Feedback on feedback

October 3, 2013

Anthony Seldon (“Right to reply”, Opinion, 19 September) declares that university teaching can be improved through student feedback appraisals. Yet this reverses the normal teacher-student relationship, which assumes the mastery of the teacher, not the student. To appraise the quality of teaching properly, the student would need a greater understanding of the subject than the teacher: an unlikely scenario.

Seldon rather impertinently assumes that “we” (teachers) (but not himself) do not sufficiently reflect upon performance. But we know, often by intuition, whether our ideas “go”, aren’t really understood or arouse resistance – a natural process more immediate and valuable than formal feedback.

He also assumes that any failure by the student to grasp what they are taught inevitably is the fault of unsatisfactory communication by the teacher. This leaves no room for more abstruse types of knowledge barely within the student’s mental range. Should any teacher be penalised on the grounds that they are duty-bound to “communicate”, no matter how difficult the subject matter?

A fundamental question not addressed by Seldon is this: what should be assessed? If classroom doors are “permanently open” to assessors, the basic teacher-student relationship is undermined and the teacher is required to address (“teach”) the assessor rather than the student. Hence in truth, teaching is not being assessed at all.

The kinds of demands for appraisal made by Seldon are far from new and seem inspired by motives that have nothing to do with improving education: allowing non-teachers to assume control of the classroom and learning the secret of “good” teaching in order to “industrialise” it.

Nigel Probert
Porthmadog

 

Anthony Seldon argues that student feedback should play a greater role in the assessment of academic teaching. This is surely an idea whose time has come. At the end of each lecture, students could vote it a “hit” or a “miss”, Juke Box Jury-style. If the latter, the lecturer could exit via a trapdoor in the floor of the lecture room.

Keith Flett
London

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

Panjab University, Chandigarh (PU) has beaten all 15 Indian Institutes of Technology to become the nation’s only educational institution to figure in Times Higher Education World’s Top-400 University Rankings for 2013-14. According to rankings announced in London on Wednesday, “Panjab University is the only Indian entrant in the 226-250 bracket. IIT-Delhi, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Kharagpur and IIT-Roorkee are all behind PU in the 351-400 segment”. Surely a celebration time for the PU that must have achieved better academic and allied laurels than other Indian Universities. However one fails to gauge the acumen of those who made an invidious and apparently stupid comparison between professional and academic institutions of learning. Despite its high sounding ranking I don’t think bright students in future would prefer to join PU instead of ‘low-ranking’ IIT’s.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

PhD Scholar in Medicine

University Of Queensland

Manager, Research Systems and Performance

Auckland University Of Technology

Lecturer in Aboriginal Allied Health

University Of South Australia

Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery

Western Sydney University

College General Manager, SHE

La Trobe University
See all jobs

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham