The educational system is under pressure.
Teachers in secondary education recently went on strike to protest their heavy workload and the reduction of their leave time. There was a great deal of rhetorical saber-rattling. They said the current Minister of Education was not worthy of wearing the robes of her office. It is clear that more is going on here than meets the eye. The issue is about confidence in, and appreciation for the professionalism of the teacher.
The belts of diligence are being tightened in higher vocational education following the InHolland affair and other issues relating to the quality of education and the assurance of proper scrutiny. The Cabinet recently discussed a bill that would toughen oversight in higher vocational education with an eye to putting a stop to the practice of awarding dubious degrees.
The universities are under pressure, too. According to the recent outline agreement concluded with State Secretary of Education Halbe Zijlstra, performance agreements will be made with the with individual institutions on issues such as reducing drop-out rates, improving educational yields and raising the profile of research.
This pressure on education and the educational system may have positive results, but it may also backfire. The directors and teachers can work together with pupils and students to face up to the challenge and really improve education, even though the educational sector in the Netherlands already has a solid international reputation. Just as in any field, there is definitely progress to be made. For example, the link between education and research needs to be reinforced (also at the Bachelor’s level) and education needs to be made more rigorous and challenging. Personnel policies also need to reflect a sense of appreciation for education, and I am personally very much in favor of efforts in this area.
But there is also a risk factor. The contradictions could become more pronounced, and there will be more supervision and less space for the institutions and for the teachers. This will ultimately result in less confidence in, and appreciation for education, which is a situation that must be avoided at all costs.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
How can we keep our students on their toes?
Our 2011 Teaching Meeting, which took place on 19 December, was more than worthwhile. The theme was teaching large classes and in particular the challenge of encouraging active learning in students. The event was well-attended (around 150 people participated) and during the 16 workshops, teaching staff from various faculties engaged in intensive discussions on the pros and cons of a wide range of working methods. In his keynote speech, Professor Martin Valcke of the University of Ghent demonstrated how vital it is to have a well-balanced program worked out in advance to determine the various types of classes and how and when to use them (see http://t.co/Vosyg1XL). In the workshops, teaching staff had the opportunity to get to grips with very practical examples of methods that activate student learning.
I rounded off the afternoon by drawing the participants’ attention to the possibility of submitting a proposal for a grassroots project (see http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/intranet/teaching/tm2011/grassroots//). This is a simple and readily accessible way of encouraging practical follow-up for valuable and innovative ideas on how to teach large classes.
In my view, this Teaching Meeting deserves its own follow-up. Love of teaching is very much alive at our university and what better way to promote it than by learning from each other’s experiences?
I rounded off the afternoon by drawing the participants’ attention to the possibility of submitting a proposal for a grassroots project (see http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/intranet/teaching/tm2011/grassroots//). This is a simple and readily accessible way of encouraging practical follow-up for valuable and innovative ideas on how to teach large classes.
In my view, this Teaching Meeting deserves its own follow-up. Love of teaching is very much alive at our university and what better way to promote it than by learning from each other’s experiences?
Friday, 18 November 2011
Rich through science
Tilburg’s Science Café is celebrating its fifth anniversary. It’s worth taking a moment to reflect on its role. The café provides a way for Tilburg to combine all that is engaging and inspiring about science with the levity and dynamism of a place for socializing (and a generous dose of Brabant jollity). I was asked to deliver an opening statement on the theme for the evening: the purpose of science. The intriguing question that hung above my head as I opened my mouth to speak was: ‘Away from science?’ (thank goodness for the question mark at the end). The tone was set.
For me, the essence of science and research is the quest, driven by curiosity, to uncover new and unknown phenomena and whenever possible to get to the very bottom of things. And as far as I am concerned, this attitude will continue to set the tone. I also appreciate the element of doubt in science, rather than that of certainty. Then, of course, science is also about ambition, competition and the search for acclaim. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The renowned social psychologist Carsten de Dreu characterized the behavior of his former colleague Stapel as a lack of curiosity combined with an excess of ambition (to paraphrase). His actual words were: “Inquisitiveness serves as science’s safeguard against fraud and fads; it is not only what drives one’s own research forward, but it is also what keeps one asking critical questions of one’s colleagues – how did you come to that conclusion, can you show me? We need to be inquisitive. In fact, we need to become even more inquisitive.” He puts it very eloquently. Doubt and inquisitiveness, then, lie at the heart of science.
