Interne: Est-ce que la liberté académique permet de ne pas noter les étudiants?

Dans son édition du 5 août dernier, le Chronicle of Higher Education titre « A Self-Proclaimed Dissident Riles Up Canadian Academe ». J’y ai découvert avec stupéfaction le cas de Denis Rancourt, professeur titulaire de physique renvoyé par l’Université d’Ottawa (UO) en 2009, dont j’entendais parler pour la première fois. Des audiences se sont terminées en juin de cet été alors qu’il conteste son renvoi.

Il n’est pas question ici de commenter ce cas précis (dont la décision devrait être rendue dans plusieurs mois), mais de rappeler qu’il pose des questions intéressantes sur l’évaluation des apprentissages et les méthodes pédagogiques que choisit d’utiliser un professeur. Bien qu’il soit possible que d’autres motifs aient amené la direction de l’UO à renvoyer M. Rancourt, officiellement celui-ci a été remercié pour avoir attribué la note de A+ aux 47 étudiants de l’un de ses cours.

L’UO accuse Rancourt d’avoir évalué frauduleusement ses étudiants sans objectivité parce que les chances qu’ils aient tous mérité un A+ sont infimes. Rancourt considère que sa méthode pédagogique et sa façon d’évaluer font partie de sa liberté académique. Cette définition large de la liberté académique avait fait réagir le professeur de droit américain Stanley Fish dans les pages du New York Times en 2009. Pour lui, la liberté académique n’est pas absolue et doit s’exercer à l’intérieur des balises fixées par l’employeur:

« So these are the two conceptions of academic freedom that are in play: academic freedom as the freedom to do the academic job (understood by reference to university norms and requirements); and academic freedom as the freedom to chart your own way, to go boldly where no man or woman has gone before, constrained only by your inner sense of what is right and true. » (Fish, 15 février 2009)

L’article du Chronicle mentionne toutefois que la notion de liberté académique est probablement mieux protégée au Canada qu’aux États-Unis:

« Not surprisingly, observers are loath to predict the outcome of such a high-profile and complicated case, though some say access to arbitration, typical in dismissal cases, indicates Canada’s strong protections for professors to speak their minds in and outside of the classroom.

“Academic freedom in a cross-Canada sense is better protected than it is in the United States,” says Jon Thompson, a professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of New Brunswick and an expert on academic freedom and due process.

With labor rules that are consistently strong across the provinces, “there’s much better opportunity for professors who come under attack internally or externally on academic freedom to succeed,” he says. » (Brichard & Lewington, 2013)

L’Association canadienne des professeurs et professeures d’universités a ouvert une enquête sur ce cas. Le sociologue Jeffrey Halpern, spécialiste américain des questions de libertés académiques, siège sur ce comité.

Un article de Karen Pinchin dans la Maclean’s OnCampus de 2009 mentionnait que Rancourt avait demandé en 2008 de pouvoir assigner la note de Pass or Fail à ses étudiants, ce qui lui aurait été refusé. Pour Rancourt, un anarchiste avoué, « grades are only a means of exercising power in the classroom. “It’s not about optimizing education,” he says, “it’s about obedience.” »

« Rancourt explained that he was using a non-traditional “student-centred” teaching and evaluation method that considered progress individual students had made during the course, not their ability to regurgitate expected answers.

“The only relevant question is, did the students learn as much as possible in order to move forward in the curriculum?” Rancourt said. ““And did the professor do his best to maximize that learning? That was my main preoccupation.” » (Butler, 11 juin 2013)

« Mr. Rancourt has described his approach as “student centered” and says he relied on continuing evaluations, not tests, to measure comprehension of physics concepts. “Socrates did not give grades,” he told The Chronicle at the time of his suspension. “My job is to educate. Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that what we’ve been doing with the grading system doesn’t work. We are creating obedient employees, but not people who think.” » (Brichard & Lewington, 2013)

Un autre article de Butler précise les arguments de l’avocat qui défend Rancourt lors de ces audiences:

« [Sean] McGee [avocat de l’Association des professeurs de l’UO] said Rancourt’s “pedagogical method” — which focuses on students’ contribution to the class and their progress during the course — marks different things than exam-centric methods of instruction and evaluation. “He was grading them by different criteria.”

