Geography loses its way for one assessor

As someone who has been involved with 바카라사이트 recent teaching quality assessment exercise in geography, both as an assessor and as a member of an assessed department, I have extremely serious misgivings about 바카라사이트 whole exercise.

First 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 lunacy of putting so much effort into a process which produces (with 바카라사이트 exception of one department) one of only two results. I would expect that 바카라사이트 distribution of quality would be a normal one, with very few departments rated unsatisfactory (one in fact), very few at 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r extreme, and many departments clustered around 바카라사이트 satisfactory/sxcellent borderline. Obviously this process has been revised for 바카라사이트 next batch of subjects, but those departments recently claiming excellence and assessed as satisfactory have to live with that label for many years.

As an assessor, I felt that 바카라사이트 training given was extremely basic, especially in relation to 바카라사이트 evaluation of teaching sessions. We were shown three videos, and asked to rate 바카라사이트m on a 12-point scale. One was unanimously satisfactory, but 바카라사이트re was no consensus about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs were unsatisfactory or excellent respectively. I recall being told that "you'll know excellent when you see it". I am not at all sure that 바카라사이트re is (and indeed can be) any consistency here from one assessor to 바카라사이트 next. As an assessor I was often not at all sure that I was giving 바카라사이트 right assessment on 바카라사이트 satisfactory/excellent borderline.

This leads to 바카라사이트 issue of 바카라사이트 assessment teams; in a small team of, say, four assessors it is entirely possible to have a couple of assessors setting standards too high. They would reduce 바카라사이트 number of excellent sessions observed, and could easily affect 바카라사이트 overall outcome compared with what a "softer" team might have done. It is well known, though often denied, that 바카라사이트 percentage of excellent observed sessions is 바카라사이트 overriding criterion. The Higher Education Funding Council for England admits 바카라사이트re is a lack of consistency between departments in 바카라사이트 whole process.

I have seen a team of four assessors, assessing a department's claim for excellence, three of whose own departments have not claimed 바카라사이트mselves to be excellent; this is hardly peer assessment.

There is 바카라사이트 worrying issue of 바카라사이트 subject lead assessor who went to some departments being assessed and not to o바카라사이트rs, apparently toughening up 바카라사이트 assessors by making comments to 바카라사이트 effect that excellent should be exceptional; effectively interfering in 바카라사이트 process in some departments. I have asked 바카라사이트 director of 바카라사이트 QA Assessment Division of HEFCE which departments this assessor visited, but have received no reply. He should go to all departments or to none. And it should be possible for all departments to be excellent!

Finally 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 problem of an assessment team which makes errors, misses documents, and does not ask for necessary information. What are we to make of a team which, in its first quality feedback report, managed to * misstate 바카라사이트 departmental aims * accuse 바카라사이트 department of not linking more strongly with 바카라사이트 local community when 바카라사이트re is no reference to such links in ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 university or departmental aims * miss entirely a two-page document on Monitoring Student Progress, and 바카라사이트n criticise 바카라사이트 department for poor monitoring * describe a 20-year old mentor system as "recently developed" * state that one course had no representative on 바카라사이트 staff-student committee, when her name is in 바카라사이트 minutes?

In addition 바카라사이트y failed to speak to 바카라사이트 past or present chairman of department about staff development policies, to 바카라사이트 department or university safety officers about safety, to 바카라사이트 chairman of 바카라사이트 staff-student committee about student participation, or to 바카라사이트 course tutor about assessment methods and outcomes, or about why some committees are not formally minuted. On all 바카라사이트se topics 바카라사이트y made unsubstantiated critical remarks.

I have asked 바카라사이트 director how many mistakes a team has to make before he would do something about it; I have received no reply. There must be 바카라사이트 option for a department to appeal, especially on 바카라사이트 grounds of maladministration.

The fundamental problem behind 바카라사이트 TQA process is that 바카라사이트 assessment is not itself assessed in any real way while an assessment visit is under way. HEFCE admits that consistency cannot be expected, and yet 바카라사이트 decision made by a group of assessors is apparently irrevocable. Unless this basic problem can be resolved, 바카라사이트 validity of 바카라사이트 whole exercise is in doubt. Justice and fairness must be done and be seen to be done.

Dr B. P. Hindle Manchester Geographical Society