But what about its purpose? There seems to be a tendency in our society towards science that can yield a financial return. All the talk is of valorization, cutting edge sectors led by representatives of the business community and funded largely with money from science – ‘convert knowledge into cash’ is a mantra that one hears everywhere these days. This is not something that I am happy about. It is the scientific equivalent of a fast-food diet and does not do justice to the dynamism of science as a profession.
However, this does not mean that we can turn simply disregard what society wants and needs. Of course we must demonstrate the value of science, but not only in economic terms. The social, cultural and democratic aspects cannot be neglected. For me, valorization does not present a problem when approaching a new area of research. It is science and the scientist who define the parameters of research and nothing and nobody else can dictate which areas will or will not be researched. The challenge lies more in how we use the results of our research. It is certainly true that a great deal more can be achieved with our education and research activities than we might suppose. I am absolutely convinced that we can use the results of research even more effectively. And it is easy to think of examples that demonstrate what science contributes to our society. There is also the fact that the leaders and entrepreneurs of the future are currently studying at our universities. That, too, is a form of valorization.
That is why I have chosen to give this short opening statement the title of ‘Rich through science’. Let us be thankful for that richness.
For me, the essence of science and research is the quest, driven by curiosity, to uncover new and unknown phenomena and whenever possible to get to the very bottom of things. And as far as I am concerned, this attitude will continue to set the tone. I also appreciate the element of doubt in science, rather than that of certainty. Then, of course, science is also about ambition, competition and the search for acclaim. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The renowned social psychologist Carsten de Dreu characterized the behavior of his former colleague Stapel as a lack of curiosity combined with an excess of ambition (to paraphrase). His actual words were: “Inquisitiveness serves as science’s safeguard against fraud and fads; it is not only what drives one’s own research forward, but it is also what keeps one asking critical questions of one’s colleagues – how did you come to that conclusion, can you show me? We need to be inquisitive. In fact, we need to become even more inquisitive.” He puts it very eloquently. Doubt and inquisitiveness, then, lie at the heart of science.
But what about its purpose? There seems to be a tendency in our society towards science that can yield a financial return. All the talk is of valorization, cutting edge sectors led by representatives of the business community and funded largely with money from science – ‘convert knowledge into cash’ is a mantra that one hears everywhere these days. This is not something that I am happy about. It is the scientific equivalent of a fast-food diet and does not do justice to the dynamism of science as a profession.
However, this does not mean that we can turn simply disregard what society wants and needs. Of course we must demonstrate the value of science, but not only in economic terms. The social, cultural and democratic aspects cannot be neglected. For me, valorization does not present a problem when approaching a new area of research. It is science and the scientist who define the parameters of research and nothing and nobody else can dictate which areas will or will not be researched. The challenge lies more in how we use the results of our research. It is certainly true that a great deal more can be achieved with our education and research activities than we might suppose. I am absolutely convinced that we can use the results of research even more effectively. And it is easy to think of examples that demonstrate what science contributes to our society. There is also the fact that the leaders and entrepreneurs of the future are currently studying at our universities. That, too, is a form of valorization.
That is why I have chosen to give this short opening statement the title of ‘Rich through science’. Let us be thankful for that richness.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Honest science
There is of course a great deal of discussion – both on and off campus – over the fraudulent use of data. People are surprised, shocked and angry. And so they should be. I have the same feelings. However, this is not the time to explore the minutiae of this particular case. Besides, I have already said quite openly everything that needs to be said on this matter.
What I would like to talk about here is what I have heard and read about the background to this case, and the pressure to perform in science. Are we perhaps demanding too much from our scientists? Certainly, there is pressure to perform in the Academy. There are all kinds of research rankings. Teaching is evaluated. We are ranked in terms of our media coverage. We want our people to secure grants from national and international organizations. All of this is certainly true.
But we must not confuse the means with the end. The Academy does not come down to indicators and rankings. On the contrary, the essence of the Academy is sound knowledge, insight, practical wisdom and the ability to inspire people in the name of shared ideals.
Most of all, it is about honest science. For after all, it is science that will outlive all of us.
