in
It's
a true fact that the major concern of the British government at the moment is
improving the quality of teaching in HEIs and implementation of definite
procedures and structures to assure this quality. At the present survey we
tried to analyze the efforts of the British government undertaken for the last
20 years to implement definite education policies targeted at improvement of
teaching quality by means of increasing teacher effectiveness and provide some
hints for Ukrainian university managers to utilize some of those practices in
educational establishments of
Measurement implies selection of items to be measured, development or acquisition of adequate tools for performing the measurements, and purpose for performing the act or specification of use to which achieved results may be put. This is a positive approach which, as in cutting a door or a length of dress material, anticipates positive results in applying measurement to known or familiar tasks.
But measurement is also a method of enquiry in areas unfamiliar or unknown. Sidney Kettle (1975) stated his view that in the physical sciences, measurements taken in laboratory situations do not prove theories or display truths, rather they identify faulty or inadequate hypotheses and, within a particular system of enquiry, reduce the number of possibilities by discovering those which are reputable. If one accepts this as a premise, one may assume that the search for scientific truth is an effort to reject ideas which are unworkable or unuseful and measurement is the prime agent by which the necessary rejection is achieved. This may appear to be an ungenerous view of modern science, but such a view is neither novel nor lacking reputable support.
Here indeed a major
problem becomes apparent. In selecting specific items for measurement we must
at once ask if any agreed or defensible definitions of teaching effectiveness
exist in our complex, human/educational world. Apparently there are some
eminent optimists who believe that they do. Hildebrand (1972) stated:
"In
Kenneth Eble's words, 'What most college teachers are not aware of is the great
number of careful, scholarly investigations which have tried to find out what
does constitute effective and ineffective teaching… . Were the results of these
investigations at wide Variance with one another, the sceptic might find
support for his distrust of knowing anything about the subject. But the
investigations are not at variance'...".
D.G.Mueller
(1971) reported detailed findings:
"Morsh and Wilder (1954) ... conclude that ... the problem of relating specific teacher influences, be they behaviour or traits, to student achievement is largely unresolved.
"The
students were invited to list the strengths and weaknesses of their instructors
and to comment on specific aspects they felt could be improved, when we come to
look at the comments received in response to these questions we don't really
know whom to believe for the strengths and weaknesses quoted are often in
direct contradiction. ... When asked to rank the five types of examination
questions used in the course opinion was divided on the essay question - as
many placed it first as last".
The
Professional Orientation Committee of the Canadian AUT (1972) took another
point of view:
"There
is good evidence that the reliability of evaluation questionnaires is high. ...
A more serious matter is the question of the validity of student evaluations -
that is whether or not they measure attitudinal components which are in some
sense important ... The question can be raised, of course, as to whether
student attitudes are shared by faculty and administrators, and here there is
evidence that they are not".
A
challenging personal statement was made by an ex-headmistress (1971). We do not
find her concerns inappropriate to higher education and would point to the
potential relevance of her view to the assessment of new (probationary)
lecturers. We quote her at length:
"...the
longer I looked at my staff (in a mixed school) the more difficult I found it
to assess what were the criteria that made a good teacher. I know quite well
that some teachers got an excellent response from the children though they
behaved in a manner which I would have considered indefensible. In my
experience the teachers who turn out to be good are people who almost
invariably have difficulty when they first enter school. I put it down to the
fact that ultimately you can never become a good teacher unless you can see the
kid's point of view. When you start teaching this is a disadvantage. On the
other hand, there are people who come to the school of whom everyone says they
are born teachers - classes well controlled lessons well planned, everything
marvellous. ...ten years later (they) sit in the staffroom making cynical
remarks ... the abilities that led to success at first lead to disappointment,
disillusionment".
Thus,
we see that, even omitting all reference to radical views and critiques of
education, there is no consensus among either teachers or students about
definitions or criteria of teaching effectiveness, and therefore no agreement
on specific items to be measured. This suggests that teaching effectiveness, if
it will not bow to objective definition, will equally not bow to objective
test. This suggests further that attempts to develop teaching assessment
procedures will involve subjective choices of criteria and subjective
weightings of one criterion against another.
There
will be a temptation of course, to focus on - items of performance or opinion
that are more easily observable and quantifiable but would such limited and
uncertain sums produce the consummate judgement on teaching effectiveness that
is desired?
