Administrative Indifference and its Consequences at the Universita Per Stranieri at Perugia
Reynold Harrs, Canada
Reynold Harrs has taught school and university and worked as a technical writer before retirement. He now lives in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He has been studying Italian for the past 10 years strictly as a hobby. He holds a bachelor's in science from Trinity College, Dublin and a Ph.D. in English literature from Columbia University, New York. This article is excerpted from his blog, which can be read at the following link: www.studying-italian-abroad.blogspot.com. E-mail: reynoldh@telus.net
Menu
Introduction
University of Perugia One-Month Courses
Administrative Indifference: Lack of Orientation and Superficial Testing
Failure to Oversee Classes
Schedule Changed from Good to Bad
Invisible President
Changed Schedule Disrupted Logic of Course
Irresponsible Instructors
Machines Not Functioning
Individual Classes
1. Language Class
2. Grammar Class
3. Pronunciation Class
4. Conversation Class
Summary
In September of 2006 I enrolled in an intensive course of Italian at the Universita per Stranieri [Foreigners] at Perugia. The reason I chose this school was that it had a reputation as being the centre for teaching Italian language and culture. As its catalogue states, "this university ... represents today one of the most important centres of Italian language study and culture for foreign students.... Perugia is the oldest and most prestigious Italian institution involved in teaching and research activities as well as in the diffusion of the Italian language and civilisation in all expressions." The university, I was told, is responsible for marking the Italian language and culture examination that everyone in Italy has to take. However, no matter how famous the university might be at creating language courses, and no matter how experienced the instructors might be in teaching, a course fails miserably if the Administration fails to ensure the smooth and conscientious running of the class. Although the conception of the course I took was excellent, its deliverance was severely marred by a failure of the Administration to oversee the teaching of the course.
The University of Perugia for Foreigners organises one-month courses in Italian language and culture. These courses are divided into two groups: Basic and Intensive. Each group has 5 levels (elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, advanced, superior). The intensive courses are offered from July through September. "They include additional class hours per week and limited enrolment to ensure a small number of students [my emphasis] in each class". Originally 17 students, my class dropped to 15 after the first week. Certainly, 15 is too large a number for effective in-class conversation, but that was the least of my worries.
The second level intensive course in which I enrolled was divided into the following classes: Italian language; exercises in grammar; conversation; and exercises in phonetics for a total of 27 contact hours per week. The instructor originally scheduled to teach the exercises in grammar was to be the same instructor who taught the language section. If everything went according to plan, we would be steeped in the language -- both usage and pronunciation-- and we would be drilled in conversation. Even the structure of our timetable showed excellent forethought: 3 hours of language would be followed by 2 hours of grammar. Phonetics came midweek, and conversation at the end of the week, when, presumably, we could practise what we had learnt.
The core of the course was the language and grammar classes, and they were synchronised so that the grammatical points introduced in the language class would be followed by exercises in the grammar class. I assume that this was the reason for having the grammar follow right after the language and the same instructor for both language and grammar lessons.
Certainly, the conception of the course is excellent, and the university being a larger, government institution, offers the use of facilities not likely to be found in a small commercial school. Nevertheless, however well conceived a course may be, it must be judged by the way that it is realised, that is, by the way it is delivered.
If the University of Perugia for Foreigners left an indelible impression on me it is that of indifference on the part of the Administration. An early example of such indifference can be found in the absence of an orientation programme. What makes the administrators think that foreigners attending a foreign institution in a strange city would not require some kind of orientation? Classes were not localised to a single central building but held in several buildings separated by a good 10 minutes walk and located on different levels of the Perugian plateau. We were left to discover for ourselves the city and the university and to find our own way to the various buildings.
Lack of an orientation programme may be trivial in the grand scheme of things, but how do we explain the poor quality of the testing given by the university? Every student had to take a placement test so that the university could evaluate our knowledge of Italian. The "test" consisted of multiple-choice answers to questions on certain passages. Multiple choice is hardly appropriate for a course in language. Since the course stressed language, grammar, comprehension, and speaking, the test should check for all these areas instead of just comprehension. I also believe that those who grow up with multiple choice tests have an adeptness that others lack.