The fact that they received higher marks than students in other classes doesn’t mean they weren’t objectively evaluated, he said. During the hearing, he asserted, “there was no evidence that there was a single incorrect evaluation.”
[…]
McGee acknowledged that Rancourt’s method of evaluation is “not commonplace. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad or against the university’s interests.” He said the university’s response to Rancourt’s method illustrated its deep resistance to change. “That’s what this is about.”

Raising a theme he emphasized throughout his closing argument, McGee said a professor’s choice of pedagogical and evaluation methods is “core to academic freedom.” » (Butler, 26 juin 2013)

L’article de Pinchin (2009) évoque le fait que cette tendance à ne plus noter les étudiants seraient plus courante qu’on ne pourrait le croire:

« In fact, the practice of not marking students is becoming increasingly popular, says Carl Leggo, an education professor at the University of British Columbia. In recent years there has been some “compelling research” proving that students are more creative and more productive when grades are removed. Leggo says courses for UBC’s bachelor of education degree, in addition to many other courses at the university, are pass-fail for the simple reason that students learn better. “Evaluation keeps people feeling quite conservative, and they want to do things in formulaic, traditional ways,” he says. “When the competition for grades and the tension around grades is removed, students actually start studying, researching and writing in more creative ways.” (According to a 2006 study of medical students at the Mayo Medical School, pass-fail systems reduce stress levels and increase group cohesion when compared with students who were given grades on a five-point scale.)

Not only are undergraduate pass-fail courses becoming more common in the face of extensive educational research, but the Stanford, Yale and Berkeley law schools have all recently moved to pass-fail grading systems. Alverno College, a Catholic women’s school in Milwaukee, Wis., hasn’t used grades since 1973. Kathleen O’Brien, the school’s senior vice-president for academic affairs, says the system has been infinitely better for students’ education, self-esteem and long-term prospects. The school will produce grades for graduate school or scholarship applications, but they are then promptly destroyed. »

McGee aurait précisé qu’il n’y aurait pas eu de règlement à l’UO interdisant spécifiquement le type d’évaluation pratiqué par Rancourt. Cependant, des spécialistes canadiens estiment que ce sont les Conseils universitaires (senates) qui décident généralement des pratiques d’évaluation:

« …”University charters in Canada assign responsibility for academic-policy issues to the university senate, and while there are clearly variations by institution, academic policies related to grades are clearly the responsibility of the senate,” says Glen Jones, a professor of higher education at the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, in an e-mail. » (Brichard & Lewington, 2013)

Les opposants à cette vision considère que l’évaluation est sans doute un système imparfait, mais que c’est le meilleur et le plus efficace pour discriminer entre les étudiants qui ont acquis les connaissances et ceux qui les ont moins bien – ou pas du tout – acquises.

Sources:

Birchard, Karen et Jennifer Lewington, « A Self-Proclaimed Dissident Riles Up Canadian Academe », The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 août 2013.

Butler, Don, « Lawyer defends A+ marks handed out by Denis Rancourt as lengthy hearing ends », Ottawa Citizen, 26 juin 2013.

Butler, Don, « University of Ottawa accuses ex-professor Denis Rancourt of inciting violence », Ottawa Citizen, 11 juin 2013.

Fish, Stanley, « Are Academics Different? », New York Times Opinionator, 15 février 2009.

Fish, Stanley, « The Two Languages of Academic Freedom », New York Times Opinionator, 8 février 2009.

Pinchin, Karen, « In this class, everyone gets A+ », Maclean’s OnCampus, 13 mars 2009.

Pinchin, Karen, « School to A+ professor: you’re fired », Maclean’s OnCampus, 6 avril 2009.

Site Web de CAUT/ACPPU, Independent Committee of Inquiry to examine the situation of Dr. Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa [page consultée le 8 août 2013]