would be right.