>From owner-trad-l@listserv.vt.edu Wed Jul 24 05:44:32 1996 Received: from ipe.cc.vt.edu (ipe.cc.vt.edu [128.173.4.8]) by ipe.cc.vt.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA11236; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:04:05 -0400 Received: from LISTSERV.VT.EDU by LISTSERV.VT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 385119 for TRAD-L@LISTSERV.VT.EDU; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:04:04 -0400 Received: from fox.cs.vt.edu (fox.cs.vt.edu [128.173.40.84]) by ipe.cc.vt.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA97502 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:04:03 -0400 Received: by fox.cs.vt.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA12554; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:04:00 -0400 X-Sender: fox@fox.cs.vt.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:03:59 -0400 Reply-To: "Edward A. Fox" Sender: trad-l Discussion List From: "Edward A. Fox" Subject: Topics of Study - summary by Anne McNabb To: Multiple recipients of list TRAD-L Hi! In case you do not have a copy, see the msg below that summarizes Topics of Study. Thanks, Ed ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:29:09 -0400 From: Anne McNabb To: Multiple recipients of list FOCUS-L 7/11/96 - The following lists of Topics to Study appear to be the most recent attempt by subcommittees to define their work. I've compiled them, hopefully without too many errors, in hopes that it will be useful for each subcommittee to see what other subcommittees are considering. I hope there aren't too many errors that resulted from the email reformatting. Anne (1) Subcommittee on "traditional" undergraduates: Ed Fox (Chair), Marge Dellers (Co-chair) 1. Subjects to Study (From 3/29/96 subcommittee meeting) a- External forces / societal factors b- Categories / groupings c- Goals, needs d- Methods, approaches e- Support, infrastructure f- Evaluation, quality control 2. Specific subjects listed under the categories in 1. * Under "External forces / societal factors" we have the outcome expectations (which also could be under "Goals, needs"): parents, family, legislators, corporations and other employers, graduate schools, professional schools, funding agencies (e.g, NSF's Division of Undergrad. Educ.) and we note that these come into play at various times. Some provide a type of "social support structure" that helps, encourages, or blocks learning. Financial matters (expenditures, income) may vary due to citizenship, residence (in-state, US, international). *Under "Categories / groupings" we note that students - differ in the number of credits they have on entry - may have those credits from AP, transfer, community college - may participate in coop - may spend junior year abroad - may be in a 4 year program, in a 5 year program, in a 5 year Bachelor / Masters - vary regarding financial resources - vary regarding if/how much they work (in school, in summer) - vary regarding age, maturity, gender, family situation and need to correlate these with goals, methods and evaluations. We may want to target "market studies" for each of the groupings. * Under "Goals, needs" we of course have the outcome expectations of students themselves, which vary widely among individuals, based on - self-concept (both what is the reality and what is perceived) - curiosity, personality - motivation (self-motivated? what motivates each person?) - athletics (interests, seriousness) - academics (seriousness, breadth/depth of interest) - social activities (friendships, service, "party scene") So we cover the "Whole person". * Under "Methods, approaches" we note that some lead to slow, evolutionary changes while others (e.g., 1st month of college) may cause rapid, anxiety-ridden shifts, especially regarding maturity. We note that now there are some large-scale, top-down efforts - Faculty Development Initiative - Cyberschool - NSF SUCCEED (for engineering education) * Under "Support, infrastructure" we should distinguish what is available in case someone wants it versus what is a part of the day to day course of events (e.g., something in the bookstore versus the air in a classroom). There is interplay with time, for example the % of students living on campus will differ depending on level: freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, masters, doctoral. There are - physical support structures (e.g., residences, buildings, food services, athletic facilities) - intellectual support structures (e.g., libraries and computers owned or in labs) - social support structures (e.g., advisors, sport teams, entertainment mechanisms, peers, clubs, organizations, ...) * Under "Evaluation, quality control" we should try to correlate what learners like with their backgrounds (e.g., if a pedagogical approach works well for some students and not for others, can we identify the causal differences between the groups). We should consider approaches, like TQM, quality management from bottom up, top-down, self-study versus that done by outsiders. We should try to determine what methods/interventions (e.g., Cyberschool) have led to what effects/benefits. We should find the reality of situations: * who actually comes to class, pays attention there * who reads the textbook, does homework, does lab work * who spends what amount of time in a group project 3. We wanted to collect data, possibly through surveys or focus groups dealing with current students, and possibly with recent graduates, alumni. This is an area where Institutional Research or other groups might provide support. Some questions we wish answers for include: * What are the differences (e.g., age, family situation, work experience, psychological makeup) between "traditional" and "non- traditional" students? * What does VPI&SU do well? badly? (asked to current, past students) * What should we do? add? stop doing? (in general, in an area) * Is technology helpful? in what way? under what circumstances? * If you ran the university, what would you change? * Is learning an active or passive process? What are students' responsibilities? those of faculty? those of the campus? those of university support systems? * What are the %s of time you think learners should spend in a course a) listening to lectures b) reading (textbook, articles, ...) c) in class discussions / debates d) working problems, doing exercises e) taking quizzes, exams f) writing papers g) working on group projects h) engaged in lab activities i) working with computers (including email, WWW) (If you think this varies depending on year or other circumstance, please give a set of %s for each such type of circumstance.) (2) Subcommittee on Untraditional Undergraduates. David de Wolf (Chair), Erv Blythe and Joanne Eustis, Co-chairs. The group, to whom concerns about off-campus activities have been delegated, met (finally!) on May 17. 