Training
courses for university teachers are developing rapidly in the
Although the majority of such courses have developed in the last five or six years, they have already undergone some shift in orientation. Earlier courses tended to be heavily centred on operational skills and use of teaching aids. But, the Nuffield Group (1974) discussed, "The idea of extending teaching competence through self-help staff seminars...", They explained their view that, "It may be preferable to enable teaching staff to explore their own teaching difficulties, and to reflect on them with colleagues, than to run formal courses on 'teaching methods'. The latter tend to suggest that good teaching is a mere matter of picking up certain standard knacks: they often fail to give proper recognition to the importance of a teacher's personal style, or to the complex interrelationships between subject matter, mode of presentation, and the particular needs of the students concerned".
Here
we see attention to the idea of "teaching competence", although
clearly the Nuffield Group does not think that this concept can be easily
defined and transmitted in any standard form through training. Many British
academics are in agreement about this difficulty. One wonders why this question
has now come to the fore, and what may be the origins in the
We
see some interest in measuring effectiveness already manifested in the late
1860's. The Newcastle Commission in 1861 concluded that children were not receiving
an appropriate education and that teaching quality was poor. Concern grew about
adequate educational provision, and near alarm was experienced when the educational
budget began rising by £100,000 per year. Thus schools became held 'accountable'
through a system of external examinations and 'payment by results' became the
standard solution tasting through the mid 1890's. Apparently this external
pressure was not seen to produce the anticipated improvements - some indeed
found it damaging - and in 1905 a new view was found in an official publication
stating that "The only uniformity of practice the Board of Education desires
to see in the teaching of Public Elementary Schools is that each teacher shall
think for himself". (J.B.Coltham 1972).
In
1965 concern for teaching efficiency and effectiveness blossomed in the Brynmor
Jones Report on Audio Visual Aids in Higher Scientific Education which was the
springboard for the systems approach and educational technology movements which
followed. Brynmor Jones saw an opportunity to improve teaching in a rational
and systematic way, and his Committee recommended the establishment of central
service units for the production, storage, retrieval and presentation of
teaching materials. They further suggested research in such areas as
"course development" and explained that, "This means that any
course or area of study is temporarily removed from conventional teaching and
is critically examined in order to define carefully the objectives, the
standard of performance required, the precise content and the best possible
means of presentation". Thus Brynmor Jones sought to improve teaching effectiveness
by a structure which offered assistance to academic staff in the systematic
evaluation of courses and improvement of materials.
In
1967 the universities became fully accountable financially when it was agreed
that "...the Auditor General should be given access to the books of the
UGC and accounts of universities" (UGC 1966-67).
In
1968 the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board voiced direct concern with the
efficiency of the teaching process and the place of teaching within the universities.
They lamented the unimproved staff-to-student ratio on the premise that student
numbers would rise but finance could not rise accordingly. Thus, they argued,
greater efficiency, "lower cost per student, and new methods were
required, and in their view the universities had clearly failed to achieve
this. In offering solutions, the PIB recommended that the career structure bias
towards research be moderated, and that steps be taken "to encourage and
reward excellence in teaching". They in fact offered freedom within four
per cent of the total annual salary bill to provide merit awards for
exceptional teaching. In order to facilitate the provision of such awards the
PIB offered guidelines for recognition of teaching merit. They recommended two
criteria - assessment by students, and by review of the examination performance
of students,
We
hope that some of the presented concepts could be used by university administrators
of the Ukrainian universities and utilized by them while developing new
curricula, planning academic procedures and teaching process, measures targeted
at assessment of teaching quality needed for stuff promotion or further
improvement of teaching process.
Bibliography:
1.
Association
of University Teachers (April 1969) PIB and Related Matters Letter from the AUT
to Local AUT Committees.
2.
CO-ORDINATING
COMMITTEE FOR THE TRAINING OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS (1973) Report by the
Committee for 1972-73 Committee of Vice Chancellors
and Principals.
3.
EX
HEADMISTRESS (1971) Highlights of Discussion: Research Forum on Teacher
Education NFER Publication.
4.
Main
A. (April. 1975) The Training of University Teachers:
Developments in
5.
PRICES
AND INCOMES BOARD (1968) Standing Reference on the Pay of University Teachers
in