The Disaggregated Professor

Last week’s (August 7, 2011) article in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, “Professors Cede Grading Power to Outsiders—Even Computers” triggered a very visceral reaction in me.  While I have been an advocate of hybrid/online learning at my institution, and have been following the field closely for over a decade, I too easily dismissed faculty resistance to online learning as reactive and ill-informed. With this piece of the puzzle coming into focus, I starting to see that the traditional professor as we know him or her, may have good reason to resist new technological encroachments into their turf, for the future of the professoriate may become what I term, “the disaggregated professor.”

The Chronicle article (a must-read for all in higher education) explains how the Western Governors University “hired 300 adjunct professors to do nothing but grade student work.” Grade inflation was a significant issue at that university and administrators felt that by not having direct contact with students (even in an online context) that hired evaluators would be more objective and stem the rising tide of grades. To tweak the noses of traditional professors even more, that institution and the University of Central Florida have gone further in this process and have computerized grading of exams via programmable software.  A pedagogue might rightly ask, “Is nothing sacred, not even assessment?”

The pros and cons of this “outsourcing of assessment” is not the point of this post. Surely promoters can point to cost savings, faster assessment turnaround, and purported objectivity, while skeptics would decry the lack of the human factor and that faculty expertise in the subject area creates better student assessment and feedback. Of more interest me is the larger picture as I see it — the disaggregation of the traditional professor’s role into discrete and separable parts.

As the above diagram illustrates, it is not merely assessment that is being removed from the exclusive realm of the professoriate, but other critical aspects of the role of “the traditional professor.” The University of Phoenix and other for-profit online institutions have employed a unique model whereby course creation and design is performed by a team of content experts, instructional technologists and media specialists. The rationale behind this model is that such a team is more likely to produce excellent courses, since specialists cover only their area of expertise, whereas your average professor cannot be expected to be an expert designer and media producer.  It should be noted that other models exist that enable faculty to still be at the center of course design. Such models include campus support from campus technologists and media specialists, and another model whereby an educational publisher creates course modules and content. Regardless of the model, college professors are being challenged as never before regarding the creation and design of their courses.

Once courses are created, many institutions employ course instructors to teach pre-designed and pre-packaged content.  So rather than having full-time faculty teach the course, the course would be “delivered” by contingent faculty. In this case, the online world is reflecting what is happening on college campuses throughout the U.S.; namely, the rise of adjunct faculty to teach a significant part of the college curriculum. Adjunct faculty as a percentage of newly hired faculty has been increasing at a steady pace for several decades with an ever-increasing percentage of college courses being taught by adjuncts.

“With increasing frequency, colleges have hired part-time and full-time contingent faculty members, often poorly paid—who now make up 49 and 20 percent of the professoriate, respectively. Their growing presence represents a trend that threatens to render moot the heated debate over tenure.”

(Source:  Miller, Margaret, A., “More Pressure on faculty members from every direction,”  The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 22, 2010, p 1.)

However, in the traditional model, even adjuncts are often given a significant role in regards to structuring their courses.  They will have less input into course design in the “disaggregated model” of the future to one where adjuncts become mere “course deliverers.”

With course design, teaching, and student assessment being taken away from professors, you would think that it couldn’t get any worse for the future of the traditional professor.  You’d be wrong on that assumption. One of the primary functions of the professoriate is publication and research. Both research and publication are critical to tenure, promotion and faculty advancement.  However, with the trend toward less tenured professor being appointed, and the move on many campuses to adjunct and 3-5 year faculty contracts, this area seems to be ripe for change.

