Rising above novice teaching mistakes
Posted October 21, 2016on:
In this final part, I rise above those reflections.
Why share these thoughts only after three semesters of working with FF?
Part of the reason was the time to interact with FF and evaluate their work. The mistakes repeated themselves and they became more obvious. They also reminded me of what I noticed as an educator of student teachers during their courses and practicum. So I wrote down what came to mind, was most recent, and most repeated.
The most important thing to address when trying to change behaviours is mindsets. A short series of modules cannot change mindsets overnight.
Part of me shrugs and thinks that doing something better than nothing. The other part of me is convinced that we provide powerful and meaningful enough experiences to affect some FF for years to come.
Yet another part of me is saddened by how most universities operate. When I suggested more modules and alternatives to address diversity, I was told that the university did not want to invest in this effort because research output is what matters.
The rationale from a systemic point of view was this: Dedicate more time to developing FF pedagogically and their doctoral studies research will suffer. I can see that. Funding, rankings, and reputation are at stake.
But some FF and I also see that high quality and progressive teaching also matters. Prospective students and parents do not realise that university rankings are not based largely on teaching. Furthermore, the quality of teaching is very hard to measure compared to research output.
To use an analogy, measuring research output is like grading the quantity and quality of factory products. There are few grey areas and doing this is relatively easy.
On the other hand, trying to gauge the quality of teaching is like trying to measure the factory’s staff morale and their bosses’ leadership abilities. These not only have indefinite shades of grey. they also have rainbow colours.
One of the most important international university ranking systems, QS, relies on proxy measures of teaching, e.g., student satisfaction, student/faculty ratios, course completion rates. They are not measures of pedagogical effectiveness, change, or innovation.
This is why it is important to improve teaching at the university level even though it is not measured precisely. The indicators at an administrative or report level look good, but the reality on the ground paints a different picture. I would rather point out mistakes and make the effort to deal with them than hide behind a ranking or number.