全屏显示专题章节

Evidence-Based Learningand Accountability in Ontario’s 20 Publicly-Funded Universities：Some Ethnographic Observations

Abstract：Ihad the privilege of teaching the Research Institute’s MA and PhD students during my two-year sabbatical in 2006 to 2008 inclusive. For the three years since then，I have had the honour of once-more being the Chair of York’s Department of Anthropology，which position allowed me to carry out“participant observation”regarding several public policy challenges to the Department，to York，and to the rest of the Ontario University“system”.

Wemust duly help implement，for example，the Affirmative Action policy each time we are allowed to advertise for and hire a new（tenure-track）facultymember：i.e.，wemust give pro-active weight and priority to applicants from specified categories-i. e.，women，visible minorities，persons with disability，Aboriginal persons，and，for all，Canadian citizenship （NAFTA permits American and Mexican hirings）. Currently，we are required to participate in the implementation of AODA—the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disability Act. During my term，our Department carried out its cyclical Review of our Graduate Program and then of its Undergraduate Program（the UPR）—both such involving at least one reviewer from outside of York，and oversight from higher York officials.

But currently there are increased pressures for enhanced transparency and accountability in regards to our curriculum and practices-and to our sense of ourselves as“professionals”. These pressures come from the Provincial government and from parents-i.e.，parents who may vote in Provincial elections for continuing the Party in power or for another Party to be in government. The stakes for demonstrating“accountability”are high. Thus，this paper will discuss the required move to explicitly identifying and measuring the ELOs—Expected Learning Outcomes for each course offered. This also entails the explicit development of UUDLEs—University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations for each Program available via that academic unit（e.g.，the 90-credit degree and the“advanced”120-credit one）. A Graduatelevel version is in the offing. This reinvigorated pressure for evidence-based learning and accountability suggests that sociocultural values and fears are in play. And Ontario’s students and faculty members，regardless of their personal sense and display of“ethnicity”and belonging，will be profoundly affected，both at University and in the job market.

This Conference explicitly calls for an“Anthropology Perspective”on“Education”of and among the minority nationalities of SW China，such as the Tujia，the Yi，and the others. This SWU Research Institute，its faculty members and its students and graduates，already has done pioneering work in this area.

In my opinion，it is essential that Anthropology be called upon to shed light on the policies and practices affecting and shaping these ethnic minorities in displaying and experiencing their citizenship in today’s PRC.

But which Anthropology，and with what potential and results？Anthropology in the West traditionally has been a“four-field”discipline. That is，there are at least four branches or subdisciplines sheltering under the umbrella term of“Anthropology”. As you know，these branches are：Physical Anthropology or Human Biology（concerned with the fossil record of humankind’s evolution），Linguistics（concerned with language in context and use，and so too with the“deep structure”or“grammar”of each culture）；Archaeology（concerned with uncovering past societies）；and Social or Cultural Anthropology（concerned with the comparative study of living societies）. It iswithin this last branch thatwe find“Anthropology＆Education”.

To the comparative study and better understanding of that topic，we are asked to bring to bear the key concepts and practices forming Anthropology’s contributions to this interdisciplinary field. Of relevance for this purpose are such concepts as“social system”（e. g.，a school，or a whole Board of Education），holism or holistic analysis，the manifest and the latent consequences expressing that system，or the explicit and open curriculum as opposed to the“hidden”or covert curriculum；socialization or enculturation；cultural relativism，and so on.

North American Sociocultural Anthropology has a particular fondness for the concept of “Culture”，though many definitions are available by which to grasp themeanings and potential applications of that fecund concept. Perhaps we can start with a working definition：socially produced and patterned，to some extent shared，ways of acting and believing.

Most if not all these definitions would include an insistence on Culture as being“learned”（not instinctual，and not perfectly so），and on its being transmitted down the generations by both overt and covertmeans（as“heritage”and as“identity”）. It is not surprising to find，then，that both Sociocultural Anthropology（as pioneered say，by George and Louise Spindler）and Education can fruitfully join hands to seek enhanced understanding of both formal and informal，manifest and latent，learning and its transmission over time and space. That includes a trained concern with how and why“minority groups”seek，develop，deploy and maintain or come to give up or lose，their“identity”. Or come to enjoy theirmembers’successful juggling of key parts of several or hybrid，“identities”. And doing so，please note，in the dynamic context that both Canada and China are indeed“multicultural”societies.

The close and productive relationship of Anthropology and Education can be emphasized by our noting of the fact that for over forty years now，from 1968 on，one of the 38 recognized “Sections”of the American Anthropological Association（see www.aaanet.org）is that called“the Council on Anthropology and Education”（CAE），with several hundreds ofmembers and publisher not least of the“Anthropology and Education Quarterly”.

