On
Conversion of Courses to Online Format and Academic Freedom
Philip A. Pecorino
QCC, CUNY
Spring 2006
There are
some within CUNY that think that when a class is to be converted and
offered in an online mode of instruction that there should be an
approval process for that with the authority resting in some
college-wide body such as a committee established for doing this. Such
a process involving faculty needing approval for a decision about an
instructional modality or methodology and the authority issuing
such approval existing in a body outside of the discipline and
department of the faculty member would be a violation of Academic Freedom and of the
prerogatives of individual faculty and of faculty collectives in
disciplines and departments. If the decision to establish a
college-wide body with authority over faculty decisions as to how they
will teach were made by the governing body it would be a diminution of
faculty prerogatives. It would be appropriate for faculty
themselves to decide to establish a college wide body for training and
certifying competency in methodologies and modalities of instruction but
the final decision as to who teaches, what they teach and how they teach
must and should rest with the academic department and the peers and
colleagues of the faculty members of the discipline being taught.
In this
matter the focus of concern is with classes that are using new
methodologies, modalities of instruction and machinery and devices.
Some refer to the teaching of a class using computers and the internet
as a "conversion" and so that term will be employed in this
statement although it is unfortunate because when an instructor decides
to use group work and discussion in class rather than straight lecture
format that is not termed as a "conversion" nor thought to be so
problematic as the current cases arousing attention that employ
computers in various ways in the instructional design for the class.
A
converted class is not a new class. New classes should and must go
through the departmental and college-wide curriculum committees that
have the authority to examine and formally approve all such new courses
followed by college governance approval. However, it is another matter
for classes that are already being taught using what have become termed
as "traditional" modalities
of instruction that are now being converted to add another newer "online"
mode of instruction. College-wide curriculum committees do not and should not
review the decision of a department to change or add modalities of
instruction for their courses. If a department offers lecture classes
and then decides that it will offer classes in a lecture/ group work
modality why should a college wide committee need to review that
change or "conversion"? If a department offers lecture classes and then decides that
it will offer classes using a problem solving approach and group work
in addition to straight lecture that too should not be reviewed by those
outside of the discipline and department. Decisions concerning the
modalities of instruction should be left to professional educators who
know best what modalities of instruction work best in their discipline
with their students.
College-wide curriculum committees across CUNY do not currently have the
authority to examine and formally approve all variations
classroom instruction and to have each mode of instruction approved
through college governance. The argument here is that affirms
that the current state of affairs is not accidental and is correct in so
far as the locus of authority in reviewing and approving of
instructional methodologies and instructional designs. It is
a matter for each college to determine if it serves the interest of that
college to set a policy whereby college-wide curriculum committees have
the authority to examine and formally approve numerous versions of
courses such as would be using computers and the internet or group work
, problems solving, case study approach, etc... followed by college governance approval.
To establish such a college wide body to issue such approvals or
authorizations (as opposed to training and certification) would be a
very dangerous practice as it violates Academic Freedom to have
college-wide curriculum committees have the authority to examine and
formally approve all versions of classroom-based courses,
followed by college governance approval. Why so? Because it constitutes
outside interference with what are the prerogatives of individual
faculty and their peers within each discipline/department.
The
notion of Academic Freedom involves protecting faculty from interference
from those outside of their area/discipline/department concerning their
freedom of inquiry and research, freedom to teach and freedom with
extramural utterances. The concept and right to Academic Freedom has
been recognized several times over by the Supreme Court that has held
that Academic Freedom is to be respected for academic institutions and
faculty to determine:
-
Who
will teach- appointment , promotion and tenure
-
What
will be taught- curricula development and construction
-
How it
will be taught- pedagogy- instructional design-modality of instruction
-
To whom
it will be taught- who will be admitted to study – admissions policies
and programs
Faculty
do not have unlimited license to do as they please but time and again
the appropriate body to place limitations and set parameters and to
observe them and enforce them has been established as the faculty
themselves. More precisely and based on court decisions, the faculty of
a department can set out the content of a class and determine what is
and is not effective pedagogical practice. College wide committees do
not observe and assess individual faculty and their choices of
instructional modality. Departments do that.