Although this is more speculative than the previous sections, I believe that business and industry will co-opt and control much of the potentially marketable research now being done on campuses. This trend was hinted at in two Chronicle of Higher Education articles, “States Push Public Universities to Commercialize Research” (March 29, 2002) and “Public Research Universities Get Advice From Industry: Please Your Patrons” (February 20, 2011). Both articles point to increased pressure on the part of publicly funded universities to form alliances with the business sector. These partnerships often come with many strings attached, including that publication of the research results will take a back seat to the potential commercialization of those results.  In many instances, researchers were either prevented from publishing their results in order for their business partner to gain a competitive advantage, or coerced to skew the research data or alter content.  Invariably, such partnerships decrease the control professors have over both the subject and method of their research as well as the dissemination of the results. It sees reasonable to forecast that professors will have less control over such research in the future. Looming on the horizon, but rarely acknowledged in academia, is the real prospect of outsourcing this commercialized research to lower-cost countries. I feel this trend is inevitable, and bodes ill for U.S. higher education generally.

In conclusion, college administrations are looking increasingly to strategies that will likely negatively impact professors.  The thrust to find cost-savings and be operationally efficient and flexible, point to a “disaggregated” future for the U.S. professoriate. Faculty resistance may slow down, but not prevent, this trend. We are in the midst of a major paradigm shift concerning the role of college professors in teaching and learning.

Note: Fulya Olgac, Graphic Designer for “The Future of College Teaching” image.

Posted in Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | 2 Comments

Institutional Process Toward Online – Part 1

Online learning has evolved from ‘distance education,” which evolved from the early forms of correspondence courses. The 100+ year span of this history has used various methods of communication, from the U.S. Postal Service in the 1800s, dedicated TV networks in the 1960s-’70s, videoconferencing systems in the 1990s, to the predominant course management systems currently used today. The innovation of CMS’s and other web tools have brought us to what we currently consider online learning. It is this form of online learning, growing at a torrid 20% per annum rate in higher education (Sloan C, 2010 report), that makes it the major trend in higher education over the past decade. But what has been the impact of this trend for institutions of higher learning?

In the graphic below, I list several stages in the “institutional process toward online.”  Although other models approach online development from the student or faculty perspective (e.g. Salmon model), I wanted to approach online learning from the perspective of institutional change. More than any other factor, in my opinion, technology innovation in the form of hybrid and online learning has accelerated an array of changes in college teaching, despite resistance from many faculty and even college administrators. In essence, we are in the middle of a “paradigm shift” in teaching– the subject for another post.

What the diagram above illustrates is an evolutionary process from traditional pedagogy to web-enhanced and hybrid courses, to online courses and programs, to online degree programs and strategic collaborations, and finally, to a global vision of online. This institutional process toward online learning is the focus of this post. In Part 1, I will address the first 4 boxes in the diagram. Subsequently, Part 2, the last 4 stages, will be covered in a future post.

When I use the term of “traditional pedagogy” in the context of college teaching, we are all pretty familiar with the model: an instructor with advanced knowledge in a particular area, lecturing to a class of students in a “brick and mortar” classroom. This basic approach to teaching has been with us for hundreds of years, and has tremendous efficacy based on the skill, experience and knowledge of the instructor. I am fortunate in my capacity as Director of our Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at CCNY/CUNY to have observed some excellent teachers whose dedication to their students and their students’ learning are inspiring. Without judgment as to right or wrong, much of the teaching at CUNY and beyond still uses the model of traditional pedagogy.

Over a decade ago, I started exploring the potential to bring technology into my own courses when teaching at Lehman College/CUNY. Blackboard was in its infancy then, yet I could see the potential for using this tool to improve learning in my class. In a similar manner, other technology-savvy instructors were going through a similar process of exploration and experimentation with new technologies. Often this process was sustained without significant support from their departments or colleges or other instructors. I would categorize this phase as the “web-enhanced” stage of institutional development toward online.

