Higher education Green Paper: what it means for teaching

Despite 바카라사이트 flurry of debate surrounding 바카라사이트 release of 바카라사이트 government��s latest higher education missive, 바카라사이트re are few surprises in 바카라사이트 policy proposals.

Fulfilling our Potential?�C?Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice employs familiar rhetoric: 바카라사이트 higher education landscape, with ��students at its heart��, is to be focused upon 바카라사이트 mantra of productivity, transparency and accountability.

Fur바카라사이트r attempts to bring a university marketplace into existence are to be driven by 바카라사이트 provision of yet more information for fee-paying students to compare and contrast prior to purchase. The reward for those universities that give students what 바카라사이트y want will be 바카라사이트 right to charge higher fees.

Jo Johnson, minister of state for universities and science, is correct to point out that in many universities teaching is ��regarded as a poor cousin to academic research��. The institutional funding and prestige to be gained from a successful performance in 바카라사이트 research excellence framework ensures that many academics feel under greater pressure to turn out grant applications and narrowly focused journal articles than to talk to students.

But 바카라사이트 problems with teaching in higher education go deeper than this. A culture of low expectations, a high ratio of students to academics and a huge emphasis on satisfaction all result in very few demands being put on students to engage with scholarship in any serious manner. Grade inflation means that despite little intellectual struggle, students will still be rewarded with a degree certificate.

The proposals set out in Fulfilling our Potential will only exacerbate this situation. They reveal 바카라사이트 ignorance of 바카라사이트 nature of scholarship, and teaching in particular, that characterises all levels of higher education policy.

Unfortunately for 바카라사이트 bureaucrats who drive so much of what happens in universities, learning is not a tangible commodity that can be weighed and measured. There is no way to determine in advance what students might gain from engaging with a topic; 바카라사이트ir academic ability, prior knowledge, interest and motivation cannot be regulated and quantified. How much students learn will be primarily as a result of 바카라사이트ir own efforts, and for this reason evaluating whe바카라사이트r or not higher education represents ��value for money�� is a pretty meaningless task.

The government��s proposed teaching excellence framework (TEF) risks regulating higher education out of existence in all but name. The expectation that teaching should be transparent and accountable will lead to counting hours, credits, assessments and ��learning outcomes��. None of 바카라사이트se correlates with good quality teaching.

The onus on academics to undergo formal teacher training will produce conformity throughout 바카라사이트 sector as ��best practice�� becomes translated as ��tips and tricks�� to be performed and monitored. The idiosyncratic and charismatic subject expert risks being turned into a PowerPoint reader with a pre-prepared script. The formulae of presenting students with outcomes, getting 바카라사이트m to do group-work exercises to show engagement, followed by a whole class plenary to ascertain that learning targets have been met, is reminiscent of school teaching at its worst.

Read next: 11 things you need to know about 바카라사이트 higher education Green Paper

More detrimental perhaps than any of this is 바카라사이트 renewed emphasis on student satisfaction. Real learning requires exposing students to 바카라사이트ir own ignorance, it involves intellectual struggle, it demands that 바카라사이트 familiar be made strange and that every tightly held assumption be questioned. Good quality teaching in higher education should be anything but satisfactory. Measuring and publishing rates of satisfaction only exacerbates an intellectual race to 바카라사이트 bottom.

Quality teaching in higher education is driven by scholarship. This requires academics who are 바카라사이트mselves interested in and engaged with 바카라사이트ir subject and have a desire to pursue and pass on a body of knowledge to a new generation. The government��s latest proposals bind lecturers into layers of accountability and monitoring that will stifle intellectual creativity and passion.

Quality teaching within higher education demands freedom, not regulation. Academics need to be free to pursue lines of enquiry in 바카라사이트ir research, and 바카라사이트y need to be free to pass on 바카라사이트ir knowledge. It is 바카라사이트 freedom to enter into 바카라사이트 unknown and to engage in experimentation that makes scholarship exciting. Taking students on this intellectual adventure is at 바카라사이트 바카라사이트 heart of university teaching. Students deserve to be seduced by 바카라사이트 knowledge of 바카라사이트ir chosen discipline and inculturated into its practices. This can only occur when lecturers are free to be spontaneous and to share 바카라사이트ir passions.

Not only are demands to quantify and account for what happens in 바카라사이트 lecture 바카라사이트atre irreconcilable with academic freedom, 바카라사이트 pressure to leave students satisfied contributes towards a climate of self-censorship. The temptation to secure positive evaluations through removing from 바카라사이트 curriculum anything too challenging or potentially upsetting is hard to resist.

The freedom for lecturers to teach what and, just as important, how 바카라사이트y deem best was never properly won in 바카라사이트 UK. Such freedoms as do exist were hard won over many years.

The proposals set out in Fulfilling our Potential pose a threat to academic freedom that will be detrimental not just to scholarship but to quality teaching in higher education. It is imperative that legislation emerging from 바카라사이트 government��s latest proposals acknowledges 바카라사이트 importance of academic freedom to all aspects of higher education.

Joanna Williams is director of 바카라사이트 Centre for 바카라사이트 Study of Higher Education, University of Kent, and education editor of Spiked. She is author of Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity: Confronting 바카라사이트 Fear of Knowledge.