The CAE website presents the official，explicit aim of the CAE as follows：“to advance scholarship on schooling in social and cultural contexts，and on human learning both inside and outside of schooling”.

Schools，in all their variety，are part of their society，and have their own“culture”. This context also has extensive impact from its“public policy”environment，and it is this that Iwill focusmy remaining remarks on，not only because of its intrinsic importance but also because much ofmy own time and effort over these past three years in my“participant observation”role as Chair of the Department of Anthropology at York University in Toronto，Canada，has been challenged and consumed by the latest public policy demands. One such demand is embodied in the current effort to help implement the Provincial Government’s AODA legislation，the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disability Act. However，for the purposes of this paper and this audience，I am going to focus on the growing external and now internal，pressures for all twenty of Ontario’s publicly-funded Universities to be able to provide“Quality Assurance”-i. e.，evidence-based learning and accountability. In doing so，I am not explicitly addressing any one particularminority nationality，because every student，every teacher，every discipline，every“public”University is being transformed by this movement. This pressure，these associated new bureaucratic structures and practices require that we set out exactly what we teach，what is the exact“learning”we expect from our students，how we can know and prove what our students have learned，what they have learned not just in each course we offer but also what“know ledge”our students will and did gain as they advance through the year-（or credit-）levels from Year 1 on through to their graduation from their Undergraduate studies，or from their Graduate studies. Each University（at considerable cost）must gather its“proof”that the expected learning has indeed occurred，in order for that University to successfully “pass”its eight-year cyclical review or“audit”—each university is to be subject to a greater degree of scrutiny than ever before，partly scrutiny from the new external Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance and itsmechanisms（but I note with dismay that the ten-member executive，5 women，5 men，seemingly are all white），and partly scrutiny by internal mechanisms（not all new，but enhanced）. Might all this work to the advantage of minority nationality students and of minority-specific schools，if say，China were to adopt a version of such evidence-based learning and accountability？Perhaps SW Chinamight already have useful lessons for Ontario Education policy-makers？Perhaps this key Research Institutemight explore thematter and make appropriate Recommendations in due course？

And so I now draw your attention to ELOs—Expected Learning Outcomes，to UUDLEs—University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations，and to GDLEs—Graduate Degree Level Expectations，ormore simply，to DLEs-Degree Level Expectations. Imust also remind you that by the Canadian Constitution，“Education”is a Provincial responsibility，not a Central Government one. The Ontario government，then，feels it is“accountable”to the voters of Ontario as to how and to whom it expends itsmoney，tax money，recognizing thatmany of the voters are parents，parents who have the expectation that their offspring will get a place in an Ontario University. Hence the interest in“evidence”that public money spent on the Universities is demonstrably worthwhile，that it is justified and well-spent.

The recent pressure for that evidence seems to have emerged from the UK and Australia. In Ontario，this“audit culture”movement has been spear- headed by the COU—the Council of Ontario Universities，and their active affiliate，OCAV—the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents. There is some fraternization（e. g.，concerning the arrangements for the cyclical Reviews）with the Ontario government’s newly established Quality Assurance bureaucracy. But COU and OCAV have moved to adopt evidence-based learning and accountability as their own project，doing so to ensure that it is the Universities’themselves，not the Provincial government that are speaking to standards and processes. COU and OCAV have sought“buy-in”from each University. At York University，our Senate，our highest body for academic decision-making，gave its commitment to participate，taking effect as of June，2008. The York units currently are preparing an implementation progress report for the scrutiny of the University’s Associate Vice-Provost/Associate Vice-President（Academic）.

At the local unit/Departmental level there are two foci for evidence-gathering-one is the ELOs for every course being offered in that unit’s curriculum，per academic year；the second are that unit’s DLEs. The course ELOs when developed and appropriately approved，are to be explicitly listed in the Course Outline or Syllabus，a copy of which is given to each student at the start of the course. These ELOs or“goals”are set forth as 4 or 5 specific items and are stated briefly；theymay cover two types of ELOs，one being important“skills”the studentmay learn through that course，and secondly，what“knowledge”may be learned through taking this particular course. For example，I currently teach an Undergraduate course（AN3280.6）on “Psychiatric Anthropology”：

In this course you will learn about the history，key concepts and methods，and the mutual relevance of Medical/Psychiatric Anthropology and today’s Psychiatry/Transcultural Psychiatry；

In this course you also will learn about the DSM（Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders），its nature and cross-cultural use，and about the critique thereof；

You also will learn about the perspective of Anthropology on key diagnostic categories/ disorders.