Early adopters, as per Everett’s “Diffusion of Innovation” theory, were the initiators of web-enhanced courses and, to a large extent, the first hybrid courses on campuses.  Typically, individual instructors who already had some experience with web-enhanced courses, wished to experiment further with teaching some of their sessions online. Often these instructors were unofficially conducting hybrid courses with (but sometime without) the approval of their department chairs. This early stage was often experimental in nature, with innovators throughout the academy “piloting” these courses until they were given official sanction. Early hybrid instructors often became advocates for hybrid and online at their institutions, and some went on to lead online learning on their campuses.

With more recognition for hybrid instruction at colleges, and positive experiences of professors and departments, hybrid courses became more accepted by college administrations. Often, faculty development and training in this area started in earnest, and administrators saw the advantage of scheduling flexibility from the standpoint of both students and the institution. Within CUNY, this phase would have happened 4-5 years ago (2006- 2007) with several colleges offering hybrid courses over many disciplines.  For example, I was allowed to teach a hybrid course in Fall 2007 at Lehman College/CUNY (Language, Literacy and Technology) after discussions with a department chair within the School of Education.  Now that course is routinely taught in hybrid mode.

The jump to fully online courses is a significant one from an institutional perspective. For example, new procedures need to be put in place to evaluate non-tenured faculty and decisions made regarding class size. Other policy and procedural issues should also be addressed. That being said, the move to fully online courses on the part of some early-adopter professors is inevitable. Once an instructor has had a positive experience using a course management system and other tools in hybrid courses, some are naturally going to be interested in testing the fully online waters.

As CUNY colleges saw the need for greater institutional support of faculty in developing hybrid and online courses, many campuses instituted formal faculty development programs. These programs covered both Blackboard training and the basics of online pedagogy, spurring additional interest from faculty who wanted support prior to committing to the hybrid/online model. This “online courses” phase of my model is where most CUNY campuses find themselves today.  Faculty, particularly younger and those tech-savvier, are getting more comfortable with the idea of a fully online class or two in their course load.

The CUNY Online BA program, established in the Spring of 2003, was important in jump-starting CUNY’s online efforts.  Many professors within CUNY got started teaching online courses for the CUNY Online BA program, part of the School of Professional Studies. This program has been instrumental in helping many instructors get online experience that they subsequently brought back to their respective campuses. I am a poster child for this effort (one of many). The Fall 2011 semester will be my third year teaching a fully online senior seminar (Principles, Practices and Policies of Online Learning) for the CUNY Online BA program. With the experience gained from several years of online teaching, I am now part of a team conducting faculty development at City College for professors who wish to teach hybrid/online courses.

In summary, the first few stages of institutional online implementation are well underway on nearly all CUNY campuses. Initially, this process toward online was started by motivated faculty who served as advocates of technology in teaching. With increasing institutional support in the form of faculty training and incentives for hybrid/online teaching, there has been significant movement in this area and even the hiring of staff to support these efforts.  Increasingly we see a mix of teaching modes on CUNY campuses, from traditional pedagogy to include more hybrid and online courses. This trend will likely continue for some time, as CUNY catches up to other public institutions of higher education in online implementation.

In a future Part 2 post, I will continue to explore the next four phases of the institutional process toward online, namely, hybrid/online programs, fully online degree programs, strategic partnerships and collaborations, and global vision and reach.

Note:  StrategicPlanning (PDF File of Graphic)

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends | 4 Comments

Online as a Strategic Asset

Imagine a six-story brownstone in the heart of New York City generously donated to the City University of New York.  The brownstone is structurally sound and the donors have agreed to support the extensive renovation required to transform the space as the home of a new college. Such is a brief history of the Macaulay Honors College situated on a landmark site on 67th Street. The beautiful building required extensive renovation to become a state-of-the-art learning space. Would anyone argue with the claim that this building, and the learning taking place within its walls, represents a significant CUNY asset?

Now, let’s image ten such learning spaces around New York City. Would they collectively represent a significant asset to our institution?  Estimating from their website, the Honors College currently graduates between 600-700 students per year. Ten such colleges would graduate approximately 6-7000 students per annum.   Given a concerted startup effort, I believe online programs throughout the CUNY system could easily accommodate these numbers, and moreover, represent an under-developed strategic asset for CUNY. However, many of these “virtual buildings” remain dormant, or un-renovated.

