Who's at fault - student or lecturer?

patwa_2

Hi, sorry if this is already ongoing. Healthy debate is good and I thought seeing as it's resit season not to mention the new session coming up fast, it would be nice to debate people's feelings of the reasons why some people do poorly on some courses and not on others.

All too often the reason for a fail mark in an exam given by the student is "It's the lecturer's fault, he/she didn't teach us anything/was too boring/content wasn't covered." And whereas there are a fair number of times where this is true, often it's just a smokescreen for the student's own inattentiveness.

I'd like to point out a case where I do think the lecturers are partly responsible. I've always believed that we study at University to prepare us for life/job in the outside world, and therefore it only makes sense to relate what we learn to the outside world so that we can put it in prospective. This done by way of examples or by using the lecturer's own experience in the field to pass that experience onto the students for their benefit.

Take Java for example. It's a programming language yes, and many people learning it will go on to use it in everyday life working for companies or freelance. It's a metaphysical entity, there is no physical representation of Java to compare it with, and therefore lecturers often just stick to the technical concepts with no real-world examples. Take building a program for instance. They'll talk about classes and constructs, variables, methods, inheritance etc. And this is fine for those with the technical mindset to understand.

I unfortunately for the first two and half years of this degree did not get to grips with the concepts, and worked mainly out of reference manuals and "Teach Yourself" coursebooks. But earlier this year I was fortunate enough to get a chance via secured funding to attend one of Sun Microsystems workshops in London. There, they use real-world examples to illustrate the technical concepts. In the case of building a program, they likened it to building a house, and it was so much easier to mentally grasp how floors, rooms, etc, or in Java terms, Classes, methods and inherited classes fitted together.

I haven't explained this to my lecturers because I know that each in their own way try to do the best they can in the best way they know how. I guess it's cowardice on my part, but I don't want to rock a boat that has, somehow, been sailing for over 10 years.

But I do feel that the way in which I was taught played a part in my marks over the first two years. I do feel that if I had been taught differently as described above, I would have understood the subject material better and been more motivated to do my own extra work for a subject I enjoyed.

Does anyone share this sentiment or have anything else to contribute?

H.

tazzababe

I have to resit an exam at the end of August and re-do a piece of coursework. I agree that they style of teaching does have an impact on the students ability to assimialte material, however I don't think that lecturers can be blamed for the failure of a student. Throughout my time at uni I have had some very serious complications that did lead me to fail some of my exams, which has led me to the conclusion that I will end up with a third.

There were some modules which I could not grasp at all, and yes, in my opinion the teaching method was not one that helped me understand. I failed this module (exam and coursework). I talked to the lecturer involved, and he tried to explain the best he could- it still didn't get through! In the end I dropped the module and chose a different one. I was lucky that I was allowed to do this, some students cannot.

Some of the classes I have attended have been unbelievable, no structure, no commitment from the lecturer and in some cases no idea about teaching! Lecturers,however, cannot pander to the indivdual learning styles of a few when teaching a class of over 50. I would love to say that my failure is down to the lecturer's that I had, and in some cases they where bad:eek:

But, my failure is down to me. If I didn't understand something I should have made it known, if I needed help I shouldn't have been so shy in asking, if I wasn't interested from the beginning I should have changed modules. The problems that I have had, and the teaching I have receive have given me something to moan about, given me a reason to say-"Its not really my fault for failing because...."

Well. here I am now saying "I am probably getting a Third, yes its my fault. I should have tried harder, but thats it. I am going to accept what I am given and get on with it.":T

reehsetin

i think it can be the lecturers fault if the course is badly organised (one module had the fundamentals at the end of the course, i literally did not have any real understandin until the last few weeks, meaning i had to go back to things we learned at the beginning and relearn to understand it) and doesnt engage the students in the material or check that their understanding of the subject is actually correct

skintscotsman

tazzababe wrote: »

Well. here I am now saying "I am probably getting a Third, yes its my fault. I should have tried harder, but thats it. I am going to accept what I am given and get on with it.":T

hey tazzabae, getting a 3rd ain't the end of the world.

I struggled at University, for various reasons, and despite being one of the top performers during the last couple fo years at school, I ended up with a 3rd.

In all honesty, I am now in job that has NOT|HING to do with my degree! Yes, I have used my degree in the past and having a 3rd stopped me getting certain jobs but you;ve got the rigth attitude of just getting on with it!!!

Anyway, your colleagues that got 1st degree, 2:1 and 2:2s will probably struglle to find work just as much as you will!

skintscotsman

oh yeah, and some lecturers are amazing and some are rubbish!

zzzLazyDaisy

If it is the lecturer who is poor, s/he will have a higher failure rate (or poorer pass results) than their colleagues. This will quickly be picked up by the university and adjustments made.

BUT if it is only a small minority who are failing, then it is probably down to the student.

My friend's boy has just finished his first year. He was getting 90% + marks in the first term... then he got socialising, started staying out late, staying in bed till the afternoon, and skipping lectures. He has failed two of his exams cos he hadn't grasped the concepts, and is now revising like mad for his resits from text books.

It is always easy to blame someone else, but in the end it is down to the individual student to ensure they do whatever it takes to get the grade they want. Even if that means spending a few hours in the library in independent study.

studentphil

Lecturers lecture which means they get no interaction with students to know if the lecture as a teaching method is making people understand things or not. It is all fine talking on for an hour or two but if no one understands what you are saying and you don't know about that, then the teaching method is useless.

patwa_2

Re, the comment about the lecturers pattern being picked up by the University, this is true but only for exam grades. so basically if the lecturer is rubbish but the students band together and work double in their own time, and pass, the lecturer's poor teaching standard goes unchecked.

I can't mention names for obvious reasons, but there was one such incident last year. I was student rep so it was my job to put the case to the level co-ordinator. Even he agreed there was a problem, but he couldn't do anything about it - peer pressure apparently wouldn't work. Basically lecture attendance was down to 15-20% of the class total by week 4 of 12 and it was common knowledge it was due to the teaching style.

H.

studentphil

It is true that departments use any lecturer to teach anything even if they don't know a right lot about a subject. You can accept that at school but at HE level surely you need specialist teachers.

Things like History lecturers teaching business research methods, it is just not on really.

Voyager2002

All posters above have made a common but fundamental error: they assume that it is the job of a lecturer to teach students. Wrong: the job of a lecturer is to do research. Students are responsible for their own learning, although lectures, library facilities etc may be provided in order to assist them. The task of giving lectures is a minor part of a lecturer's job: giving lectures well does not lead to promotion, and giving poor lectures is unlikely to injure a lectuer's career. It is about time that students grasped this fact, and accepted responsibility for their own learning.

bestpud

As I understand it, teachers teach and lecturers lecture! I thought university was about students being given the 'bare bones' of a topic and then going off and filling in the gaps with independent research and reading etc.

Or have I missed something? I don't expect to be taught at undergraduate level - that is for schools and colleges.

Of course lecturers should have the knowldege to set questions and then mark the entered work, but they're not teachers!

Some deliver material better than others but that's life isn't it? It's the same with bosses in the workplace - some good, some not.

By the time people reach uni level, they should be over the need for spoon feeding imo and they should take responsibility for their own learning.

So basically, it is the student's responsibility.