Let’s say we opt to go with a course-based model—what are the chances that the state will allow us to adopt it?
At this point in time the University System is willing to consider innovative ways for delivering undergraduate education. Of particular interest to the System are quality and retention and graduation rates. If the faculty at Salisbury decide that the course based model has the potential to improve quality and retention and graduation rates, then the administration will have a powerful argument for getting the State to allow to adopt the course based model.
I’ve heard that the state would never allow us to grant what amounts to the equivalent of four credit hours for a course that involves fewer than four hours of contact time (in other words, credit must be directly tied to in-class seat time), yet it sounds like current 3-contact-hour courses, for example, would still only meet three hours a week. Is that true?
Once again the real issue from the System's point of view is quality and retention and graduation rates. COMAR regulations currently define one hour of credit (for a lecture course) as 750 minutes of supervised instruction including tests. But, other definitions exist. For example, Washington State defines one hour of credit as 3 hours of student time per week for 15 weeks, and the Carnegie definition is three hours of student time per week with one hour being class time. So, if the faculty endorsed the course based model as a way to improve quality and retention and graduation rates, then the administration would have a potent tool to argue that Salisbury should be allowed to use another definition of a credit hour.
I’ve also heard that the state would never allow us—in fact, the way state regulations are written, it can’t allow us—to require what amounts to the equivalent of 128 credit hours for graduation. Is that true?
The State regulation addressing the number of hours needed for graduation was put in place to improve the efficiency and efficacy of University System institutions and is part of the so-called E&E initiative,. This initiative was intended to increase the number of students who can be educated in existing facilities and was put in place as a response to the "baby boom echo." The course based model would actually lead to improved utilization of facilities. To see this, first consider a student taking 120 hours in the current curricular delivery system; that student would spend about 1,800 hours in a classroom (120 credits times 15 weeks). Next consider the same student taking 32 course in the course based curricular delivery system; that student would spend 1,440 hours in a classroom (32 courses time 3 days per week * 15 weeks). These are rough calculations and don't take into account contact hours versus credit hours in our current system and don't take into account that some courses in the course based delivery system will meet for more than three times per week. However, the point is the course based model will impact existing classroom facilities less than the credit based model and hence will improve the efficiency and efficacy of Salisbury University.
What if we don’t change, either to a course-based system or period? So what? Aren’t we doing okay now?
The old "ain't broke don't fix it" solution. Yes, we are doing very well with the with the resources we have, in fact, surprisingly well. We are not funded by the State at the level necessary to sustain this excellence. Faculty salaries, benefits for full time faculty, and departmental operational budgets are inadequate. However, SU's arguments for increased funding commensurate with our performance fall on deaf ears at the State level. If the faculty endorsed the course based model as a way to improve quality and retention and graduation rates, and if the administration demonstrates that this model improves our efficiency and efficacy in the use of facilities, then the administration would have some powerful arguments to make at the System level for increased State funding. |
|
A draft of the General Principles and Operational Guidelines for a Course Based Curriculum Delivery System can be found online here. Comments and suggestions are welcome. The committee will be answering questions and listening to suggestions at the December 6 open faculty meeting. |
Shouldn’t the committee be considering/investigating other possible ways of changing the curriculum?
The committee’s charge simply says, “The central charge of the Committee is to develop general principles and operational guidelines for a course-based curriculum model at Salisbury University focused on enhancement of the intellectual development of our students.” There is nothing in the charge that suggests—or even allows—that the committee explore other potential models. The charge is all about the course-based model. |
Can our students handle the workload and greater expectations involved in a course-based system?
While it is true that students will be asked to engage more in the work of their individual courses within a course-based system, they will only be taking an average of four courses a semester, instead of the current average of five, and they will also, in most cases, because of the reduction in the number of courses in their load, be in class three or so fewer hours a week. Focusing on four rather than five different courses and having a few extra hours a week to do outside work on the four courses in question (not to mention the hours they would gain from not doing outside work for a fifth course) should allow students to meet the greater expectations they should encounter in the individual courses they take in the course-based model. Making the change would still require a change in student culture (students, in other words, would have to understand that fewer courses and less overall in-class time would not mean more free time or more time to work at a job), but because of the fewer courses/less diluted focus/less overall in-class time combination, the change regarding the overall workload for students would not be as pronounced as it may look at first blush. It’s more a refocusing than anything else. |
