Can teaching be measured? #2

Carolyn Penfold

Following on from Justine Rogers’ 30th May post: ‘Can Teaching Be Measured’ I’m adding links to some articles on the topic. I think these questions are becoming increasingly important as universities seek ‘metrics’ by which to measure their work forces. The articles linked to below suggest that bias is a concern in teaching evaluations, which for me raises the question of whether those using the metrics will need to ‘correct’ for likely (or even just potential) bias. Check these out and let me know what you think:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/11/new-analysis-offers-more-evidence-against-student-evaluations-teaching

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/02/04/student-evaluations-of-teaching-gender-bias/

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/student-evaluations-skewed-women-minority-professors/

http://www.utstat.toronto.edu/reid/sta2201s/gender-teaching.pdf

 

Can Teaching be Measured?

4175299981_614e7d9dc5 (1)

(image)

By Justine Rogers

Last week UNSW had its second ‘Great Debate’, introduced last year as a fun, accessible way for the UNSW community to explore a serious and stirring topic. (For a post on last year’s, click here)

Each team: professor-manager, non-prof academic, and student.

The topic: Of Course Teaching Can be Measured (it’s a 5.3!).

I was on the affirmative (which I knew going in would be tough).

Given it was a private event for staff and students, I’ve written this assuming some version of the Chatham House Rule applies.

The affirmative’s arguments were:

  1. Teaching can be measured, albeit imperfectly, and certainly better and more reliably than it is now.
  2. Teaching needs to be measured to enhance the quality, rewards and status of teaching.

The negative’s arguments were:

  1. Teaching cannot be measured, only learning experiences and learning outcomes can. 
  2. Teaching measures are flawed and unreliable.

The negative committed to the empirical questions, whereas I tried (unsuccessfully in the 4 or so mins we had) to engage both sides in the wider empirical and normative argument suggested in affirmative point 2: whether there is some positive correlation between measurement, and motivation, quality and status, and therefore whether a more robust measurement of teaching is worthwhile.

I wish we’d had the format and time to examine this: whether this is true, or whether, using research measures as example, such measures have too many biases, perverse incentives, and inefficient and/or demoralising effects to be of real value (even if it entails superficial value). 

I will share my main arguments here, some of which I am fairly convinced, many posed as part of my role on the affirmative side, and some raised in the spirit of fun and provocation. Above all, I think the topic raised several questions left that need to be contemplated, many of which I’ve posted below – so please share your thoughts!

Continue reading

What is the SRA getting the UK into?

By Alex Steel

John Flood’s post below highlights the radical nature of the SRA’s proposal.  To be fair to LETR it was primarily a research paper rather than an options paper, and there’s a lot in there that’s of interest to Australian academics – including an overview of the current state of UK education and practice, and useful literature reviews.  A couple of cautionary notes from LETR are apposite to the proposals to move to competency based outcomes: Continue reading

One Size Doesn’t Fit All in Legal Education

By John Flood

After digesting the Legal Education and Training Review report (LETR) for three months, England’s largest legal regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), has delivered its response. This is important because the big legal regulators—SRA, Bar Standards Board, Ilex Professional Services—shape the structure of the qualifying law degree, and they commissioned LETR.

Without revisiting the LETR report in detail,[1] it recommended no radical change. Instead the SRA, according to its chief executive, Anthony Townsend, is to propose a radical programme of reform.

It has three elements: Continue reading

ALTA Conference, Teaching and Instructor Freedoms

This week’s ALTA conference was an interesting mix of papers. A number of people are talking about the ‘flipped’ classroom. This ‘new’ approach involves getting your students to read or do some other activity before they come to class.  It was interesting how new and unusual many people seemed to think this was. There was real concern about the possibility of getting students to do the work, and it became clear that some universities keep their teachers on a very tight rein – e.g., do not allow them to have class participation marks, do not allow a teacher to say to a class that they will not teach the class that day if they had not done the reading, and there was clearly a sense that many universities have so many rules that it makes it impossible for teachers to teach classes in the way they think fit.

There is always a tension, I guess, between too much and not enough regulation. The thing regulators of any kind (including teachers) need to keep in mind is the extent to which people will perform to expectation. If you regulate people as if they will behave badly they probably will. The challenge is to regulate in a way which suggests to people that they will do well so that they respond to those expectations and rise to meet them. Having some faith in teaching staff to do the right thing may be beneficial from that point of view alone.  The same applies to the classroom where students often perform extremely well when it is clear to them that they are expected to. 

By Prue Vines