If Iwere to teach this course next year，I likely would add one or two“skills”Outcomes （e.g.，You will gain more practice at reading and writing critically in this field）. Overall，the language I have used（“you will learn”）may need changing to emphasize this“learning”is the student’s responsibility，to avoid any liability claim from a perceived failure to learn“as promised”）. When someone else teaches that course in a later year，theymay well change this list of ELOs，though the unit’s Curriculum Committee may preclude or restrict such annual changing if the course in question is one of the ones we identify as a“core”course for our program’s learning framework. Itmay be that clearly identifying for students what is expected of them in each course and sequencemay prove particularly helpful to students who are from a “minority”，and not just an ethnic one.

It is not enough to have an explicit listing of the ELOs for each particular course given in its Outline. The Outline for each course will also include a listing of the“evaluation”or grade-breakdown-e.g.，one essay（worth 30%）；a December take-home exam（30%）；one film review（10%），etc. Not on the Outline but available to that unit’s Curriculum Committee and eventually to ELO auditors is the“alignment”of the course’s ELOs with their specific “assessment”mechanism. That is，there must be an explicit way for each ELO to be measured；thus，there must be a record that ELO 1 is measured by X（say，by the final exam），ELO 2 ismeasured by Y（say，a film review），on until each ELO is accounted for. This process of thinking through what is expected of students and then of exactly how each expectation can be and will be measured，is a bracing exercise for every teacher. And if the alignment procedure should reveal that an ELO has as yet nomode ofmeasurement attached to it，then the instructormust either drop that ELO or develop an explicitmeasure for it.

Having explicitly thought through exactly what is expected of the student in each course （and my own colleagues have cautioned that an“unexpected”outcome might well be themost “educational”or revelatory），and having collegially thought through the evidence needed for proving that there is indeed cumulative learning as each Undergraduate student，and particularly those who are the majors or minors in that subject proceed（s）to graduation，we must turn to consider the DLEs—the Degree Level Expectations. Thus，each academic unit must consider each of its Degree Programs（e.g.，a 90-credit or“regular”BA，as compared and contrasted with that unit’s 120-credit or“Honours”BA，as compared to the expectations and“learning”gained through one’s taking of the International BA，etc.）Again，developing and explicitly stating and arguing for these DLEs is a provocative and constructive exercise for the facultymembers involved-one which subsequently should enhance the students’experience during their years of membership of their Program. And it is not a random process，left to chance，good will，or teachers’sense of professionalism.

For each Degree-granting Program，the faculty teaching that Program（overseen by a hierarchy of each University’s officials and by the outside ones as well）are required to explicitly address and differentiate each Program and its“learning”under six headings or “guidelines”. These six have been provided by OCAV—the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents. The six are：

Depth and Breadth of Know ledge；

Knowledge of Methodologies；

Application of Know ledge；

Communication Skills；

Awareness of Limits of Knowledge；

Autonomy and Professional Capacity.

OCAV has provided detailed examples of whatmight or should be considered under each of the 6—too detailed to give all of them here. However，as one example，under（1）（c）the following wording is given for the“regular”（90-credit）BA：“an ability to gather，review，evaluate and interpret information relevant to one ormore of themajor fields in a discipline”. For comparison the（1）（c）for the 120-credit Honours BA reads：“a developed ability to（i）gather，review，evaluate information；and（ii）compare the merits of alternate hypotheses or creative options，relevant to one or more of the major fields in a discipline”.

Under（6）（c）we are told：“behaviour consistent with academic integrity and social responsibility”（90-credit Program），while thewording of（6）（c）for the 120-credit Degree is exactly the same-but this（Foucauldian）exercise surely is not just about“academics”but rather is retailing a vision of“citizenship”.

But perhaps this is enough for now，one Anthropologist’s perspective on and participant observation of a University“system”under change，one engaging in another“dance”with the Provincial government，for better for our students（but should all this be so“job”-focused？Nor is the diversity among our students and their families grappled with），for“tiering”of the Universities and what they may teach in the long term？The stakes are high.

* For delivery at the Southwest University Conference，November 5-6，2011，Chongqing，PRC.

加拿大安大略省20所公立大学的基于证据的学习和评估制度研究——若干人类学的观察

[摘要］在我2006—2008年的两年休假期间，有幸在西南民族教育与心理研究中心教授硕士生和博士生。从那之后的三年中，我担任了约克大学人类学系的系主任，这个职位便于我参与观察有关几项加拿大公共政策对于我所在的人类学系、约克大学和其他的安大略省大学“体系”的挑战。