Friday, 28 December 2018

EDUCATING A PROFESSION - A CPD OCCASION & THE EXAM


It was only after returning to Australia that a colleague gave me a copy of the publication handed out on the day of the seminar. It is headed ‘University of Queensland Australia,’ followed by what looks like the mission statement: ‘Create change.’ Is this the best a university might hope for? Why does it not aim for learning or wisdom? Change can be for better or for worse, and seems to be a poor ambition, even a lazy aspiration for a university that can be so easily achieved almost anyhow; willy-nilly, even with Trumpian spite. Gosh, our old secondary school had a better, more inspirational motto: ‘Knowledge is power,’ that looked like ‘Science is potatoes’ in Latin: Scientia est potestas.



The booklet was titled: ‘One Hundred Years of Architectural Education in Queensland.’ Below this title was a large, graphic purple ‘U’ mass that seemed to be a ‘U of Q’ logo; it was not clear. The little wiggle on the bottom right reminded one of the tail of a ‘Q’, but was it going the wrong way? Poor graphic imagery is always a weak beginning.



The publication scheduled all of the presentations and times, and gave some details on each presenter, a mini CV. This appeared to be somewhat useful; but the real surprise was at the rear of the booklet. The last ten pages were variously titled ‘Continuing Professional Development Session One, Session Two, Session Three, Session Four, and Sessions Five to Seven.’ These were set out like an exam paper that needed to be completed for the CPD points on offer. Might the document have been used for something more relevant?



The first question was:
1. How did architects receive their training prior to the establishment of the diploma course at the Brisbane Central Technical College in 1918? # The unstated proposition was that you may not have been concentrating: 'Have you been listening carefully?' Below this text were seven lines marking the place available for one to write the answer. What if one needed more? A total of sixteen questions with lines below, varying in number from 6 to 16 – why, other than to fill up the space available? - were printed for those attending to complete for CPD recognition. Why is the length of the answer so random an affair? Why is the response relevant?


What on earth was one to do with these answers if one decided to fill out the forms available? What CPD points are being referred to here? The Board of Architects was correct in noting that it was not associated with this event,^ (the name did not appear on the list of those involved), so do these CPD points relate to the points required for BOAQ re-registration or not? What are they? How is one to know?


One can continue with this analysis, but the point has been made - (no pun intended). The greatest insult to some attending is that they know more about some of the events being spoken about than those presenting the material, but no one asked them anything about their experience: yet they are being told to fill out the exam questions if they want the points!


This is the real absurdity with CPD matters that ignore experience: there is an utter disregard for ordinary dignity. One is told to sit for exams when one might know more about the issues than those presenting the occasion for CPD recognition. This is worse than an insult. Those who have been an intimate part of the last 100 years, with detailed knowledge and understanding of affairs of segments of this era within this time scale, are asked to participate and complete the same forms as those who know nothing about anything, all to prove a ‘learning experience’ - that ‘new knowledge’ has been received!


The sheer stupidity of the proposition highlights the insult. The strange matter is that the younger members of the profession are apparently happy to participate in these silly, schoolish games, seeing nothing wrong with the request. As professionals, they should be demanding that they are treated as real professionals, not as children to be supervised by ‘teachers.’ The concern is that if self-appointed ‘teachers’ can be respected, why not the elders?


The alarming matter is that the institution of the University of Queensland is happy to promote this seeming nonsense, as if sitting for exams is the only test academics know. Precisely what ‘change’ is the U of Q seeking to ‘create’? The implication is that one has not paid any attention to the speaker – naughty person! Indeed, one may even have been talking during the presentation - detention? So a test, an exam, has to be set to confirm ‘new knowledge,’ that one has indeed been listening, and has absorbed the information.

The exam


Who marks these responses? ‘What if . . . ?’ is the big question. This apparent madness needs to be attended to. Who tests the academics? What if those who know more and better consider a presentation wanting; or poor? Where is this feedback to be recorded? What happens – do the available CPD points get downgraded or cancelled if the presenter has made a mess of the subject? Without accreditation, everything remains an irrelevant, fluid mess.



Spending time with colleagues chatting about these concerns only highlights the huge gaps in the CPD structure, (see also: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2018/12/on-cpd-points-whats-point.html ), and its presumptive rudeness: there are many stories and experiences that remain untold, unrecorded, but the questions are never asked, and the opportunity is never offered to share these. Why might a personal involvement with Charlie Fulton go ignored; why should the stories of those architects back from WW1 get lost? No, one only has to shut up and sit the exam that takes up nearly one third of the publication specially printed for the occasion. Is the U of Q really serious about this? Kindergarten children are managed with more panache, awareness, and sensitivity. One has to ask: do the exam questions really reflect the core concerns of the presentations? Is this all one has to accumulate as ‘new understanding’ for the event to be relevant for CPD points? Who set these questions? Why are these issues so critical? Might there be something else one might have gleaned from the day that could be more significant? What?


If this is the only system that those involved in CPD matters understand, then the message must be blunt: the system has FAILED - start again. It is suggested that 'narrow-minded' academics - or is it 'self-indulgent': "We are the teachers!"? - should keep away from the review of any new system. Surely architects can be creative about learning without the rude and crude demands of testing and checking? Exam questions are so denigrating, so presumptive; they are an embarrassment to anyone who has worked hard over many years and overcome the challenge of registration and practice as an architect, and gained the respect that this effort is due.


