As the HMIe ride off into the sunset to write their report and as we all catch our breaths after last week’s inspection, we felt that we would use the next meeting of EDDG to reflect upon the experience.
Feedback is slowly trickling back from the HMIe and Fiona Gunn will be at the Monday meeting to give us some sense of what will appear in the final report.
However, we are more interested, at EDDG, in our own evaluation of the inspection.
We hope that the discussion will be an open and honest one about people’s experiences and feelings about the process.
It would be helpful for the discussion to have a few people who were observed last week. It would be interesting to hear what it was like for them? What was their evaluation of the observation process?
I suppose the big question is: did we learn anything from the experience?
Below you’ll find an extract from a piece by Norman Lucas, Senior Lecturer in Post-Compulsory Education at University of London’s Institute of Education. His article was part of a wider review of the Further Education sector in England and there are, I believe, general points which are relevant to our context.
In this extract from a longer document, Lucas raises some questions about the purpose and impact of external reviews in FE.
“All inspections alter behaviour yet also have limitations on quality improvements depending upon institutional circumstances. There is also an inherent danger in any nspection system that because inspections are so important, providers model quality improvement on the inspection framework itself. An example is in the preamble to the DfES revision to the CIF (DfES 2004). It states that the proof of the support for the framework is that colleges have adopted it for self-inspection. This may be the case, however, it may equally be true that they have adopted it because that is the framework upon which they are inspected. The problem with all inspection is that it can become rather self-defining and closed, providers tell regulators what they want to hear and the inspectorate inspects their own advice. This can lead to a situation where inspection makes colleges compliant and risk averse. In the present political climate inspection reports are often accepted and used uncritically by policy makers and regulators, and any critical discourse by colleges or others has become synonymous with not being committed to high standards. This is an unhealthy situation; what else do we believe and read without questioning? An open debate and dialogue between inspectors, providers, and the research community would be more productive because it would lead to a shared understanding of best practice, teaching and learning, management and leadership. However perfect an inspection framework any evaluation of quality or what represents ’good practice’ requires a large element of professional judgement. Such judgements are not infallible and often what falls outside of the ‘frame’ of ‘good practice’ can suffer in inspection. In practice open and productive dialogue does take place when Ofsted produce survey or national reports that focus upon the quality of the curriculum and structural issues. For example, the Ofsted (2003) survey on initial teacher education and the recent publications, ‘Why colleges succeed’ and ‘Why colleges fail’ (Ofsted 2004). Such documents have lead to a continuing productive and useful dialogue between the inspectorate and professionals in FE and represent a counterbalance to the focus upon the accountability of individual colleges."
Lucas, N (2005). Foster review of FE think pieces: purpose role and mission: the impact of incentives on College behaviour [online]. Available from: http://www.dius.gov.uk/further_education/fe_reform/future_role_fe_colleges/~/media/publications/I/Impact_of_Incentives_Norman_Lucas1 [Accessed 17 November 2009]
-------------------------------------------------------
Some relevant links from the HMIe:
FAQs on new HMIe process: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8CEF13C9-6B5A-46A3-B756-334C047A5961/0/FAQsGenericevaluationoflearningandteachingJanuary2009.pdf
HMIe guidelines for new process: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/eqafsc..pdf
-------------------------------------------------------
As always, please feel free to use the comment function on the EDDG blog to have your say ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have had an HMI once before that I can recall (10 – 15 years ago) and on that occasion the inspector sat at the back of the class, took notes then left . Feedback was very informal – a comment or two on leaving the class – with no follow up.
On this visit the HMIe asked for a lesson plan and a register, sat in the class long enough to observe my input then left after about 30 minutes. She arranged to meet me after the next class.
The post lesson chat which lasted 45 minutes was wide ranging. I wouldn’t describe it as a dialogue but I felt she was listening to the points I made. She gave feedback on the lesson she had observed including how she was aware of the international students in the class and the unsuitability of the room (a computer class room). I felt that she was looking at the wider picture – not just my teaching practice. She asked how I felt about the college culture, the changes, the new principal, what the challenges are. I made the point that the emphasis on PIs puts hard- working lecturers under pressure, how students need an increasing amount of support because of financial, health, mental health, family issues and we can’t control what is happening in their lives.
In summary I felt that the meeting was positive and that I was able to convey the wider picture from a lecturer’s perspective. I am saying this having had time to reflect. It would have been useful if the HMIe had indicated at the beginning of the feedback session that the discussion was to cover wider college issues.
I would be interested to hear about other lecturers’ experience.
Carol Scott
(English and Communication)
I think this is a very interesting and helpful series of comments from Carol and I agree, I feel the inspector should have indicated the rationale for the post teaching discussion. I know of one lecturer who didn't get the chance to discuss the success of his lesson, so it could be argued that the HMIe system isn't quite right yet perhaps. I wasn't observed this time around, but I have been in the unusual position of being 'HMIed' in each of the last three Colleges I have worked in and was observed in every review, sometimes more than twice in a day! Although the systems may have changed slightly over the years regarding observations - lesson gradings are no longer part of the inspection for example, the post match interview has always been about the lesson and the impact for the learners (often with an ICT slant). Interestingly, in my experience, the inspector was always in for at least an hour of the lesson. I look forward to reading the findings of this HMIe report, but there is one thing that is certain, and that is the lecturers at Stevenson College are delivering interesting, vocationally relevant, stimulating and innovative lessons that the learners clearly enjoy. There is a collegiate approach within our teaching community, despite the issues and pressures we are encountering outside the classroom at present. I will leave you with a quote from William Arthur Ward, who says “The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.” Clearly, we inspire, no question.
Post a Comment