Distributing determination of quality #2

In the previous article, as in the book chapter below, we discuss the idea of ‘distributing the determination of quality’. I think a better term for what we are trying to say can be devised, one that is less of a mouthful (any ideas welcome).

This is a short post to describe some parts of the animal, even if we’re not sure what beast it is yet.

– Peer assisted learning is a fantastic example of distributing the determination of quality in higher education. For example, having peers that took a course mark that course in the following year as a part of their second year studies. If implemented badly this is exploitation. If implemented well then all can benefit

– I attended an session with the Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) on the theme of doing research in education in Queensland. One idea that came up was the idea that instead of each school striving to “maximise their NAPLAN results” and being judged on this (as is the current practice), imagine if each school was judged on how well the four closest schools performed? The idea is that instead of encouraging competition and individualism, it encourages altruism and reaching out to help those schools closest. It was not a serious suggestion, but rather a nice sketch of how the world could be if KPIs were something distributed to provide external motivation for altruism, rather than concentrated to provide external motivation for self-interest.

More examples to follow (any suggestions welcome too).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.