In a previous post I quoted Masefield's words: "for
century after century the University will continue and the stream of
life will pass it, and the thinker and the seeker will be bound together
in the undying cause of bringing thought in this world".
Although I admired the words, I was intrigued to think that "for century after century", the University (us) stayed pretty much the same in the way we teach and assess. If you look at drawings of the pre-University ages, you will see teachers, in some authoritative posture, in the middle of surrounding students who listen carefully to their mentor. In the middle ages Universities are depicted with pretty much the same picture with the addition of furniture, possibly a feather pen and a paper, and occasionally a blackboard. In the previous century's University black and white photos, you see the same concept, surely a bit more spatially organised. Until today, University teaching is not much different apart from the electronic equipment and invisible wifi connection to the internet as a source of knowledge (or a source of silent entertainment during a boring lecture through a mobile device). But the setting in the vast majority of occasions remains still: teacher talks, students hear. Class activities, moving pictures and interaction seem to break the monotony but is this enough?
Same with the assessment; we use a fairly small set of assessment types, such as coursework reports. presentations, unseen examinations, etc. How fair are we by using only those? You all know the sketch below:
Do we give equal opportunities to all students to be assessed in a way that matches their capabilities? Someone would rightly claim that we do, in the sense that the curriculum offers plenty of variety in assessment methods so that a student performs better in one while not so well in others.
I would like to go a bit further than that and play around with the same picture, as follows:
In other words, do we know whom we are teaching and whom we are assessing? Students have different personalities but most importantly, in this case, they are different types of learners. Some prefer to listen, some to read, some to watch, some to do, and so on. There have been several attempts to define types of learners, but none is outstandingly acceptable.
So, before we assess our students, how do we get to know which type of learner each one fits into? How do we know that we have in front of us three monkeys, five fish, no elephants, etc? Of course, there are tests both for personality (e.g. Myers Briggs, MBTI) and learner types (e.g. Felder and Silverman), but they are all debatable and to some extent controversial.
I think that what we end up doing is to treat everyone the same, whereas in principle we could tailor or personalise our learning and teachingactivities to our audiences. For century after century ... no matter who my students are, I am going to teach them and assess them as all my teachers and their grand grand teachers did. :-x
Petros Kefalas
IF Dierctor for Learning and Teaching
Although I admired the words, I was intrigued to think that "for century after century", the University (us) stayed pretty much the same in the way we teach and assess. If you look at drawings of the pre-University ages, you will see teachers, in some authoritative posture, in the middle of surrounding students who listen carefully to their mentor. In the middle ages Universities are depicted with pretty much the same picture with the addition of furniture, possibly a feather pen and a paper, and occasionally a blackboard. In the previous century's University black and white photos, you see the same concept, surely a bit more spatially organised. Until today, University teaching is not much different apart from the electronic equipment and invisible wifi connection to the internet as a source of knowledge (or a source of silent entertainment during a boring lecture through a mobile device). But the setting in the vast majority of occasions remains still: teacher talks, students hear. Class activities, moving pictures and interaction seem to break the monotony but is this enough?
Same with the assessment; we use a fairly small set of assessment types, such as coursework reports. presentations, unseen examinations, etc. How fair are we by using only those? You all know the sketch below:
Do we give equal opportunities to all students to be assessed in a way that matches their capabilities? Someone would rightly claim that we do, in the sense that the curriculum offers plenty of variety in assessment methods so that a student performs better in one while not so well in others.
I would like to go a bit further than that and play around with the same picture, as follows:
In other words, do we know whom we are teaching and whom we are assessing? Students have different personalities but most importantly, in this case, they are different types of learners. Some prefer to listen, some to read, some to watch, some to do, and so on. There have been several attempts to define types of learners, but none is outstandingly acceptable.
So, before we assess our students, how do we get to know which type of learner each one fits into? How do we know that we have in front of us three monkeys, five fish, no elephants, etc? Of course, there are tests both for personality (e.g. Myers Briggs, MBTI) and learner types (e.g. Felder and Silverman), but they are all debatable and to some extent controversial.
I think that what we end up doing is to treat everyone the same, whereas in principle we could tailor or personalise our learning and teachingactivities to our audiences. For century after century ... no matter who my students are, I am going to teach them and assess them as all my teachers and their grand grand teachers did. :-x
Petros Kefalas
IF Dierctor for Learning and Teaching
No comments:
Post a Comment