Bulletin Special Supplement Jun 1965

(iii) that in the first year students should attend fortnightly tutorials in small groups, in connexion w i th one course in any given term, and preferabl y for at least one term in th e subject in which they hope to major; (iv) that in the second year they should continue in this way, w i t h the addition of one or perhaps two other fortnightly or weekly tutorial classes, each runnin g for perhaps one term, in appropriate subjects ; (v) that tutorials in any case should be concerned w i th the discussion or exploration in dept h of topics which fall w i t h in the field of the lectures given in that course, rather than new material. L5.20 We have studied the statistics of student numbers, set out by courses, for admission to the Colleges in 1964-5 and 1965-6, so far as known. I n a proportion of cases the introduction of small- group teaching along the lines of the simplified model in paragraph 4 above would be possible without further modification — that is to say, in thos e subjects for which entries in a College are o f the order of 10. A single teacher responsible for a course could in this case undertake all the tutorial teaching withou t help f r om colleagues. Where possible, we recommend this should be done. An advantage of this arrangement is that the teacher is much bette r able to assess the effectiveness of his own lectur e course when he is also dealing w i th work done by students in that field. L5.21 But what of a College entr y of say 20 or 30 for a given subject? (These are the most unfavourable orders of magnitude at present likely to be met.) The lecturer may not relish th e thought that he might be called upon to give not one, but three discussion periods a week in place of one of his weekly lecture periods. We see, incidentally , no reason why he should not shoulder such duties if he wished to, assuming that his other commitments are not too onerous and that he has not also similar duties in connexion w i th another course. Ordinarily however we should not wish to encourage recourse to such an expedient, and we wish to make clear our reasons why we do not favour it . I f a teacher already has full commitments in other courses, the additional hours of teaching (and, in many cases, correction of work) are likely to reduce his efficiency, and interfere seriously w i th research. Mo re important, however, is th e fact that if he is teaching in this wa y up to fifteen students a week, say, o r thirty in all, in groups of perhaps five, as well as other small groups, he w i ll not be able to give sufficient thought to each individual case. L5.22 T o face this particular problem , we prefer to go back to our fundamental thesis o f the ratio of staff-work to student-work. I f this ratio is important and valid in a simplified abstract model of one course, it is all the more so in the case of the whole population of students and the whole population of staff concerned w i th the courses for a given subject in any one College. And if, globally, the ratio is greatly improved without substantially adding to the total weekly hours worked by the students, then it may be confidently expected that the staf f working load w i ll not be significantly increased. Indeed, i f the lecture courses are reduced as we recommend, there is reason to believe that the load, measure d in hours, w i ll remain very nearly unchanged. A l l that w i ll change is the relative proportion of tim e given to lecturing as against other forms of instruction . L5.23 Not all courses, it w i ll be observed, woul d on our proposals have tutorials incorporated in them; but all might be reduced, either f r om 3 to 2 hours a week or f r om 2 hours to 1 hour. T h at is to say, there would be teachers whose weekly total of contact hours would actually fall, as a result of their courses not including tutorials. I n any given Department therefore there would be staff who in theory were freed by these measures to assist colleague s in providing small-group teaching when particular classes are large enough to need this. We say " i n theory" , because in practice a Department provides teaching for a certain number of branches of a discipline, and these are often undertaken by specialists; not every member of a Department may feel himself qualified to give assistance in a field in which h e has not worked. We would offer two observations here: first, that first-arid second-year work is at relatively elementary levels; and secondly, that tutorial work is to be looked on as student-centred — the inspiration for the course should come f r om the lecturer, but the busines s of the tutorial is to advance, as we have said, at the student's best speed, which is not that of the lecturer. Th is being so, it should on ou r estimate be in every case possible for the Hea d of the Department so to arrange the teaching duties of th e Department that colleagues can render assistance in small-group teaching, especially at first and second-year level, where it is essential. It should moreover be possible to secure further help along the line s already suggested by the Committee on Teaching Methods (paragraph 11(b)(iii) ). L5.24 We appreciate that in advancing this solution to the problem of numbers we are advocating a measure that may, especially in first and second year courses, involve some departure f r om the principle that one teacher has sole responsibility for teaching a given course. There is much to commend such a departure. On the one hand the lecturer still retains responsibility for the orientation and framework of the course. On the other hand, it is valuabl e that a teacher should not be cut off f r om direct dealings w i t h students engaged on other aspects of their work, and f r om some insight into the intellectua l and learning problems that arise there. It is desirabl e too that 36