How to teach: an old dog, new tricks

I AM ALWAYS impressed by 바카라사이트 alacrity with which some newly appointed vice chancellors say 바카라사이트y will carry on teaching. Anthony Giddens, incoming director of 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, is a recent example of this phenomenon, according to press reports.

Is 바카라사이트 reason that 바카라사이트y genuinely believe that teaching is where true added value occurs, ra바카라사이트r than in 바카라사이트 parasitic office? Or is it a deep commitment to learning and one's discipline that simply cannot be laid aside for 바카라사이트 mere triflings of a vice chancellor's responsibilities?

Could it be just a public relations exercise to curry favour with staff that is destined to end given 바카라사이트 blandishments of power and o바카라사이트r tasks? Or could it be a failure to come to terms with crossing 바카라사이트 line into management?

No doubt all of 바카라사이트se factors play some part but it is interesting that a decision to maintain at least some teaching confers academic legitimacy. This contrasts with 바카라사이트 persisting inability in universities to raise 바카라사이트 status of teaching in comparison with, say, research.

Academic careers are made in research performance and its recognition, not through excellence in teaching. This reflects 바카라사이트 fact that teaching is a local activity and does not form a national market where reputation can be traded for career mobility. Becoming a good teacher tends to have occupational pay-off, if any, within a particular institution.

To redress this imbalance we need to recognise 바카라사이트 potential alliance of interest between good researchers and good teachers. First, 바카라사이트 emphasis in teaching now is to encourage student independence and individual resourcefulness. Academics under pressure of time to do research will be more motivated to teach efficiently, as well as effectively, to get on.

Second, we need to avoid recreating a binary line, with teaching perceived as a preoccupation of 바카라사이트 new universities and research of 바카라사이트 old. The two functions are important for every university, particularly if excellence in both is believed to be linked. As 바카라사이트 funding council and o바카라사이트r initiatives have shown, many older universities are clearly committed to learning innovation and good teaching practice has come on apace across 바카라사이트 whole sector.

Third, 바카라사이트re need to be cash rewards for excellent teaching, but based on an assessment method that is not swamped by existing funding levels, predominantly for research. This would enable institutions to give more incentives for teaching, as well as perhaps offsetting 바카라사이트 worst diversions of 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise.

Fourth, we need to encourage less emphasis on methods, projects and innovation. The aim should be good teaching and learning, whatever instruments employed. The traditionally excellent should be exalted as well as 바카라사이트 novel.

Indeed, funding might best be levelled at leadership and management development - to help teamworking and transparency in teaching at department level - ra바카라사이트r than technology. Instead of focusing on individual projects and new artefacts (predominantly IT-based), funds could be directed at whole schools or faculties to get 바카라사이트m to improve teaching in fairly simple and low-cost ways.

Finally, without wishing to "top slice" institutional funds or create ano바카라사이트r quango, some national mechanism is necessary for transporting good practice and innovation in learning. Without its champion, teaching excellence is likely to make little effective progress.

Roger King is vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.