For the first time on ISL I have to put in my ha'pennyworth in support of
Shan Wareing's comments. The problem with implicit 'knowledge' which isn't
explicitly expressed is that it gives room for misunderstanding and
misinterpretation. Where does implicit knowledge end and the wearing of
the old school tie begin?
Martin Coffey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 08 November 1999 10:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Assessing attendance: in support of Peter Cuthbert
>
> I don't agree at all with the point I think Trevor was making, that we all
> knew quality when we saw it, even if we couldn't quite put our finger on
> what made it quality. When I made my choice of which university to go to,
> we 'all knew' that Oxford was the best university, (apart from everyone
> who 'knew' that Cambridge was the best university), and I spent 3 years
> reading Eng Lit at Oxford & left with a 2:1
>
> I am still angry at the poverty of the teaching I received there, and my
> ignorance when I left of almost everything that had happened this century
> in terms of studying literature and culture. If I hadn't gone on to do a
> Masters at Strathclyde, I might never have found out what I didn't know.
>
> So while I may not agree with all the proposals QAA make, I have no doubt
> that we need quality assurance measures which do not rely on the old boy
> network and the status quo. I only hope that a system develops that does
> bring, not the language, but the concepts, of 'stake-holders' and
> 'value-added' to Oxbridge.
>
> Shân
>
> Dr Shân Wareing
> Head of Learning Development
> University of Wales College, Newport
> Allt-yr-yn campus PO Box 180
> Newport NP20 5XR UK
>
> [log in to unmask]
> http://cld.newport.ac.uk
> tel:01633 432556
> fax:01633 432506
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 07 November 1999 21:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Assessing attendance: in support of Peter Cuthbert
>
> Good on you, Peter.
> When I read the original mail in which the writer said she had been
> told to
> write a paper on 'assessing attendance', my immediate answer was
> 'tell them
> you won't do it'. I wouldn't. What I might do is to point them
> elsewhere for
> they are surely trying to find an answer to the wrong problem.
>
> Being a university teacher has two components: (a) supporting the
> student and
> (b) academic (underlined) rigour. This involves achieving an
> appropriate
> balance between 'trust' and 'control'. Assessing attendance probably
> displays
> a lack of trust or an excess of control or both.
>
> I'm taking the liberty of quoting below, very freely but I hope the
> gist is
> there, from the Annual Report on Staff Development for 1997-98,
> beautifully
> written, as usual, by Colin Evans at Birkbeck College, which says it
> all
> better than I can. Most of the words in brackets are my additions.
>
> "The changing context of higher education in the UK is characterised
> by a
> contest between two value systems - the Implicit and the Explicit.
>
> Thirty years ago going to university was a minority activity with
> relatively
> little financial consequences for the state and the tax payer. The
> university
> operated on a system of implicit knowledge (and trust):
> * we all knew what good research was;
> * we knew the difference between a first class degree and a second
> class
> one;
> * we knew when a lecturer) was spending her/his time profitably
> and earning
> his keep and when s/he was underworking though it (usually) 'wasn't
> done' to
> act on this knowledge;
> * we knew that (a higher) education was sufficient unto itself and
> didn't
> necessarily have to 'have a purpose'.
>
> Today higher education is a big budget item concerning large numbers
> of
> students and staff who are expected to make a contribution to the
> nation's
> wellbeing and the exact nature of the 'value-added' has to be made
> explicit
> to the 'stakeholders' (who include the students).
>
> The language of 'value-added' and 'stakeholders' ..... is that of
> those who
> require explicitness not of those whose sense of identity comes from
> not
> needing to spell things out.
>
> A group (e.g. teachers, students, teachers and students together,
> etc.) whose
> members understand each other implicitly, almost without language,
> has great
> strength. When required to spell things out, to the world or to one
> another,
> it loses that strength, partly because the implicitness and
> togetherness may
> prove to be an illusion (we may not know what 'graduateness' is or
> what a
> 'First' is (or what 'good attendance' and 'poor attendance' imply or
> mean),
> but mainly because the trust on which implicitness depended has been
>
> destroyed, to be replaced by what seems to be an endless,
> pettifogging,
> bureaucratic process of specification.
>
> The whole process of demanding explicitness - RAE, TQA, Appraisal,
> Accreditation, Quality Audit, (Assessing Attendance) - entails a
> very real
> loss which has not always been acknowledged. Complaints about the
> quality
> industry (and its various effects on higher education) are not
> always the
> last ditch resistance of people wanting to protect a privileged,
> non-accountable life.
>
> They are also essential reminders of the value of implicitness and
> of the
> fact that, not everything can be measured or even articulated and
> some of the
> things that cannot are our most valuable possessions."
>
> Yep, that just about says it for me!
>
> Trevor Habeshaw
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|