So the
present issue with the classes converted to become online classes is a
matter of Academic Freedom as it deals directly with the decision of how
to teach a class, i.e., the instructional modality. The decision should
be up to the faculty member subject to review only by peers within the
discipline/department. The selection of an instructional modality is
strictly a faculty prerogative. The appropriate body to determine who
is fit to teach and what to teach and how to teach it would be the
faculty in that discipline. The selection of an instructional modality
and the fitness to teach using it and its appropriateness and
effectiveness are the prerogatives of the department/discipline.
On this
matter it is both appropriate and necessary for a faculty to insure that
there is effective instruction being offered and that faculty are
observed and evaluated toward that end. This is a duty of a
department. The faculty of a college may set policy for its members
offering online instruction or any modality of instruction or pedagogic
technique having to do with preparedness for it and a college wide
committee of people experienced and skilled in the modality of
instruction could be established to certify training of instructors in
the modality and even for certifying that a class converted to use the
modality is likely to offer effective instruction. However, that any
committee outside of a department should have authority over the
department's judgment as to what to teach, who teaches it and how it is
taught would be a diminution of those rights faculty have under Academic
Freedom.
Instructors are appointed to classes by a department. Instructors select
their modality of instruction guided by whatever protocols and policies
may exist within their department that have been formulated by their
peers and colleagues- all professional educators- making their decision
based on experiences with the programs, classes, and students of that
college. The instructor's performance and efficacy of instruction are
proper matters of concern and there is a process in place for faculty
observations and evaluations by peers. The departmental faculty are the
final arbiters. If they think in their best judgment that a subject is
best taught a certain way or that it can not be taught effectively in
certain manners then they can set those judgments out in policies and
practices in the department not to be overridden by the action of
individual instructors within the department, faculty outside of the
department and certainly not by administrators outside of the
department.
Scenario
1
Say a department and not
merely the chairperson decides
that it would promote offering PHI 102 in an online modality. PHI 102 is
"on the books" since 1985. The Department call for instructors to step
up and do what would be required to convert the class section that they
would be assigned. Professor X accepts the call and steps up. Professor
X must be recognized in some way by the department as being capable of
using the modality. This "certification" can be accomplished in a number
of ways but it is presented to the department that will be assigning the
class and that is responsible for the quality of instruction in its
offerings.
Scenario
2
Professor Y joins the
department or has been there a while and says to the department that the
next section of PHI 102 assigned to Professor Y will be taught using a
different instructional modality. It could be problem solving in groups,
case study method, collaborative learning techniques, online
instruction- whatever. The Department is responsible to insure Professor
Y is being faithful to the course content of PHI 102 and effective in
the mode of instruction- whatever it is. Now the department observes
professor Y and may, in so doing, call in those more experienced with
the "new" instructional modality employed by Professor Y and then the
department determines whether or not the new modality is effective. If
it is so found to be effective, then Professor Y and whoever else wants
to teach PHI 102 using the modality Professor Y has shown to be
effective may do so.
Scenario
3
Professor Z decides to teach
a section of PHI 102 using the online mode of instruction. Professor Z
has no prior experience with the modality but wants to "give it a try".
The department might upon learning of Professor Z's intention decide as
a collective that Professor Z and anyone else wanting to attempt such a
thing should first satisfy some set of criteria for competency in the
new modality such as training and some demonstration of the course
revisions that will make it suitable for the new modality.
Scenario 4
An administrator pressures or encourages faculty to develop online
classes or to convert existing class to the online format. Faculty
member V in Department D wishes to do so or consents to doing so.
It would be the decision of the department whether or not to assign
Professor V a class that is to be taught online. If in its
judgment a subject matter taught by Department D is best
taught face to face or that it ought not to be taught online then that
judgment should prevail. This is based on the precedents
established by cases in which a faculty member was not permitted to do
something that did not meet with the approval of the department and the
decisions it had made about the content and scope of classes offered by
that department.