As a result of this superficial testing, our class of 15 was divided into those who could speak but knew none to little grammar, and those who knew their grammar but were weak on comprehension and speaking. Half the class was bored when grammar was taught while the other half dominated when asked to read or speak. If the university had been conscientious about placing us in our correct levels, the test would have included grammar, comprehension, and an oral test. Anyone who has taught English as a Second Language knows that an experienced teacher can readily identify a student's weaknesses from reading a brief paragraph and by holding an even briefer interview.
The excuse that the large number of entering students -- there were multiple classes -- precludes more thorough testing is a lame excuse. First, as I have pointed out, it does not require that much time to test a student for all three areas. Besides, what is more important - placing the student in the correct level or the markers' convenience? Many of us registered for the course months before the classes started. For example, I registered in May. Early registration gave the university ample time to schedule the tests at set times for registered students with a catchall for late comers. This approach would have given the testers time for a more thorough testing to ensure that students were placed correctly. Instead, those responsible opted for a conveniently superficial method of testing that was inherently inaccurate. The conclusion is that those who ran the test were too lazy to administer a test that could have given them a more accurate picture of the student's ability. Or else no one cared, just as no one cared that there was no orientation programme.
Indifference to the students' interest resulted in the Administration's failure to oversee the classes. For example, in another class, the instructor had taken ill and had not appeared for several days, but no one from Administration seemed to know or cared. The class had to send a delegation to apprise the secretary that their instructor had not been turning up. I know about their predicament because our delegation met theirs in the secretary's office when we went to complain about not having an instructor appear for two days!
Our problem started with a change in our schedule. Our 27 contact hours were spread out so that we had mainly morning classes with one long day on Thursday ending at 7 p.m. Tuesday we had mornings free and classes in the afternoon ending at 7 p.m. I do believe that this schedule reflected a planning decision to ensure that we had some free time. We could participate in activities or even explore neighbouring towns. More importantly, we could attend the film that the university sponsored each Friday, thus allowing us to develop our comprehension skills.
But then our language instructor announced that the given schedule did not agree with her and that she had so advised the university in August. She fully expected our schedule to change. So our schedule was changed to suit her, and we ended up with one that gave us afternoon classes every afternoon with classes ending at 7 p.m. from Tuesday to Friday. Unlike our original schedule, the new one was not conducive to learning. For example, we now had four consecutive late evenings, and some days we had classes in the late morning followed by a short break, and then back until 7 p.m. On Thursdays, we started at 8 a.m. and finished at 7 p.m. with a 1-hour lunch and a 2-hour break in the afternoon. Although in our original schedule Thursdays was also a long day of classes, it was mitigated by having the other 4 days with either the morning or afternoon off.
The problem with the new schedule was that everything was dragged out over the whole day for too many days. By Thursday most of us were too tired to attend class with any enthusiasm. Gone was any chance of participating in any kind of activity, whether film or excursion. Frankly, if the schedule did not suit her, the Administration could easily have found another instructor. The university had an obligation not only to see that we were taught but that we were not made servants to the scheduling whims of the instructor. The only reason she succeeded in having the hours changed was that there was no one in control. Try telling the chairman of the English department at a North American university that you, a sessional appointee, can't teach the given schedule. I'm sure the response would be that there are others who could.
Not only did the instructor have our schedule changed, but she also could not teach all the hours and so had asked for another instructor to take over the teaching of grammar. She claimed that she had given the Administration ample warning and had been told that all was in control. No instructor appeared for two days, and so we lost 6 hours of class time. Finally, in frustration a group of us went to speak to the Secretary. She told us that organising the instructors was not her provenance and that we should speak to the Secretary of Teaching. This lady in turn told us that she was just a secretary and that she could do nothing! So we marched into the President's Office. We explained our predicament to the secretary who met us. She spoke to another secretary deeper in the office. She in turn spoke to us and then walked into the inner sanctum to speak to the President. He -- or she for all I know -- NEVER came out to speak to us. To this day I don't know who it is. I think it is a Professor Roberto Fedi but it may have been Frankenstein. The secretary came out and said that we would have an instructor for the next class, our 6 hours would be made up, and our schedule would be changed. We did get a new instructor, who arrived half an hour late; we NEVER got the 6 hours made up; and we certainly did NOT get our schedule changed. And NEVER did the President or a deputy come to our classes to check if our concerns were met.
