I need so help for all my academic friends out there in blogland. Would someone please explain to me the concept of consistency standards?
First, a little background. For a while now, the powers that be at my college, mainly the DI, are pushing this idea of consistency standards. According to the DI, this is the "wave of the future" in high education.
The way I understand the concept, at least how it was presented by the DI, is that thee are basic standards that each instructor must meet in his or her courses. So, if three instructors are teaching the same class, there are minimum standards and outcomes that must be met. That part I get and I don't have a problem with that. As I understand it, there is a basic level. After that, the sky is the limit, so long as you cover the basics.
Here's the part that just chaps my ass. Once again, as it was presented by the DI and this is the way she wants the faculty to embrace consistency standard. She explained that the faculty must use the same assignments, assessments and projects, so that everything is fair to the students. If an instructor wants to stray from the consistency standards, any assignment, assessment or project must be approved.
What the fuck??? Here are my thoughts.
1. Are we heading toward, as one of my colleagues so eloquently described, "Education in a box"? Use assignment "A" with exam "A" in order to achieve outcome "A".
2. GML stated that with standards like this, who needs instructors? We will be replaced by robots. I suggested that rather than robots, we will become Stepfod Professors, all blinking in unison.
3. Whatever happened to college being a place for the expression of new ideas and creativity? Seems to me, that consistency standards suck the life out of creativity and autonomy. Once again, we become Stepford Professors. (If there is a movie, I want my role to be played by Halle Berry!)
4. Is this just part of what is happening in society today? Kids need to feel special, so there are no winners or losers in sports anymore. Everyone gets an award, because we ant everyone to feel good about themselves. Are we not setting students up for a big wake up cal when they enter the REAL WORLD and realize that life is truly unfair?
5. .On the same point, there is a guy who teaches the same law classes that I do, while he meets the same requirements that I do, he does not require as much as I do. As I remember college, that is just the luck of the draw. Everyone knows the professors that are the easy graders where you just are there to get the easy "A", but you end up learning jack squat.
Ok, academic gurus, whether you are a regular reader, lurker or just stumbled upon this post through dumb luck, please give me your feedback.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Seeking Solace
- I am a college professor who is fumbling through the chaos of academia, rheumatoid arthritis, working on my PhD and just being a 40 something woman. I used to be a lawyer, which made me a snarky little person. I have a wonderful Husband and a German Shepherd named Junior. They help keep me sane.
Holler at me
Face in a Crowd
Blog Archive
Paws to Consider
My Sister's Keeper
Powered by Blogger.
8 comments:
We are concerned with consistency standards where I work, too. What this has translated into for me are LOTS of meetings among faculty and graduate students who teach sections of the same course -- to design lesson plans and tests and major assignments together. I think the course is over all better as a result, but it means I am in meetings ALL of the time. As part of my teaching responsibilites next semester, I am the coordinator of one of these courses. *sigh* Yet another "extra" part of my job that won't help me get tenure...
I do think the meetings allow for everyone to think together and get in their need to create and be innovative when they teach, and we all benefit from each other's insights, so it's mostly worth it for us, but sometimes I feel like a Stepford professor when I am teaching -- not during the meetings, but when I know my lesson at 3:30 is the same at the lesson at 2.
The consistency does help in that people don't say, "But you make us do more than so-and-so..."
My school hasn't (so far) used the term "consistency standards." But we do a lot of what B* desribes. For instance, in my program (first-year composition), we spent all of last year re-vamping our curriculum--collaboratively writing a new philosophy statement and learning outcomes, deciding on the types and number of paper assignments we'd use, etc.
We aren't quite as strict as it appears that your DI wants you to be, though. For instance, we all work toward helping students achieve the same goals in each major paper assignment, but we don't have to use the *exact* same assignment across sections. And we don't construct standard lesson plans. We do, however, keep an electronic database of assignments and lesson plans that we all create and share.
Like B* said, there are certain benefits here: I feel like we have a much more cohesive writing program, for instance. And I get to learn tons from my very smart and talented colleagues.
The idea of having to get approval for a new assignment (as you describe in your post) *does* rub me the wrong way, though. I'd worry that teachers wouldn't be motivated to try creative, innovative things.
Hi! Just started reading after the IM party...so I'm new.
Wow, I'm impressed to read what B* and Deb say because I was initially horrified at this idea. That would just never work in the department where I am now (it's a science department). In fact, students must take three quarters of survey type courses as a pre-requisite for all uppper level courses. Each quarter, the course is taught by 2-5 different faculty, depending on their other teaching assigments and their expertise. That means even within one course the teaching and assignments aren't consistent and even on exams one part may be very different than others.
It's often been my dream to revamp this course...but even with one person drving the whole effort I can't imagine getting every one else on board. That would be hard.
I suppose if everyone agrees to teach a course one way, then it could be ok. But if they really don't agree, and if both ways could be good - shouldn't each person be allowed to teach their own way? I'd hate to see consistency standards boil down to "forced compliance" or something. I'm interested to hear how this goes at your school.
Your DI's idea sounds pretty scary-- and a lot like a challenge to academic freedom.
Perhaps you can satisfy the DI by agreeing that you will all give X number of exams and require Y pages of writing... while leaving the content of the exams and writing assignments up to the individual instructor.
It's exactly a challenge to academic freedom. They're trying to degrade university professors into the academic equivalent of fast-food workers. Did you catch the head of the US Dept of Ed saying that colleges should eliminate tenure and focus strictly on teaching. These jokers think the only purpose of a college degree is to get a job. Which by the way it's not very good at doing.
I am often in conflict with most of my department over this issue of common assessment. In part, it's my nature; I hate authority. But it also is pedagogical for me. Cookie cutter curriculum fails to acknowledge that students are individuals with different learning styles and intellectual strengths. In my department, the debate usually focuses on whether students should have to write an in-class essay exam of a certain quality in order to pass the course. Though they won't admit it, what they are talking about is using high-stakes testing: fail that exam and you're done, regardless of what your work has shown throughout the semester. For the non-native speaker who can correct his/her own grammatical errors if given the opportunity to write several drafts and receive feedback, a test like this is grossly unfair. And yet common assessment doesn't care.
And of course the argument is that the various governing bodies are coming to force this stuff on it so we need to do it ourselves first blah blah blah. I've been hearing this for ten years.
In my experience, I did benefit from such things as a bouncing baby TA. There would be say 3 profs and a dozen TA's/recitation instructors for Calc 1. The exam was made by the 3 profs, given in a common exam period, graded by page by the TAs who were given a grading guide (ie - all the page 1's were graded by TA's A and B). Under that set of circumstances, the grading and consistency made sense.
In any sort of a depth class, like English classes, or your classes, I see that as the devil. Part of what the instructor brings to the table is a personal experience and depth that is subverted by having someone else's assignments imposed upon you. That just seems to be a level of disrespect for the individual experiences that make you more than a droid to the best of students.
My humble opinion...
Post a Comment