The question of how a virtual space or program becomes an asset is not difficult to fathom when you consider that corporations are allowed to put on their books intangible assets like “good will” and “human capital.”  Online programs within CUNY, albeit under-resourced and under-developed, represent a potential asset for the university on a par with buildings and campuses, faculty and intellectual capital. The issue is that this perspective is seldom if ever articulated or acknowledged.

CUNY has a proud and unique mission of access to education, academic excellence and affordability. Every high school graduate in New York City is guaranteed a spot in at least a CUNY community college and, if qualified, a CUNY senior college. I believe online learning, implemented well, can expand access to learning, promote positive learning outcomes, and foster continued affordability from an institutional standpoint. In summary, online programs are entirely consistent with CUNY’s mission and vision.

Why do I call online learning a “strategic” asset?  Here is a list of some answers, which I will develop in subsequent blog posts:

  • Many higher institutions consider their online programs as a critical aspect of their disaster preparedness planning;
  • Via online programs, CUNY can more easily reach potential students outside of our geographic area, thereby aiding recruitment and geographic diversity;
  • Given the expense of securing properties and construction, virtual classrooms represent a tremendous savings over “brick and mortar” (which includes extra savings for non- maintenance of buildings, and better space utilization on campus);
  • The time-shifting flexibility of online courses offer significant benefits for faculty and students alike, and may improve both student retention and time- to- degree completion;
  • Online learning can be a component of developing 21st century skills for CUNY students; and
  • Online learning fosters a shift from instructor-based to student-centered learning environments which research indicates creates more significant learning experiences.

This list is far from exhaustive and any brainstorming session could easily double the number of entries. As an institution, we need to look at the potential for online learning with new eyes. Are we sitting on a veritable gold mine of untapped potential and, if so, should we think of allocating sufficient resources to fully renovate and develop those virtual online spaces?

Photo Credit: From Macaulay Honor College website (http://www.macaulay.cuny.edu/about/campuses.php)

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on Online as a Strategic Asset

On Strategic Plans and Laundry Lists

Colleges can spend a lot of time doing strategic planning. Despite the best of intentions, however, these plans often fall short or are largely ignored as soon as the process is finished. Why is this the case?  For the most part, these plans are not strategic in nature or are completely lacking in methodology, process and assessment measures to achieve success. Often these plans become “laundry lists” of various disparate goals, static measures, and parochial thinking that do little to advance institutional initiative on important areas like online learning. Fortunately, there have been significant theoretical and practical advances in this area that can drive our strategic planning efforts. Prominent among these is the Balanced Scorecard theory advanced by Harvard professors Kaplan and Norton. In the near future, I will devote several blog posts to a discussion of their approach and its implications for strategic planning.

There are many reasons for the failure of strategic planning efforts in institutions of higher education. Often, the process is done in a pro forma manner, with insufficient time and resources to complete the task. More fundamental, however, is the lack of a real strategic planning methodology, system and leadership.  The list below represents a sampling of deficiencies in strategic planning:

  • Lack of a compelling vision
  • Lack of tie-in to organizational mission and goals
  • Lack of institutional support of  an initiative
  • Lack of actions needed to achieve goals
  • Lack of resources to achieve stated goals
  • Lack of resources to sustain strategic planning
  • Lack of clear linkages between goals and actions for specific departments
  • Lack of ongoing and timely performance measures (e.g. performance dashboards)
  • Lack of research, planning and analysis of the organization and its context within a competitive environment
  • Lack of critical staff skills to implement plan
  • Lack of communication of plan to all participants
  • Lack of structure that allows for ongoing review and revision of plan in a timely manner, and
  • Lack of understanding that goals by themselves do not constitute a strategy.

