J.Newman (jne@gcal.ac.uk)
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:22:09 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:22:09 +0100 (BST) From: "J.Newman" <jne@gcal.ac.uk> Subject: Quality Doubts
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Mahaley wrote:
> Also, I fear that the notion of flexible learning as multiplicity of
> content format (html, video, audio, cd, speaker, handout, etc) may
> overshadow the underlying need for quality. I see the growing number of
> on line learning sites, cd - based tutorials, virtual campuses, and hope
> that these materials are coming under close scrutiny for quality. It
> will be very interesting in ten years' time to see the results of the
> virtual campuses and on line resources (flexible learning) on student
> performance. I would venture a guess that a market full of every kind
> and combination of learning material and format will not equate good
> learning or teaching. Give me one good lecturer, I say!
It's not at all clear that "a good lecturer" equates to good learning.
There is an intrinsic problem with "quality" evaluation, in that
students will
often rate as "best" not the teacher or other learning resource from
which they actually learn most, but the one they find most
entertaining. This
isn't to decry those lecturers who can entertain students - I would
rather that students be entertained than bored - however, it is just to
point out there is no correlation between student evaluations and actual
learning.
I think the same will be equally true if we are trying to assess the
quality of "on line learning sites, cd - based tutorials, virtual
campuses": what is immediately liked will not necessarily be what best
promotes longer term learning.
What is the alternative? We can evaluate quality on some more
"objective"
basis, for example by using an expert in evaluation. This means,
though, that we hand over power from educatORS (who are subject experts)
to educationISTS;
and to be frank I think that at a Higher Education level that is
retrograde.
As I perceive it, to be a teacher of very young children, the most
important
thing is to know and understand the learner - essentially the content of
what is learned is not specialised knowledge, but understanding the
difference
between the child mind and the adult mind *is* a specialism. So the
professionalism of an infant-school teacher consists in knowing the
learner.
As we move up the scale from infant through primary and secondary
towards higher education, knowledge of the learner becomes of less
importance and subject knowledge becomes of greater importance. By the
time we get to university level, the professionalism is based on having
leading-edge knowledg of the subject, and not on knowledge of the
learner.
Closely related to this is the fact that as we approach the higher
levels of education, it becomes ever less possible to make an objective
assessment of learning (because we are more and more approaching the
boundaries of subject knowledge, where what is being assessed is the
exercise of judgement rather
than the kind of knowledge where there is a definite "right answer").
In primary school we can set fairly objective assessments of e.g. Maths,
Spelling, and so forth. At the level of an Honours Degree, there is
really no equivalent to that. This is rather bad news for
educationists, because it means that really there is no science of
education at the university level.
It is better news for subject experts, though, because it should give
them a rallying-point to restore their morale and self-worth in the face
of the continual undermining that they suffer from so-called quality
assessors.
Julian Newman
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun 10 Oct 1999 - 23:18:37 MEST