1996. The following is a report on the discussions. 1. There was consensus that endless efforts at defining terminology and organizational schemes should come (contradictio in terminis) to an end. An already-employed scheme was re-introduced and adapted by further consensus. 2. Strong emphasis was placed upon a need to obtain good knowledge of what is already in place with respect to off-campus programs. 3. Off-campus needs are different for undergraduate offerings from those for graduate. There already is strong growth in off-campus graduate programs, particularly MBA and Engineering programs, as a result of demand. The undergraduate situation is different, but growth is expected due to several changing demographic/societal factors: decrease in summer enrollments which probably are due to competition from summer employment, need to maintain on-campus enrollment in general, and perhaps also due to the rising cost factors of the immediate past. 4. There are experimental forms of undergraduate off-campus offerings, e.g. those via the Literature Initiative in Technology (LIT) World-Wide Web courses. At present the choice seems dictated more by faculty expertise than by request. It seems unclear how these will expand, partly due to VT's commitment to remaining "predominantly" a residential university. It is an issue that needs further exploration. An important new issue: advanced-placement courses for high-school pupils may well be an advertisement for Virginia Tech in inducing high-school graduates to enroll here. 5. The needs of many off-campus students may differ appreciably from those of on-campus students. The consensus is that, at least today, televised and other distance-learning forms of courses are inferior to in-house class-room courses. Erv Blythe believes that that is not inherently so, but is due mostly because the distance-learning forms emulate classroom teaching rather than follow a novel, independent strategy. Be that as it may, mature graduates, already in a work environment and in need of special expertise or technology update, do not need all the attention and "stroking" that classroom teachers can provide. Consequently the perceived disadvantages may not be that important. Special categories of off-campus students may not need all that can be offered on-campus. All this in the context of the larger issue: technology vs. quality of teaching. Here is an issue in which existing studies need to be looked at. 6. Off-campus graduate education could be a natural expansion of what used to be called "extension." There is a choice to be considered between TV expansion of on-campus courses and short courses, or there may be room for both but it seems that either is dictated by different requirements. Short courses are for those who cannot afford large blocks of time; TV courses are for those who only can free up evening or other extra-curricular hours over a lengthier period of time. Some subjects lend themselves better to one than the other. 7. Those who offer off-campus programs should keep in mind several factors: (a) maintenance of reasonable quality, (b) demand for certain material/courses, (c) faculty ability to/interest in delivering certain courses. There was consensus that VT should build off-campus programs consonant with its strengths. 8. With respect to the issues of facilities and infrastructure, the group believes that these are strongly dictated by whatever technology is involved. In fact, the issue of satellite campuses (is this a legitimate plural?) arose at this junction because a listing of the Fall '95 enrollment figures for graduate enrollment on engineering and MBA pro- grams shows many sites with very few enrollees. For most of these, some financial explanation (strong support of VT., by underwriting industrial company, etc.) is available. New technologies are already available (use of the Internet with 2-way compressed video links) at costs substantially less than presently-used television via satellite link. Nevertheless, the group believes that some concentration of such Education Centers to more major population centers is inevitable. Use of these distance-learning technologies for off-campus sites, even in NoVa close to, say, George Mason U. may be justified by the high regard of students for a degree from V.T. Associated problems are those of V.T. faculty involvement: course development will require resources to be made available, and links must be created, etc. At present, off-campus do not have laboratories or adequate computer facilities available to them. 9. Where are we now? See the above-cited listing of off-campus graduate courses. More information can and should be obtained. Ben Blanchard can help here; he has dealt with off-campus offerings for the College of Engineering. There is the Commonwealth Campus program of B. Chaloux. Not mentioned, but perhaps noteworthy; there is the V.T. Institute in Switzerland near Lugano, which serves as a distance-learning center only in that one must travel a vast distance to get there. 