I was sent this story about a New Zealand engineering college where 80% of its students failed a standards-based examination. While I think that the situation may be a little murkier than it appears, and the reporting does not answer all my qurestions, it does raise two interesting points. Firstly, should a licensing body have a minimum standard for registration, a "bar" if you will? Secondly, who is responsible if an individual fails to meet that bar?
I have for years argued that there should be a two-step procedure for any profession be it teaching dentistry or law. The first would be an academic qualification such as a degree or graduate diploma. The second should be a professional qualification, or the license to practise. In teaching, this would be a BA, BS or BEd followed by certification. In law, this would be JD and then admission to the state bar. The first would be general preparation and mind-growing stuff, the second recognition of specific knowledge, skills and experience.
The New Zealand case appears to combine both elements which is fine, although I like my approach. However their second element measures students against a standard, and here 80% of the group failed. Academically and intellectually they may have been up to snuff, but in terms of that standard (bridge design? dam construction? HVAC systems?) they fell short.
This is absolutely acceptable and appropriate if the standard is known beforehand, ie what is being assessed, how it is being assessed and what level is needed to pass, none of which is clear in the piece. Similarly, a degree course is by definition going to be more general than a professional certificate, for example including languages or the sociological impacts of design in the subjects studied. So it is appropriate for an academic qualification to assess this more general knowledge, but likely not for a professional.
If this is the case, that a professional standard is included in an academic assessment, in my opinion babies and bath-water have been mixed.
The second point, which is what I suspect, is that this group of students over-estimated their knowledge and under-estimated the exam. The evidence for this is that 80% then passed on their second attempt. As teachers, we all know students who turn up for a test without having studied carried along by a belief in their own prowess.
However, I suspect that it is more than that. Apparently, in New Zealand, 80 - 90% or more of engineering students are male and in my experience, males are more likely than females to (a) rely on examinations rather than coursework (b) to under-prepare for examinations and (c) to have succeeded at school-level based on native intelligence rather than any application effort, aka "cruising through school". I wonder if a major factor in this high rate of failing to meet a standard is linked to school-influenced or school-determined academic approaches.
As school leaders and teachers, we can two take two lessons from this event. Where a student is measured against a standard, which is as it should be, then s/he needs to know what is being assessed and how, and students who clearly meet a lower standard should then be challenged by a higher expectation.
**Please leave questions and comments below*
Further reading
No comments :
Post a Comment