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 6 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

Most Commented

question marks PhD study

Selecting the right doctorate is crucial for success. Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman share top 10 tips on how to pick a PhD

India, UK, flag

Sir Keith Burnett reflects on what he learned about international students while in India with the UK prime minister

Pencil lying on open diary

Requesting a log of daily activity means that trust between the institution and the scholar has broken down, says Toby Miller

Application for graduate job
Universities producing the most employable graduates have been ranked by companies around the world in the Global University Employability Ranking 2016
Retired academics calculating moves while playing bowls

Lincoln Allison, Eric Thomas and Richard Larschan reflect on the ‘next phase’ of the scholarly life