When our language instructor had the schedule changed to suit her, she broke the order of the lessons, and having another instructor replace her for the grammar classes exacerbated this breakage. The result was that there was no cohesion between the language and the grammar taught. Besides, the new instructor started after we had missed 6 hours, resulting in a gap between the grammar taught and the language class. I also doubt if there had been any communication between the two instructors as to what should be taught during the grammar lessons. At one point I even had to advise the grammar instructor that we had covered a certain topic in our language class, and so the following class she brought in exercises to cover that subject.
6 hours was not the only amount of classroom time we lost. Unfortunately, some instructors were a little too cavalier with our time. They would often arrive a half-hour late, and the excuse of heavy traffic paled through repetition. As someone said to me, they should know the pattern of traffic, and, besides, what is to stop them leaving earlier from home?
On separate occasions two instructors announced to us that they could not teach us the following day at the given class hour because they had other commitments, and we would have to change our schedule. Their absence was definitely not due to any major domestic crisis like a death or we would have heard about it. One made up the hours on the very last day when half the class was missing. The other did not. My understanding is that instructors are contracted to teach certain classes at specific hours. They represent the institution and have to fulfil its contract with us, the students. We had travelled a long distance at a large expense, and since we were there for a brief period, time was of the essence. We too had a life outside the classroom, and we certainly didn't want to be treated so cavalierly. If the Administration had been conscientious in its duty it would have overseen the instructors and made it clear to them that changing the schedule even temporarily was unacceptable.
The phonetics class consisted of listening to songs, trying to understand the words, and then singing them back to the instructor. Other times we had to repeat the words, and then listen to our pronunciation. The instructor and her assistant explained words we didn't know and also gave us synonyms. The class took place in an audio lab, and was certainly enjoyable and helpful. The only hitch was that often not all the machines were functioning.
If the President or his deputy had made even a modicum of effort he would have discovered that half the recording machines - sometimes even more than half - were not functioning. Each time we went to the audio-visual room, it became a game of musical chairs to find a recording machine that worked. And this happened for the whole month. Where were the Service Technicians and why were the machines allowed to decay to this point that it became a distraction to the class? To me, the state of disrepair of the machines was symptomatic of the indifference that characterised the attitude of the Administration to the students studying at the University for Foreigners at Perugia in September. This institution's boast that it has "a long and illustrious reputation" rings hollow in my ears.
The second level intensive course I attended had four teachers: one for each type of class: language; grammar; pronunciation; and conversation. The following is an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the different instructors and the classes they held.
In this class our instructor kept telling us not to worry about the grammar but to think of using the language. It was not grammar for grammar's sake but how the rule was used in the living language. I only wished she had stated this clearly in the beginning, or perhaps she did and I didn't hear her or understand her. Anyway, I finally did grasp this point. We read and did exercises orally, and she would explain meanings and usage of words.
The instructor was vibrant and entertained us, especially with her graphical illustrations, and was responsive to questions. But there were elements that disturbed me. On the rare occasions she gave us homework or a test, they were never corrected the next or following days. There was also no essay or paragraph writing in the class.
Reading is important since it allows the instructor to hear the errors in our pronunciation. Instead of having each one read in turn, so that each of us received an equal opportunity to discover our errors, the instructor would ask, "who wants to read?" Naturally, those who felt more comfortable with their spoken Italian, or were more brazen, volunteered. More often than not it was the same group she would ask to read, while the others received short shrift. I discovered that if I were ever to read I would have to volunteer, which I did, but I don't think the classroom should be reduced to a Darwinian struggle for reading opportunities.