In
determining how to certify or insure competency of a faculty member to
teach a class using some particular methodology or modality the department might decide that
it has not the resources to do this on its own and the matter is better
handled on a college wide basis with a college committee of faculty with
knowledge and experience setting the criteria for competency and issuing
some form of a certification of competency.
The final
decision as to the assigning of the class sections is still with the
department and the department still maintains its responsibility to
insure the efficacy of instruction in whatever modalities are used by
the faculty of that department.
This
position is not one that involves new courses in any modality of
instruction. This matter focuses only on the conversion of a class or
rather the use of an instructional modality that some may feel
uncomfortable with and may not like. The college wide committee places
constraints on content not modalities.
Some
college wide body composed of faculty might be involved as a matter of
policy and procedure in certifying faculty to use the modality. That is
a decision to be made by each college. It is not now to be a
presumption of
the authority of some college wide curriculum committee.
Whether
or not any instructor uses computers with students involves the same
fundamental issues as in whether or not they choose to use overhead
projectors or handouts versus website materials.
A college
may decide that instructional modalities are to be covered by its
curriculum committee or some committee on distance education but that is
its decision and if it takes the decision making authority from the
instructor and the department that would be the choice of the college
governance body which ought to include an effective faculty presence.
If it did so it would be a big mistake opening a path for intrusions
that are threatening.
For some
it may be a matter of whether or not you can accept that instructors
have academic freedom in their choice of instructional modalities or
not. It is fundamental to academic freedom that they do, subject only
to a review by their peers in their department/discipline (references to
decisions available on request).
The
Supreme Court has explicitly included "How to teach it" as one of the
four basic elements in its decisions over academic freedom (references
to decisions available on request).
If an
instructor wants to use computers in a class or case studies or group
projects, the instructor gets training in how to do so, the instructor
shows it is effective to the department colleagues, presents evidence
that colleagues in the discipline across the country and the world do
likewise, then who is to tell that instructor not to use what has been
chosen as the methodology or modality? Why would anyone presume that
the authority over an instructor’s choices of pedagogy rests
automatically with a college wide group composed of people who are not
in the department or discipline and who may know nothing about what the
instructor plans to do.
Academic
freedom is most tested when people simply do not like what an
academician is teaching or how it is being taught.
People
outside of the discipline telling those within it what to teach or how
to teach it or what not to teach and how it may not be taught should not
be tolerated.
Instructors should be willing to submit what they do to their colleagues
in their discipline and to professional educators who know about
instructional modalities that they may be using. As professional
educators they should want to insure the efficacy of their instruction
and should learn form those experienced in pedagogy about what works and
what does not work.
Many
educators are opposed to the Academic Bill of Rights. The concern is
over unneeded and troublesome interference of those outside of a
department and a discipline and the classroom interfering with what goes
on in the classroom. Intrusions into the classroom over this matter of
how to teach may open the path for other such intrusions.
Suppose
the folks who want Biology classes to "Teach the Controversy" concerning evolution and
creationism or Intelligent Design see the path that would be opened by the misguided
actions that give those outside a department or discipline the authority
to determine how matters are to be taught. The advocates of “Teach the
Controversy” need only change strategy and say that "Now that the
instructional modalities can be determined by those outside of the
discipline let us have a "teach the controversy method of instruction
used in Biology classes and then next in Physics and in Ethics."
Having
college wide bodies given authority over instructional modalities opens
up that path into our classrooms for outsiders. Academic Freedom is
there to act against such intrusions.
Let
instructors choose HOW to teach and WHAT to teach. Let that decision
rest as close as possible to the individual instructor. Let only peers,
colleagues and fellow professionals review those decisions and keep that
review as close as possible to the instructor inside of the department
and the discipline with those who know best and have the responsibility
to insure the effectiveness of their instruction as professional
educators.