Robert Edwards raises many points of value and attitudes to partnerships
in learning that I applaud.  Other points seem to be based on
assumptions which are to say the least 'not proven', and I have noted my
comments on these below the relevant section.

*
* Is it really necessary for an accredited teacher to be able to do, and
to
* have done, nearly all the things described in the 24 outcomes (however
many
* might be regarded as the "correct" number)?

Yes - at least once there is agreement about what an HE teacher should
be able to do effectively and efficiently in order to support students
properly, then all full members should have that basic level of
competence (am I allowed to use that word!?).

* Isn't a better measure of a credit-worthy teacher his or her aptitude
and ability to learn and adapt and be sensitive to what is required in
any teaching and learning situation?

No - these are fine attributes, and manifest themselves as skills in
many cases.  But we also need teachers who can demonstrate that they
have the basics in place: that they can speak clearly and with an
appropriate projection, present images/script that can be read by
everyone in a class room, can answer questions without being defensive
or making the questioner feel small, who knows and can apply a variety
of techniques to enhance participation etc.   There are a whole range of
skills and techniques required of all teachers - how they apply those
skills will be as different as the individual teachers involved and the
context within which they work.  Having your heart in the right place is
nothing like enough (although it is a good start).

* How does anyone know whether he or she or anyone else has achieved the
required standard? No-one can be perfect in all areas anyway.

I agree with this point and if the standards are too high they will lose
all credibility.   However, if the process of accreditation highlights
even a very good teacher's weaker points than that is all to the good.
We no more want a standard that is too high than we want one which is
not challenging in some areas to even very experienced staff.   Areas
such as IT or new assessment processes spring to mind here.  The point
about perfection is fair and if any 'criteria' are pointing towards
perfection then they are poorly written - criteria should be written as
straightforward ' candidate is able to' type behavioural objectives, in
my opinion.

* It is hard to imagine a teacher gathering evidence of many of their
* activities. Sometimes great benefit to a student, and to a teacher,
can
* arise from simple, brief, day-to-day events, whose effects can be
profound,
* but not obvious at the time. These subtle but profound times of growth
and
* change will tend to be ignored by a formal collection of paper
evidence.
* Does anyone record reflection in action at the moment it happens? In a
* typically busy professional life, can any practitioner record all the
* moments of development?

No, but wouldn't it be good if we did?  The idea of learning
logs/reflective journals is not a new one - many programmes require
something like this of students.   I think much learning would come out
of such a process and also some authority when asking students to do the
same.


* (I guess all these points have been made in response to every attempt
by any
* profession to professionalise its members.)

Yes - I wonder why? ;-)


* Some specific points: Guideline 1 for Evidence for Outcomes B
(established a
* supportive learning environment in which students feel secure and
confident)
* would probably be seen, by many HE teachers, as excluding many of
their
* colleagues from ILT membership because they simply don't appear to do
this.

And if they don't establish this most basic of effective learning
conditions, are they good teachers?   Don't confuse this with their
students doing well - let's consider added value here: what has the
teacher contributed to a student's learning?   I am all in favour of
robust and passionate debate, but I am not in favour of interpersonal
demolition (at least not in a learning context!)   Students (as do we
all) require a secure and supportive learning environment in which to
mature and develop.

* In the same list, item 4 (... variety of modes of learning appropriate
to
* the varied needs of students ...) is impossible to achieve in a large
class
* with limited contact hours

I disagree - there are techniques which can provide variety.


; and item 5 (developed students' transferable and
* study skills) implies that students' skills can be measured. They
can't.

They can and have been in other sectors for years.   This is the one
comment which suggests to me that this debate is too insular, too HE
specific.


* that ILT will have a battle on their hands, at some level. Their
systems
* must not be too unwieldy or prescriptive. They must be honest and
realistic
* and inspire trust.

I agree


I look forward to a robust debate!

Stuart Hunt
Training and Development Section
Personnel Services
Fylde Building
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE

Telephone: 01772 892326

Fax: 01772 892933

Email: [log in to unmask]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%