What I would like to talk about here is what I have heard and read about the background to this case, and the pressure to perform in science. Are we perhaps demanding too much from our scientists? Certainly, there is pressure to perform in the Academy. There are all kinds of research rankings. Teaching is evaluated. We are ranked in terms of our media coverage. We want our people to secure grants from national and international organizations. All of this is certainly true.
But we must not confuse the means with the end. The Academy does not come down to indicators and rankings. On the contrary, the essence of the Academy is sound knowledge, insight, practical wisdom and the ability to inspire people in the name of shared ideals.
Most of all, it is about honest science. For after all, it is science that will outlive all of us.
Friday, 1 July 2011
Adding value in the Academy
I recently had the honor of presenting the first Valorization Prize (see www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/samenwerken/advies-en-dienstverlening/valorisatie/valorisatieprijs). At the time, I remarked on the Academy’s role in value creation. Or to put this another way – how can we differentiate ourselves from other universities? I mentioned four particular points.
Firstly, research must be innovative and must – as often as possible – result in the publication of work that adds to the existing body of human knowledge and insight. Nothing too controversial about that – after all, research is at the foundation of all universities. However, I have the distinct impression that not all work that is published can be said to distinguish itself from the rest. We could set the bar a little higher in this regard.
We can also differentiate ourselves when it comes to our academic teaching. In this area, a link could (and should) be made with research in the Academy. That will be quite a challenge, particularly for Bachelor’s degree students. But innovations in teaching are, I think, necessary to challenge students, for example by using case studies or by having them write papers and reports. We need to spend more time thinking about how we can innovate in our teaching methods.
Then we turn to valorization. This is essentially a question of relevance to society – using our knowledge to raise additional funding by developing partnerships with various sectors. However, valorization is not solely to do with economic gain. It also involves notions of social and cultural value and evidence-based methods of working. As far as I am concerned, valorization does not involve imposing limitations on the ‘front-end’ of our research, but it does require us to look more closely at the value of the results of our research. In the field of human and social sciences, this means thinking not only in terms of economic activity and entrepreneurship, but also in terms of developing new concepts, criteria and profiles, policy advice, input for new legislation and teaching and training programs.
These three areas constitute the primary activities of a university community. But these activities are not possible without an excellent supporting infrastructure. This, too, marks out a good university from just an average or mediocre one. We need to focus on ‘operational excellence’ in order to support our primary activities. Good team work between teachers and researchers on the one side and ‘support staff’ on the other will always be invaluable.
Firstly, research must be innovative and must – as often as possible – result in the publication of work that adds to the existing body of human knowledge and insight. Nothing too controversial about that – after all, research is at the foundation of all universities. However, I have the distinct impression that not all work that is published can be said to distinguish itself from the rest. We could set the bar a little higher in this regard.
We can also differentiate ourselves when it comes to our academic teaching. In this area, a link could (and should) be made with research in the Academy. That will be quite a challenge, particularly for Bachelor’s degree students. But innovations in teaching are, I think, necessary to challenge students, for example by using case studies or by having them write papers and reports. We need to spend more time thinking about how we can innovate in our teaching methods.
Then we turn to valorization. This is essentially a question of relevance to society – using our knowledge to raise additional funding by developing partnerships with various sectors. However, valorization is not solely to do with economic gain. It also involves notions of social and cultural value and evidence-based methods of working. As far as I am concerned, valorization does not involve imposing limitations on the ‘front-end’ of our research, but it does require us to look more closely at the value of the results of our research. In the field of human and social sciences, this means thinking not only in terms of economic activity and entrepreneurship, but also in terms of developing new concepts, criteria and profiles, policy advice, input for new legislation and teaching and training programs.
These three areas constitute the primary activities of a university community. But these activities are not possible without an excellent supporting infrastructure. This, too, marks out a good university from just an average or mediocre one. We need to focus on ‘operational excellence’ in order to support our primary activities. Good team work between teachers and researchers on the one side and ‘support staff’ on the other will always be invaluable.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Learning from the Finns
The Netherlands really needs to regain its position among the world's top-five knowledge economies. We are currently just managing to hold onto a top-ten position. We're now ranked eighth, but in 2000 we were ranked third. We are lagging behind our competitors in terms of innovation. And our competitors are not just the usual giants like the US and Canada, but also smaller countries such as the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Singapore.
