[log in to unmask] wrote:
> I do agree with Ann White that there is a fine balance between the
> implicit and the explicit.
>
> However,I'm sorry but I have to say that I am concerned when I hear
> academics talking of 'lack of trust' and control by
> university/QAA/etc. I personally - and professionally - think that
> trust has nothing at all to do with it. I think the issue is one of a
> need for transparency - so that all contributors/stakeholders, etc
> (especially students) know what the expectations are - a bit like
> knowing the rules of the game you are playing and how you can win.
>
> As a relatively newcomer to the HE sector (from FE ) I have found it
> very concerning that different academics have different
> expectations/understandings of what the levels (1 - 4 and upwards)
> actually are. From my viewpoint,I think there is a real danger that
> students could be very confused.
>
> On the otherhand, I do agree that there is a need to ensure that QAA
> doesn't close down academic leadership, etc.
>
> Back to that balance again!
It seems to me that when the "rules and regulations" become excessively
detailed (and this seems to be happening more and more) that this implies a
lack of confidence in and respect for lecturers as professional people (this is
what I meant by trust). I agree that we need to have clearly stated
expectations etc but there should be some flexibility in how we try to achieve
these. I feel that it is the flexibility that is being eroded.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|