Teaching Quality Revisited. WARNOCK WORDS FOR POLICY PRACTICE
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889310046167 |
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| Pages | 21-25 |
| Author | Clive C. Colling |
| Subject Matter | Education |
VOLUME
1
NUMBER 3
1993
Teaching Quality Revisited
WARNOCK WORDS FOR POLICY PRACTICE
Clive
C.
Colling
THE QUALITY DEBATE
People have very different views about what
constitutes "quality" in higher education. Some
believe the provision of material resources/
equipment, buildings, etc., to be a major criterion;
others highlight the qualifications of staff and the
examination results of students. Evidence of
innovation, staff development, employer liaison
and the pastoral care of students are also
considered to be important indicators of quality.
But at the point of delivery of any higher
education system must be high quality curriculum
content, effective and meaningful assessment
procedures and high-quality teaching. Good
teaching promotes good student learning, and
exceptionally good teaching encourages students
to be independent learners who know how to
apply their knowledge and skills in practice, and
consequently how to learn for themselves.
Promoting learning by enabling students to "learn
how to learn", will be the major criterion for
successful professional teaching activity in higher
education in the 1990s. But achieving efficiency
of teaching with effectiveness - for example,
coping with high numbers of students for less
time in restricted space - will be a major
dilemma. Rarely has a decade presented so many
challenging prospects for managers and teachers
in higher education in the UK.
Doing nothing about teaching quality is not an
option. There is an imperative for higher
education institutions to accommodate students
with a wider range of academic and practical
experience than before, many of whom will not
have the traditional qualifications for entry. Not
only will entry requirements and procedures have
to change; but teaching methods and design of
courses will have to meet the needs of the new
types of student. The Government believes that
increased participation in higher education need
not be at the expense of academic excellence; but
it will be for the HEIs themselves to find ways of
meeting the difficult challenge of maintaining
(and enhancing?) quality standards.
Universities and Colleges therefore face a
fundamental change, if the Government's aim of
broadening access to higher education is to be
achieved. All institutions need, as a matter of
urgency, to find ways by which they can ensure
that an influx of more and different students will
not adversely affect the quality of the education
that is offered. "Teaching quality" thus takes on a
new significance.
FOCUS ON TEACHING
In 1988, the then Secretary of State, in a letter to
the Chairman of the Polytechnic and Colleges
Funding Council (PCFC) confirmed the
Government's concern that teaching quality
should be taken into consideration by the Council.
He wrote, "I look to the Council to develop
further indicators of both the quality and quantity
of institutions' teaching and should be grateful if
it would consider how these might be used as an
input to its funding policies and decisions".
While, for generations, research has been
evaluated in higher education funding decisions,
and its quality and efficiency have both been
subject to review, teaching had not been subject to
this kind of scrutiny. Now it was quite clear that
the quality of teaching was to be one of the
criteria employed in the allocation of funds, and
the overall assessment of quality.
The Committee of Enquiry into Teaching
Quality, chaired by Baroness Warnock, was set up
by the PCFC in January 1989. The terms of
reference were:
(1) To identify characteristics of effective and
efficient teaching.
(2) To identify which of these characteristics can
be developed as indicators of teaching quality.
(3) To suggest the means by which institutions
could demonstrate the effectiveness and
efficiency of their teaching and the promotion
of students' learning.
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 3, 1993, pp. 21-25
© MCB University Press, 0968-4833
21
To continue reading
Request your trial