Class Attendance Miracle

This semester I told one of my classes that they had broken an attendance record. Several weeks had passed and not one of the students in that class had been absent. This is a very rewarding occurrence as, on average, students unfortunately do have a tendency to skip classes every now and then: they are allowed a certain number of absences before the teacher can consider dropping them.

Empirical studies in education have shown that student performance is inversely correlated with absenteeism. Another question arises though: whether making attendance mandatory improves performance. Some studies have shown that it does.  One may add that logically it should, as long as the students are focused. However, other studies have revealed that “forced attendance” can lower student performance. Oosterveen, Kapoor, and Webbink reported recently in “The Price of Forced Attendance” that a long-term study at a large European university had proved this. The detrimental effects were more pronounced in younger students and those that lived far away from the university. These sorts of observations are not entirely new though. Back in 1999, Karen St. Clair argued “A Case Against Compulsory Class Attendance Policies in Higher Education”. It has also been argued – and observed – that student success is only strongly correlated with voluntary attendance.

Some educators – and students - have protested that taking attendance in class is a waste of time, reducing efficiency. However, from personal experience, it can help teachers get to know the students one by one, personalising teaching and learning. In any case, technology can assist disbelievers in checking attendance. For example, ID cards with radio frequency identification can be used – though of course these can be misused if the students are not attending out of conviction.
On another note, the reputation of academic institutions can be tarnished by low student attendance. As long as institutions require attendance data, teachers will gather it. The hope is that classes will be engaging enough for students to attend of their own free will rather than due to fear of punishment.

What a Mess!

Handwriting is dead! Studies comparing people who are used to handwriting with those more accustomed to typing have shown a relative deficiency of fine motor skills in the latter. The younger generation are no longer equipped with the skills to write neatly by hand, and teachers are complaining. How many of us teachers have stared in astonishment at illegible student handwriting over and over again? Experts are recommending replacing hand-written in-class tests with typed ones. The University of Cambridge, for example, is considering allowing laptops and tablets in examination rooms. It has launched consultations around the problem of students’ fading ability to write by hand.

Eight hundred years of tradition may soon end at Cambridge when typed exams replace handwritten ones. Academics there have complained about illegible handwriting influenced by reliance on computers in lectures and outside, and some departments have piloted computer-typed tests. Similarly, Harvard academic Eric Mazur encourages his students to use computers and smartphones in exams. Speaking at the Times Higher Education World Academic Summit, the physics professor admitted that he allows pupils to look up information during tests in order to promote creative, analytical thinking rather than content recall. There is no need to memorize, he believes, with all this technology at our fingertips.

On another note, poor handwriting can affect grades. A study commissioned by stationery firm BIC concluded back in 2014 that the majority of teachers had marked down A-level and GCSE papers with illegible handwriting; it also revealed that more than a third of teachers had seen emoticons in exam answers or coursework.

Should we all downgrade papers with illegible wriing? Or should we follow the new fashion? Let me know what you think.