For a long time I thought it was my shortcoming that I couldn't always follow where the instructor was heading. She would move from one topic to another without announcing the shift. I was enlightened when I discussed my problem with another student and realised I was not the only one who had trouble following her. Doubtless a minor fault, but nevertheless annoying, which a lesson in practical pedagogy might well correct. Perhaps an end-of-class student response sheet if not inspection by a senior colleague might improve the teaching skills, but that would be asking too much from an Administration that has a do-nothing attitude.
What was not so minor was this instructor's tardiness and lack of respect for the schedule. As I explained above, she rescheduled our classes and so disrupted the cohesion between language and grammar lessons. Further, by arbitrarily shifting our class hours at the last minute on one occasion, she was not giving the finger to the Administration but to us, because it showed that she really did not care for our welfare. Not all instructors were like her, but she was the instructor for the main body of lessons, so her failings had major repercussions for us. An on-the-ball Administration might have remedied the problem.
The grammar instructor started behind the eight ball because we had already lost 6 hours of class, which should have been recovered. Whether it was her fault or the Administration's I don't know, but we were not in a receptive mood. She didn't help matters by arriving a half-hour late on the first day and then, in the middle of the lesson, receive a call on her cell phone. Everything stopped while she had her conversation. Not a good start! But in fairness to her, on all other occasions she was on time and she never held another conversation during the lesson. She was also systematic so that everyone had to participate orally in the exercises. This may sound pedantic, but it allowed all of us to read aloud and demonstrate that we could do the drill. Furthermore, she gave us homework and she would review the work in class the next day. My regret is that she did not also take the language class. We may not have had as entertaining a lesson, but it would have been educative, as was her grammar lessons. The only drawback was that she was out of synch with the language section. Unfortunately, she too, chose to change our class time on one occasion. Nevertheless, I would still choose her any day for her systematic approach.
The faulty machinery aside, this was probably our most enjoyable class because of its nature and the instructor. Listening to songs and singing can hardly be called a laborious exercise, but she didn't just make it fun, for she also taught us usage. Even though I struggled to understand the lyrics, I found it useful, and her sunny nature made it a pleasant experience.
Although no fault can be found with the pronunciation instructor, I do believe that Catia Mugnani who ran the Conversation class was probably the most responsible of our instructors. She was punctual and she ran a tight ship. Given the size of the class, she had no other option. It would have been interesting to see what she could have done if the class had been smaller in size. Perhaps then we might have had "debates" in which everyone has an opportunity to participate. Given the large size, she was limited to dividing the class into groups and running quizzes, recipes, and explanations on how to go from point A to point B. The problem is that only one member in a group would give the oral presentation, although all were involved in the resolution. In other words, we "spoke" but often sotto voce as we tried to resolve the given problem.
The university scored high for its audio exercises, but its conversation class, or even the conversation held in the language class, was hampered by the size of the class and the disparate levels of the individual students as the result of superficial testing. Besides, no matter how well conceived, the University failed miserably in delivering to us a well organised language and grammar section.
All the instructors were good to excellent, and my quarrel is not with their knowledge of the subject. I think the language instructor could have been more systematic in her approach - more disciplined even at the sacrifice of entertainment, but she was still an interesting teacher. My complaint is the lack of respect to the students she demonstrated by arriving late on too many occasions or with the insouciance with which some showed by changing the time of our lessons. The worst case was the resulting rescheduling of our classes, leading to a disruption and loss of coherence between the language and the grammar classes. Some might counter that ours was an unfortunate example and should not be taken as representative of the one-month courses taught at the University of Perugia for Foreigners. This might be acceptable as an excuse if ours was the only class where an instructor did not turn up, but it wasn't. More importantly, even if my experience was an exception, it is one exception too many. I shouldn't have to attend in trepidation of a crapshoot in which I may or may not have conscientious instructors who keep the schedule they are contracted to teach. There should have been control over the running of the course, which is the responsibility of the Administration. Instead, it appears that the university is sitting on its reputation quite content to rake in the euros from those of us who sign up for their one-month course. In short, we were just so many bodies bringing in extra euros.
Please check the Leadership course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Skills of Teacher Training course at Pilgrims website.
|