1. What is the real issue here: reducing faculty teaching load, or raising the intellectual level of our classes?
Many faculty feel that SU’s current 4/4 teaching load, combined with our scholarship and service requirements, makes us so busy, and our energies so diffused, that we aren’t teaching as effectively as we could in other conditions. With a 3/3 teaching load, we would be able to focus on each of our classes and each of our students more than we do now. By enhancing our courses and more actively mentoring our students, we should be able to raise the intellectual level of our students’ experiences. So reducing the teaching load and raising the intellectual level of our classes are not conflicting rationales; in fact, one can facilitate the other.
2. Can we have assurances that this curriculum change will not mean increased class sizes or demand more scholarly production (especially of untenured faculty)?
The Curriculum Change Committee is currently working on “Operational Guidelines” for a course-based curriculum at SU. These Operational Guidelines identify a number of requirements of a change to a course-based curriculum; among these requirements are that class sizes must not increase and that there should not be any change in expectation regarding the service and scholarship requirements for faculty as a result of the new model. A final version of these Operational Guidelines will be made public before the December 6 open meeting. |
| » Transfer students |
|---|
Transfers into course-based curricula.
The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) receives about 500 transfers a year and has articulation agreements with several community colleges. Courses that are substantially the same (i.e., English 101, SPAN 101) are transferred into TCNJ as satisfying the requirements for those courses. If the credit hours transferred in are 3 hrs per course instead of the 4 hrs for the corresponding TCNJ course, then the student must make up a 1-hr elective credit.
Thus, for an ENGL 101 course for 3 cr hr transfer, a student would have satisfied his first semester English requirement and would need to take an elective course (in any department) to make up the deficit. For a student who has, say, 4 elective credits to take after transferring in 3 hr credit courses, he could choose to take 1 TCNJ course to make up his 4 elective credits. The elective credit can be in any department.
On the other hand, students who leave TCNJ and go to another college or university transfer courses as carrying 4 credit hours. They have not made the change from credit hours to courses. They may or may not do so in the future.
At Dickinson College, a student will be considered for transfer admission if he or she is enrolled at another institution as a full-time, degree-seeking student. Dickinson, which has only about 50 transfer students admitted each year, a 3-cr hr course from another college (again, say ENGL 101), transfers in as totally satisfying the first semester ENGL course. There is a graduation requirement for all students at Dickinson, including transfers, that at least 16 courses are taken through Dickinson College, the last 12 of which must be taken while the student is matriculated with an approved major field of concentration.
Dickinson also has an articulation agreement with Harrisburg Area Community College in which they take all 16 courses of a HACC AA degree, as long as the student gets on the Dickinson track from the beginning and is advised by an advisor at HACC who handles Dickinson future transfers. In other words, these students go to HACC knowing they will be going to Dickinson. It allows these students to do their first two years at HACC prices, prior to transferring to Dickinson for their last two years. The articulation agreement means that Dickinson will even take a course like, say, college algebra, which Dickinson neither offers or accepts as an individual transfer course, if it's part of the the courses the student takes under the HACC-Dickinson agreement.
Dickinson also transfers all of its courses out as 4-credit courses (or rather, it tells other institutions that are credit-hour-based that they should accept such courses as 4-credit courses). Dickinson students rarely transfer out, however.
Oct. 24th, 2005 @ 04:21 pm
|
| » NCATE accreditation |
|---|
How will those programs accredited by NCATE be affected by moving to a course-based delivery model?
Each program will be influenced in a unique way depending upon the standards established by the associated specialty area (SPA).
NCATE accreditation has moved to an outcomes based process, where evidence of meeting each SPA standard is accomplished by providing appropriate assignments, assessments and data. This approach allows individual programs the flexibility to design the curriculum in a variety of ways. The course-based delivery system may reduce the number of courses required for graduation. The challenge will be to design the curriculum to meet each of the SPA standards and MSDE requirements within the allotted number of courses.
Are other schools that use the course-based delivery system NCATE accredited?
TCNJ is NCATE accredited, but has not undergone the accreditation process while using the course-based curriculum delivery model. They are scheduled to go through the NCATE accreditation process again in 2008.