What are these countries doing differently, and especially better, than the Netherlands? They are investing more in research & development. Both the public and private share of research funding is lagging behind in the Netherlands. The level of our innovative and knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship also leaves something to be desired. The Netherlands has traditionally been an entrepreneurial country, but in this age of globalization it is more important than ever that small and medium-sized companies innovate and amass new knowledge even quicker. We must forge a more solid link between companies, governmental organizations, and knowledge institutes ('Triple Helix'), giving us the opportunity to turn knowledge into real value (valorization).
A good example is Finland, especially the thriving region around Helsinki. This region is a center of advanced knowledge and a hub of human capital (also see http://www.scienceguide.nl/201103/nederland). One explanation for this Finnish success story is the interest that universities in that country take in their PhD students and the scope they give them to venture outside the walls of academia. This means that the job market for PhDs is very good, even outside the university. Researchers find employment in business and consultancy just as easily as other experts. They are a link between universities, trade & industry, and the public sector. This is exactly the combination that a knowledge economy needs.
What are these countries doing differently, and especially better, than the Netherlands? They are investing more in research & development. Both the public and private share of research funding is lagging behind in the Netherlands. The level of our innovative and knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship also leaves something to be desired. The Netherlands has traditionally been an entrepreneurial country, but in this age of globalization it is more important than ever that small and medium-sized companies innovate and amass new knowledge even quicker. We must forge a more solid link between companies, governmental organizations, and knowledge institutes ('Triple Helix'), giving us the opportunity to turn knowledge into real value (valorization).
A good example is Finland, especially the thriving region around Helsinki. This region is a center of advanced knowledge and a hub of human capital (also see http://www.scienceguide.nl/201103/nederland). One explanation for this Finnish success story is the interest that universities in that country take in their PhD students and the scope they give them to venture outside the walls of academia. This means that the job market for PhDs is very good, even outside the university. Researchers find employment in business and consultancy just as easily as other experts. They are a link between universities, trade & industry, and the public sector. This is exactly the combination that a knowledge economy needs.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
It's time to go the extra mile
These are restless times in the Academy. We are coming face to face with the reality of the proposed cutbacks in higher education and scientific research. At the same time, competition between universities, both at home and abroad, is on the rise. Universities must promote themselves and they need to show how they can make a real difference.
In this prevailing climate, it is only logical that university administrators are also being asked to show their true colors. Students and staff members regularly ask me where I stand on the issues.
Of course I have quite a bit to say, but what is the core of my message? In a nutshell: everyone will have to go the extra mile!
Students, too, will have to work harder in their first year to secure a positive recommendation on continuing their studies. They will need to invest more time in their academic endeavors. Lecturers will need to demonstrate to students that diligent study habits really do produce results. Our teaching programs will become more demanding and interactive, requiring didactic innovation and commitment. This will also demand extra effort from everyone at Tilburg University. Our focus needs to be on redoubling our commitment to teaching and rewarding didactic excellence.
We will simply have to work more effectively and with a clear sense of purpose. The university’s central support services and the faculty offices will need to work smarter and more efficiently so that we can save money and strengthen our primary mission.
We will have to get to work now if we want to retain our ranking. This requires commitment and energy, and we need to expend this extra effort now to stay in the lead.
In this prevailing climate, it is only logical that university administrators are also being asked to show their true colors. Students and staff members regularly ask me where I stand on the issues.
Of course I have quite a bit to say, but what is the core of my message? In a nutshell: everyone will have to go the extra mile!
Students, too, will have to work harder in their first year to secure a positive recommendation on continuing their studies. They will need to invest more time in their academic endeavors. Lecturers will need to demonstrate to students that diligent study habits really do produce results. Our teaching programs will become more demanding and interactive, requiring didactic innovation and commitment. This will also demand extra effort from everyone at Tilburg University. Our focus needs to be on redoubling our commitment to teaching and rewarding didactic excellence.
We will simply have to work more effectively and with a clear sense of purpose. The university’s central support services and the faculty offices will need to work smarter and more efficiently so that we can save money and strengthen our primary mission.
We will have to get to work now if we want to retain our ranking. This requires commitment and energy, and we need to expend this extra effort now to stay in the lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
