Course/programme completions

I have just read Stuart Middleton's blog on EdtalkNZ and thank goodness someone is saying what I have been for yonks i.e. we have been concentrating for years on course completion statistics as relates to individual papers (I will call them this old fashioned term for sake of clarity) but we have no idea about programme /qualification completion rates particularly completion of longer more complex qualifications such as degrees. This gives us a completely erroneous picture of what is going on.

For instance a student ‘A’ could do a couple of semesters on a degree, pass all papers with C s, and leave without a qualification because they either

don't like it

or are bored with the course or teaching,

or don't think it is relevant or useful,

or get distracted by other things in life

or don't think they can manage to pass the higher level papers

or maybe think the standards are too low

etc.

and even may be completely put off education as a result.

This outcome is seen as a 100% success by our present measurements. despite the waste of time money to student and the taxpayer.

Student ‘B’ could complete the whole degree, having had to re-sit a few papers during the process particularly at the beginning, (say 5 out of the total 24) , become totally engaged with the teaching and learning , get straight A's in their final year, get the degree qualification in about 3 1/2 years and then get a good job.

By our present statistical measurement this student would be contributing to the total failure rate on that qualification i.e. less than 75% success rate.

Self evaluation

Reflections on the Saeer process.
The session got me thinking about a more systematic approach to evaluation. Most importantly how can we get graduate feedback/information
Ideas
could this be doen at graduation time when we send out the applications to graduate ?
Research of BAC face book page-Nursing do this
Create a Linkedin group page for graduates?

Reflections on the Leadership discussion:session one

The discussion on the difference between leadership and management very little comment on the actual meaning of leadership. Trait theory seemed to predominate i.e. honesty, consistency , decisiveness etc ...


The distinctions between management and leadership and management Rowe, and many others have made were mentioned but not discussed i.e. assigned leadership is leadership by position and emergent leadership is leadership by influencing people to do great things. Though Martin B made this point.

Although the position of manager, supervisor, lead, etc. gives the authority to accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization, i.e. assigned leadership, this power does not make a leader, it simply makes a boss. Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals, emergent leadership, rather than simply bossing people around.


However the more important discussion we could have had seems to me to be about the difference between leading people in a company or business enterprise and leading a groups of professionals.


Ultimately an educational institution particularly at tertiary level must rely on the scholarship, research and professionalism of its academics. This is more than just issues of ethics, good behaviour or being student-centred etc. What we have to sell is is really the scholarship and new researched knowledge of the academics not just their teaching skills. It is their researched knowledge at creates the distinct MIT courses and even if we are following national qualifications we must be contributing at a national level to the development of this curriculum if we are to have reputation and recognition as an institution.

It is professionalism that ultimately determines standards (even though they may be explicitly stated) by an internal code of judgement


Professionalism is developed by professional training and maintained by keeping links across the profession in industry and academia, nationally and internationally.

This kind of internally motivated behaviour requires leadership that is different than influencing people to accomplish goals and objectives in an organization and is different from that usually required in a commercial organisation . It is comparable to managing groups of processionals such as General practitioners, architects , and engineers.