NOTE: The booklet has been scanned and inserted into the text using the same un-numbered page order as the publication.



# P.S.

To give the ‘flavour’ of the exam, its trite banality, the remaining 15 questions are listed below, along with the number of lines provided for the answer, in brackets. The errors in these questions/tasks are alarming, especially for a document produced by a university.

2. Give an account of the range of career paths were (sic) afforded the first cohort of women who completed diplomas at the Brisbane Central Technical College? (sic) (12)
3. What was Charles Fulton’s approach to the integration of practice and teaching over the arc of his career? (13)
4. What ideas was Robert Cummings exposed to during his time at the AA in London, and in Rome? (7)
3. (sic) How did Robert Cummings go about educating the public about architecture? (7)
6. What interests did Karl and Gertrude Langer bring to architectural education in Queensland? (7)
7. Describe activities architects and architectural students undertook over the course of World War Two. (9)
8. Give an overview of the content assembled by John Dalton for the production of pamphlets. (7)
9. What new fields of research and technical innovation were explored in the School of Architecture at the University of Queensland in the early 1970s? (12)
10. How did Edwin Codd restructure the teaching program at QUT? (13)
11. Describe the contents and findings contained in the student report produced by Peter Bycroft and Paul Memmott in 1971? (sic) (16)
12. Describe the differences in approach to architectural education outlined by the heads of the six schools who presented. (6)
13. What are the distinct features of the new architecture course offering by the University of Western Sydney? (7)
14. What approach to studio did Alexandra Brown and APS Steen take in their collaboration? (13)
15. What are the issues that were raised by students that (sic) they face during their education? What is SONA’s role and how does it represent students? (13)
16. What is the role of EmAGN in transitioning for (sic) study into practice? (14)
Q.E.D.

^ P.P.S.

Well, it happened. The sheer embarrassment of sending off an E-mail to the wrong recipient, especially one that has been criticised in the text: it is just so-o-o-o easy! My colleague and I had been communicating on the matter of the U of Q seminar, including the points on offer. It was in one of these E-mails that raised a particular issue that caused us to realise that one communication had not been delivered.
Shortly after this, an E-mail from the Board of Architects of Queensland arrived in my colleague's mail. It advised my colleague that the E-mail had been sent to the Board, obviously in error. Oddly, for a body that polices ethics and proper behaviour of a profession, the staff member of the Board joined in the conversation, advising that the Board had nothing to do with the seminar, that the points related to the Institute points.*
Well, it seems to me that the appropriate action might have been to advise of the error and to delete the E-mail, but no: the Board had to comment. By commenting, it did nothing to clarify things, just to add confusion to the matter of points that already seems to be in an unstructured, unmanaged mess.
So there are at least two point systems. Are they interchangeable? What are the points that I have been accruing: Board or Institute? Does it matter? Well, it might.
This all highlights the need for a much better managed system, one with real meaning and beneficial outcomes: a system with simple clarity and substance – something to be sought after, wanted, rather than something to scrape together as effortlessly as possible to accrue the numbers.
Allowing willy-nilly systems of points to waffle around without any guidelines for assessment of quantity or quality, merely maintains the shambles of which my colleague and myself were talking.
Things have to change.

The Board needs precise and meaningful policies, not only in relation to the CPD points system, but also on the matter of wrongly received E-mails.

NOTE
26 FEBRUARY 2019
In a recent E-mail, the Board of Architects Queensland clarified the position with points, noting that it has a joint policy developed with the Accreditation Council of Australia and the Australian Institute of Architects. The advice that the BOAQ had nothing to do with the seminar seems to rely not only on there being no promotional relationship with the event, but also on the fact that it does not accredit CPD providers. It does have a relationship to the event through the 'point' agreement.


Continuing Professional Development
The Architects Act 2002 (Section 16) requires the Board to be satisfied that an architect has maintained an appropriate level of knowledge, skill and competence in order to renew a person’s registration. The Board’s preferred method of demonstrating this requirement is participation in a continuing professional development (CPD) program.

The Board has developed a CPD policy based on a joint policy developed by the Architects Accreditation Council of Australia and the Australian Institute of Architects. In this way, architects that are registered in more than one state or territory need only keep one set of CPD records. N.B. For administrative ease, the Board requires architects to report on their CPD activities at the time of annual renewal of registration: the CPD year therefore is from 1 April to 31 March.  

CPD Provider Ideas
Practising architects must take all reasonable steps to maintain competency in the practice of architecture (Section 16 of the Architects Act 2002). As a way of demonstrating this, the Board requires architects to undertake a minimum of 20 hours of CPD activities each year, and to report annually on CPD undertaken as part registration renewal CPD reporting year is from 1 April to 31 March. Following is reference information for various CPD offerings available to Queensland architects, provided for guidance only.
Please note:
The Board does not accredit CPD providers.
This information is provided as guidance only, and should not be taken as Board recommendations. Architects are encouraged to plan their individual CPD program each year to include learning and development activities suited to their particular needs.  

SEE: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/02/whats-point-on-re-registration.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.