Most of the schools that have traditionally used the course-based delivery model do not have education as a major.
Oct. 24th, 2005 @ 04:20 pm
|
| » General Education |
|---|
How will the General Education Program be affected by the course-based curriculum delivery model?
The current General Education Program at SU consists of 15 courses or 47 credits. In order to graduate, students must accumulate 120 credits. This means that General Education makes up 39.167% of the requirements for an undergraduate degree. (This calculation neglects the fact that many students can count at least one General Education course towards their major.) In a course-based curriculum, students are required to complete 32 courses for graduation. If the number of required General Education courses is not lowered, then General Education would make up 46.875% of the requirements for a degree.
There are several options for integrating General Education into a course-based curriculum at SU:
1) No change:
This option entails that the General Education Program would make up a larger part of our undergraduate degree. The advantage of this option is that the General Education Curriculum would not need to be revised. The obvious disadvantage of this option is that it would require cutting courses solely within the major requirements and/or electives. Most departments would presumably find this difficult to do without compromising their learning goals and outcomes. However, it might be possible to leave the current SU General Education Curriculum unchanged if more General Education courses can be counted towards the major and/or electives. According to this option, adopting a course-based curriculum does not necessitate a change in General Education but it could lead to a change at a later time.
2) Cut the present General Education Curriculum by one or more courses:
In this option, the overall structure of the SU General Education model would not be changed but the number of courses would be cut. For example, 14 or 13 courses out of 32 amount to 43.75% or 40.625% respectively of the overall degree requirement. The main advantage of this option is that it only requires a minimal change to the overall structure of the current SU General Education Curriculum. However, the disadvantage is that a decision has to be made about which Groups of the Curriculum are going to be affected. This will most likely lead to animosity between Departments and/or Schools within the University.
3) Revise the General Education Curriculum completely:
The General Education Curriculum could be changed so that instead of reserving Groups for individual Departments or Schools we would define certain general areas of learning that we believe students should be exposed to. Examples of such areas, as used by other universities, are “The Natural World”, “The Social World”, “World Cultures and Histories”, “Grammar, Language and Literature”, “Quantitative Reasoning”, “Moral Reasoning”, “Creativity” etc. The advantage of such a model is that Departments can offer courses in more than one area. They would be free to design courses for whichever area they deem suitable. Either the University Curriculum Committee or a special General Education Curriculum Committee would oversee this process and define the areas as well as decide which courses can be taught in a given area.
These options show that General Education is not an insurmountable obstacle, if SU decides to adopt a course-based curriculum. While some version of option 3 is the preferred model at many universities with a course-based curriculum, options 1 or 2 are possible to implement at SU. Option 2 requires that we find a consensus about which areas to cut. Previous attempts to reform the General Education Curriculum at SU have failed either because of a lack of funding or because no agreement could be reached. If the faculty decides to adopt the course-based curriculum, then this decision might serve as an incentive to reach an agreement. It might also attract funding for a General Education reform at SU.
It is important to remember that the issue of General Education is independent of the issue of curriculum delivery. This committee will not decide which model will be adopted at SU. It will only make a recommendation about whether to adopt the course-based curriculum model and which General Education option to follow. Faculty or the Faculty Senate will have to decide whether to accept or reject any of these recommendations. Furthermore, any recommendations this committee will make, will not form a “package”. For example, should the committee recommend the adoption of the course-based curriculum and the adoption of option 3 for the General Education Program, faculty or the Faculty Senate will have the option of accepting the former and rejecting the latter.
For more information about different General Education models please visit the links to some universities with course-based curricula on the home page of this website.
Oct. 21st, 2005 @ 04:08 pm
|
| » Articulation Agreements |
|---|
Many of the universities we studied have articulation agreements with their key community colleges and they use a variety of ways to account for the greater rigor of the course-based curriculum versus the community college’s credit-based course. Many require a grade of A or B for credit since this assumes that the student demonstrated greater competency than the C required for credit at the home institution. Others accept all credit hours with a C or better toward general education but require an additional 2 or 3 courses to equal the overall intensity of general education at their institution. Some others use a minimum GPA requirement. For instance, the College of New Jersey’s School of Engineering guarantees admission to County College of Morris students who earn a minimum GPA of 3.0 in their associate of science/engineering science programs.