Surely this list is “lacking” other significant problems with strategic planning as it is normally done. Each one of these entries would require elaboration—left to future posts. I will only attempt a few comments for this post.

It is my belief that the single most critical aspect of strategic planning is creating a compelling vision. Like President Kennedy’s vision of “reaching the moon within a decade,” such a vision creates enthusiasm, buy-in and mobilizes action. We all know the great progress in terms of education and the sciences that Kennedy’s space program produced. Admittedly, online learning is more prosaic than a moon landing, yet a compelling vision is no less, “compelling.” In a future post, I will suggest what such a vision might entail.

The process of informing the relevant staff of a new initiative is critical to success of any strategic plan. Even having a compelling vision is not enough; it needs to be communicated throughout the organization, especially to operational units assigned with implementing the plan.  In an organization as large as CUNY, there are many levels of communication that need to be addressed including:

CUNY–wide statements of policy, college-wide, schools within colleges, and programs within schools. For each level and constituency, the vision, plan, policies and process need to be understood and transparent to that community.

A final point for this post is the need to budget for strategic planning in all critical areas. The idea that such plans can thrive via ad-hoc committees with limited time and resources belie the essential and critical nature of this endeavor. Such resources are needed at all levels of the institution for strategic planning, not merely the Central Office. Key among these resources is the trained staff that will implement and monitor new initiatives, including online learning. A budget specifically allocated for strategic planning recognizes that this process is integral to the institution and relieves those with operational responsibility from taking on yet another function added to their responsibilities.

In future posts I will discuss the Balanced Scorecard in terms of a strategic planning process, organizational change and technology innovation, and the need for institutional policies, procedures and systems to support online.

 

Photo: CC License: MichaelCurdis (http://www.flickr.com/photos/create-learning/5039933454/sizes/s/in/photostream/)

Posted in Strategic Planning for Online, The Balanced Scorecard | Comments Off on On Strategic Plans and Laundry Lists

Why Strategic Planning?

The importance of strategic planning for a large institution cannot be underestimated. It provides both context for new initiatives and affirms the importance of such initiatives within an institutional context. Done well, a strategic plan provides a roadmap to specific strategic goals while defining the resources needed to reach the destination. For substantive undertakings like online learning, it can be the difference between success and failure.

Higher education, and the not-for-profit sector generally, have been slower to adopt strategic planning than the private sector. In business, poor planning can result in economic loss and even business failure, whereas in the public sector, since bankruptcy is not a consideration, measures of program effectiveness can get lost when providing “social goods.”  Education is one example of a social good, and public institutions of higher education are specifically mandated to meet this critical social need with funds coming largely from government sources.

Educating young minds is certainly not akin to producing widgets, and thus different yardsticks are used for both planning and evaluating the effectiveness of these enterprises. Nonetheless, good planning methodologies are needed for both. For the public sector, with increasing budgetary shortfalls, there are renewed calls for greater accountability in measuring both “inputs and outputs” in higher education.  For example, recently in Texas, Governor Rick Perry has put forth a proposal to measure professors’ “productivity” in the Texas system in terms of classes taught, research dollars secured, and articles written. (Article from Houston Chronicle)

On the “output” side of the equation, a recent book by Arum and Roksa entitled Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, attempts to measure what college students really learned from their years in school and whether there was less learning taking place than originally assumed. Their study offers a convincing argument that many students can go through four or more years of college and grow very little in terms of their thinking processes and actual academic knowledge. Such studies, which may lead to calls for tighter accreditation standards, are a reflection of increasing pressure, particularly on public universities, to account for what they do and how they do it.

In upcoming posts, I will explore specific policy and implementation issues concerning online learning, and discuss strategic planning methods that can guide online development.

Photo Credit: CC Commons License; “Making a Plan” (Let Ideas Compete)

Posted in Envisioning Online, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on Why Strategic Planning?