Bulletin Special Supplement Jun 1965

T h e important features of the change are disclosed by the last three lines, and especially the last line. I t is true that in this model the teacher's total load in hours per week has increased by one; but for the same course the student's assignment has increased by mu ch more. T h e staff-student ratio is th e same; the ratio of s t a f f - w o r k t o s t u d e n t - w o r k is actually improved. I n other words, better us e is being made of scarce and valuable manpower. Moreover, the k i nd of work now done may be assumed to be helping to solve the problem of passivity. L5.6 We have given space to this over-simplified model in order to make clear one main principle underlying our view of small-grou p teaching: namely, that the introduction of it wher e it does not already exist need not he hindered, in the case of reasonably small classes, by a staff-student ratio wh i ch is considered insufficient for existing needs . T h e important ratio is that of staff-work to student-work; and the basis on wh i ch the planning of courses can proceed in the most realistic way is this ratio rather than the very abstract (and for some purposes misleading) ratio of staff to students , whether in a given course or in the University as a whole. L5.7 We now consider the problems wh i ch arise f r om the need to consider small-group teaching in the context of existing or projecte d courses and programmes. T he model set out in the previous paragraph is schematic and abstract , as we have said. T h u s it assumes that all lectures require an equal amount of preparation during the teaching session, whereas some may in practice have been fully prepared in advance. I t assumes small classes. I t envisages only one k i nd of small-group teaching, and assumes that small-group teaching is to be conducted in tutorial groups of five students. A n d it assumes a situation in wh i ch students follow a programm e by attending one course only. T he last assumption is dearly unrealistic, the others may or may not be. L5.8 I n reality, all programmes in the three colleges comprise a varying numbe r of courses, or units: total contact hours allocated to these component courses vary f r om 16 to about 33 per week. We understand that as a wo r k i ng principle it is common to expect students to devote tw o hours to private study for every contact hour (except in laboratories and other practical work, for wh i c h the private wo rk w i ll vary according to the nature of the course); we may deduct six hours practicals f r om these figures for scientists, and find that in theory students may be expected to be doing between 3 2 and 54 hours private study a week, making a weekl y total of 54 to 87 hours in all. Our enquiries have not enabled us to f o rm a detailed and f i rm view as to whether the working principle (two hours private study/contact hour) iscloselyadhered t o; but we infer f r om the written evidence and f r om our own investigations that even if it is, the character of private studies is in a significant proportion of cases markedly affected by the difficulties referred to in paragraph 5.2 above, — that is, that their character tends towards unconstructiv e memorising of notes and class-material rather than enlargement of critical capacities. Th is is indeed hardly surprising in the case of those students whose academic working-week approaches 90 hours. L5.9 We do not believe that students should normally he required or expected to spend 90 hours a week on strictly course studies, let alone more �； we are of the opinion that such a requirement extended over a long period diminishes the possibility of real intellectual development and rules out the possibility of the student having time and energy to read around or outsid e his subject or further his general education in an active way. I t is thus clear that in a programme of 33 contact-hours, to increase the " s t u d e n t - wo r k ": staff-work" ratio wou ld be in our view of no value whatever, even if this resulted f r om the introduction of small-group teaching. I f the benefits of small-group teaching are to be secured, it is essential that the demands of a programme should be limited in such a way as to give a student time and opportunity to work on parts of the programme, not necessarily at leisure, bu t without a heavy load of note-memorising to be cope d w i t h at the same time throughout every day and evening of the term. It is open to question whether in a given fortnight or week students can w i th benefit undertake more than one major assignment of private work for a tutorial period. T he answer w i ll depen d on the year of the programme, on the nature of the subjects, and in particular on whether the programme includes laboratory courses or other practical work (e.g. i n Fine Arts). But in any event we do not think that more than three such assignments can or should ever be carried on simultaneously; and we incline to the view that a realistic ma x i mum would be two. I n the first year it is likely that one fortnightly hour is as mu ch as should be attempted, in order that this new and unfamiliar work should receive the student's full attention (and also receive the most thorough supervision by the teacher). If this is accepted, it follows that at a given moment a first-year student cannot undertake substantial private work for small-group teaching in more than one subject; and that a second- year student can by the same means deepen his critical understanding of onl y part of the whole programme . We see no disadvantages in this limitation. Old scheme New scheme Staff-student ratio 1:10 1:10 Teacher's contact-hours 3 hours per week 3 Student's contact-hours 3 " " " 2 1/2(average) Teacher's total wo rk on course 6""" 7 Student's total wo rk on course 90""" 125 (average) Wo r k ratio, staff-student 1:15 1:17.8 approx. 33