A Commitment to learning in a meaningful way
H.C.Sharma
Although many of the comments made in this paper are of a general nature, the author is involved in the education of engineers and hence the thrust of the paper is more relevant to engineering education.
The Higher Education (HE) sector of today is firmly under the public gaze. While a couple of decades ago, a relatively few school leavers expected to gain a University Degree, most of their counterparts today are likely to view their education incomplete without such a qualification. Not only does the Higher Education have a bigger clientage now, but it faces a large range of academic abilities coupled with an ever growing spectrum of disciplines and emerging specialisations. The disappearance of the binary divide between the traditional universities and polytechnics, tightly controlled funding arrangements, a rapid growth of Quality Assessment issues, and the importance of Research are amongst the main factors which will influence the shape of the HE in the years to come.
A typical lecturer is likely to make the following observations in his/her day to day teaching duties:
1. A poor quality of entrants into undergraduate courses. Even students with reasonable "A" level points often display fundamental weakness in Mathematics etc. Many students are very weak in practical laboratory skills.
2. A move to modularisation and cost cutting strategies with very much reduced "face to face" contact with the students.
3. A highly systemised "clerical" methodology for monitoring quality. This may degrade the Quality monitoring process to a "form-filling , box ticking" process.
4. A growing belief among students that nothing is worth doing unless it culminates in a paper qualification or a credit. This leads to the belief that possession of a Certificate equates to possession of knowledge and that learning is simply obtaining qualifications.
The existence of such attitudes must beg many questions like: Is there no room in our system to pursue knowledge because it is good to have knowledge? Are we interested in creating a society where people are enthusiastic about learning because learning can be fun? Do we foster and encourage qualities such as team spirit, responsibility, leadership etc? Are we guilty of sending a negative message to the students which says that learning and education are necessary only to secure a job? While clarity and rigour are important, is there a danger that our assessment methods become so ruthlessly objective that the student becomes a passive object of analysis - a statstical model rather than a human being ?
Some of these issues may be addressed by seeking methods which naturally integrate many desirable aspects into the curriculum and its implementation. In order to improve the real quality of education, it appears that there are FOUR ingredients which play a major role:
1. Student partnership.
It is important to involve students in such a way that they feel that they are partners in the educational process and not mere recipients of notes, tests, questionnaires etc. For this purpose dialogue and communication is vital. Too much formality sometimes tends to ruin student contact. Social occasions, formation of interest groups and clubs can help.
2. Flexibility
Some flexibility to allow the student to make mistakes without being badly penalised can be a useful mechanism to encourage a bit of risk taking. Often some privacy for the student to pursue his/her "own thing" can act as a catalyst in the process of learning. In some cases students may be able to negotiate with the lecturer the style , the assessment etc for a given assignment.
3. Empathy with the student
Teaching material where possible should site examples which display some student empathy. Many social, qualitative/quantitative issues which affect hundreds of students would be a source of suitable material.
4. Student Group Identity
One of the difficulties often associated with modularisation, is the loss of student group identity. Many students may feel that they are not a part of a "family" and hence the team spirit may suffer.
Efforts to implement some of these ideas have been made in the School of Engineering at the DeMontfort University. Two examples of the work done are described here.
EXAMPLE 1
In the field of Technology it has been recognised over the last decade that many students who wish to study Engineering are ill equipped in Mathematical skills. Many Universities have extended programmes of study where the Year 0 of the Course helps to provide a strengthening dose of analytical material. At the DeMontfort University it was decided computers may be used to help very weak students (mainly year 0 level) to obtain a better understanding of Mathematical principles. Hence suitable software was developed over a period of some three years. The main criteria for the design were:
* Simple, student- friendly software which allowed the student to determine his/her own speed of progress with some interactive and self test facilities. This would ensure that each individual can operate within the privacy of his/her own machine.
* The layout and the complexity of the material was carefully designed where qualitative information gradually transformed into quantitative information.
* Most of the examples chosen were likely to interest students eg effect of inflation on the value of student grants, the real cost of purchasing a car on hire purchase, relationships between speed and braking distances of cars etc.
* Use of pictorial representation and simple animation coupled with small games based on the subject matter added a fun to the learning process.
The software started by asking the students whether they understood the importance of mathematics and led them through to a realisation that mathematics in its different forms allows us to relate to items of interest in everyday life such as money, machinery, speed, inflation, temperature, pressure etc. The main aim of this software module was to provide a perception of Mathematics as a useful tool and to discourage the view that Maths is an "evil" required to pass examinations.
Two different cohorts of very weak students from year 0 were asked to use the software under supervised conditions. They were given a short notice and as soon as they finished were given a questionnaire to fill. More than 80% of the students on both the groups felt that after using the software, they had improved their appreciation of Mathematics. In addition most of the students were impressed by the style of the presentation and indicated an interest to participate in the further extension of the work which is currently under development.
EXAMPLE 2
In a subject called Computer Technology, students at a First Year level are taught computer hardware and software via regular laboratory style classes. A typical lecturer would give them a fixed number of assignments to complete. Once an assignment is completed the lecturer has the unenviable task of marking them and returning them to the students with suitable comments and an assessment mark. Consider some of the disadvantages of this scheme.
The students instead of maintaining a regular documentation of their development, will in general "write up" some suitable text at the last minute, often submitting large quantities of computer print outs full of unnecessary data.
Apart from the sheer labour of handling 40 or 50 reports etc, writing comments on each piece of work is labour intensive. However, the most frustrating aspect is that the comments are often ignored while the most important item of interest for the student remains the assessment grade.
With computer software it is extremely difficult to establish whether the student is the genuine originator of the work submitted.
A different approach has been adopted over the last two years in the Department of Electronic Engineering with the First Year Degree students. A laboratory class generally supports a group of 15 to 20 students. Assignments/exercises are given as the lecture material progresses and an attempt is made to give shorter and simpler assignments. The key elements in this strategy are as follows:
1. The students are allowed to modify the requirement of the assignments to a limited degree with the permission of the lecturer. This phase encourages the students to have a dialogue with the lecturer and gives them an opportunity to personalise the work. The more able candidate tends to build challenge into the work while the weaker student can concentrate on the core requirement without feeling left out.
2. Every student must develop work in a laboratory book (or a file) which is used as a diary to document initial design and any other noteworthy points. It should be available in every laboratory session for a quick inspection and should reflect the progress of the work in hand. This requirement imposes discipline at an early stage and also ensures that students have a strong ownership of their work.
3. Regular progress assessment is essential. During a laboratory session, with a properly organised system, a lecturer is able to quickly go round the whole group spending a few minutes with each student conducting a "mini-viva" and allocating a progress grade which is made known to the student and if necessary a comment can be invited or the reason for the particular grading justified. This mechanism allows the lecturer to have a personal contact with every student making it easier to identify the weak student. Suggestions for improvement and other comments can be given to the student at the scene of work which further strengthens the ethos of good communication. Since the grading of the progress has some flexibility the lecturer may exercise some generosity where encouragement is needed. While a message of regular attendance is obvious, a student who for justifiable reasons, misses one or two sessions need not lose out on the assessment.
Modified versions of these ideas have been applied to other subject areas with satisfactory outcomes. The main advantage has been that very few students end up as "failures" because the system allows sufficient warning to locate and correct individual difficulties. This type of approach however requires a great deal of agility and organisation from the lecturer. In an environment where academic freedom is constantly under pressure it is important to look for mechanisms which ensure that the student does not become an innocent victim of over enthusiastic ideology or educational politics.