In addition to collaborating on the exact standards of the articulation agreement most community colleges have an academic adviser who guides students through this process up until the time they transfer to the course-based university. It’s also important to note that many of these universities have articulation agreements with professional schools. The College of New Jersey has a seven-year BS/MD program in which the first three years of coursework are done at TCNJ and the remaining coursework done at UMDNJ medical school. A similar BS/OD (Optometry) program couples a TCNJ biology curriculum with a program at the SUNY State College of Optometry.
Oct. 21st, 2005 @ 04:07 pm
|
| » General Questions - student/faculty impacts |
|---|
Does the fact that students in the course-based system take fewer courses mean that they do less work?
No. The course-based model, in which students average four, rather than five, courses per semester, does not mean that students do less work. Rather, because students take fewer courses and are thus better able to focus on each individual course they take, the idea is that they are able to engage more deeply in the subject matter and specific assignments related to each course. Faculty, in turn, are able to include more and/more complex material (particularly related to outside-of-class requirements) and raise expectations with regard to their students’ performance. The combination of less diluted focus on the part of the students and the offering of “enhanced” courses on the part of the faculty is designed to provide students with a more intensive and deeper learning experience in each course he/she takes.
How would the course-based model affect faculty teaching load?
Just as students take fewer courses per semester in the course-based model, faculty usually also teach fewer courses per semester (in fact, many of the institutions that use the course-based model have now moved beyond a 3/3 teaching load to 3/2; some of the more research-oriented institutions take the course load even lower). For most SU faculty, adoption of the course-based model would mean moving from a 4/4 to a 3/3 teaching load, but a course-based model would mean a reallocation in teaching load, in one form or another, for all full-time faculty at the University. (How to calculate and reallocate teaching load, even possibly via a weighting system—as The College of New Jersey does—will be one of the main tasks of the Committee in the coming months.)
How might moving to a course-based system benefit SU in the area of recruitment of students?
The increased academic rigor and more concentrated focus, as well as upgraded reputation of the University, might attract students who are interested in a more intense academic environment, including those who might otherwise choose, albeit with considerable financial difficulty and sacrifice, to attend one of the institutions mentioned above. SU would be, in other words, in more direct competition with these institutions for the students in question. (We are already on the list of “Other Institutions Where Our Students Also Apply” at Washington College, for example. With the course-based system, some of those students might choose SU over Washington.)
How might moving to a course-based system benefit SU in the area of recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty?
The reallocated teaching load (which would probably, again, mean moving from a 4/4 to 3/3 for most faculty, though all faculty would see some sort of reduction in teaching load), the more intense academic environment, the opportunity to work with and mentor an even more select group of students, and the University’s more prestigious reputation, would all help in the recruitment and retention of new faculty. The current average 4/4 teaching load, for example, can be a tough sell to job candidates who are also looking at (and getting serious looks, as well as offers, from) institutions that can offer a 3/3 (as well as to current SU faculty who might have the opportunity to move to a 3/3 institution where, for example, they may be able to pursue their research agenda more easily, both within the context of their work and of their life in general). Much as SU would be better able to compete in the student market, it would be much better able to compete in the faculty market, as well.
Why not just make it simple and switch to a reduced (3/3 for most) teaching load?
Because: 1) the financial cost of simply cutting back the teaching load of current faculty and adding additional FTE faculty to cover the uncovered course across campus would be prohibitive; and 2) while cutting faculty teaching load would indeed address the faculty workload problem, it would do nothing for the student side of the equation. The course-based model addresses both the student and faculty sides of the learning/teaching equation/relationship, and it provides faculty workload relief via a much more affordable avenue.
Why not simplify things and just change all of our current courses to 4-credit courses that meet 4-hours a week and require students to take four of those per semester?
Having students take four courses that meet four times a week would actually add to the in-class time of the average student, given them less time to study outside of class for courses that, with their added contact time, presumably entail more outside work than most courses require now. In the course-based system, while it is true that courses would require more outside work, most students would spend fewer hours (most of them 12 or so per week) in class, giving them more time to do the extra outside-of-class work.
Oct. 21st, 2005 @ 10:31 am
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
salisbury_ccc's journal