10. Finally, the issue was raised as to whether off-campus students do require facilities comparable to those at V.T., in spite of the earlier comments on special needs for special students. Although the memo below from David D was titled "Condensed issues for off-campus-client subgroup", it also defines a lot of the learners being studied by that subcommittee, so seemed useful to include here. A) On-campus continuing-education/short-course clients: grading is less formal (P/F?), certificates material must be kept simple (diversity of backgrounds) housing needs, meals, etc. separate building, class rooms? B) Off-campus continuing-education/short-course clients: grading is less formal (P/F) distance-learning facilities vs off-campus instructors clients live at home vs clients at motels, etc. satellite buildings in major cities live-at-home clients with TV instruction C) Off-campus clients/students in degree programs: degree programs: same or different as on-campus VT instructors on loan, local adjunct people, permanent local instructors? distance-learning modes (TV courses, telephone links, etc.) concentration in major urban centers? component of learning in client's homes? cost borne partially/entirely by sponsors other sociological issues grading more formal (A-F) enrollment policies (3) Subcommittee on Graduate Students Kriton Hatzios (Chair), Steve Brauner (Co-chair) Wed, 24 Apr 1996. Here are some comments prepared by our subcommittee (mainly by Steve Brauner) on the points of our initial report that support the latest version of the University Plan. NOTE: * indicates areas specifically addressed and support in the latest version of the University Plan. 1. Definition of Learner Group: - Research-oriented graduate students (Degree seeking) - Research-oriented postdoctoral associates - Information gathering graduate students (Degree and non-degree seeking) 2. External Forces and Societal Factor on Learner Group A. Changes in Demographics - More MS students of the information-gathering student group is predicted for the near future. - A gradual (or sharp?) decrease in the number of students pursuing doctoral degrees. * - Research-oriented graduate student population may decrease, responding to decreased funds for research and downsizing of industrial corporations. - An increased need for future graduate students to conduct research at off-campus, non-academic sites and other types of collaborations * (e.g., Motorolla consortium with Virginia Universities). B. Economic Constraints - Constraint on financial resources due to competition for state budget dollars * - Increased private funds for specialized research * Research is a critical component of the 'research-oriented' graduate student sub-group in particular. As noted in this framework, increased societal and economic pressure is expected to push graduate education to a more product oriented focus. We feel care must be taken to maintain freedom of investigation as a critical component of a research institution. C. Assumptions for this Learner Group based on the University Plan - VT will remain a "doctoral granting, research, state university in the land-grant tradition offering a broadly comprehensive set of programs in instruction, research, and outreach" - VT will offer graduate students a "more focused, but also very high quality range of options" - Graduate (and Undergraduate) students must "take greater responsibility for their learning" - VT should strive to "promote a global perspective throughout the university" 3. Goals and Needs for Learner Group: - Education of the whole student * - Provide a broader range of experience for students during research projects * - Increase opportunity for greater breadth and choice for students before embarking on dissertations * - Train graduate students and postdocs for teaching - Encourage development of professionalism and ethics - Prepare students for life-long learning * - Maintain freedom to investigation 4. Methods and Approaches for Reaching Goals: - Increase exposure to up-to-date information (information highway) * - Improve information transfer; Improve student/teacher interaction especially for distance learners * - Improve communication of students with other students and students with faculty - Provide rewards for effective teaching by graduate students - Capitalize on current strengths and keep track of new trends and developments. * - Identify research programs and lines of inquiry that have economic and social value as well as intellectual challenge. - Expose students to project-oriented classes - Provide GTAs with training and access to information technology for use in teaching assignments - Improve orientation program for new graduate students and postdoctoral associates - Provide better opportunities for interactions among graduate students postdocs in different disciplines. - Identify and secure more sources of endowed funds. 5. Support and Infrastructure - Improve satellite branches (e.g. NOVA) and communication - Long-term commitment to technology infrastructure and maintenance staff - Update software and to the latest technology; provide training/ technical support students - Differentiate Facilities: On Campus vs. Satellite Facilities vs. Home Equipment; Evaluate what is needed for efficient teaching in the information age 6. Evaluation and Quality Control - Need to maintain integrity of education in the information age - Need to enforce the honor code in distance learning What should Tech be doing? As stated in our Mission and in our new University Plan we are a Land grant university with a tripartite mission (teaching, research, and outreach). Graduate students and postdoctoral associates will continue to be a group of learners trained/educated at Virginia Tech. The challenge is how to remain competitive in attracting this type of learners and educating them for the needs of the 21st century. Draft prepared by Kriton K. Hatzios on April 9, 1996 following a meeting of this subcommittee (March 20, 1996) and subsequent comments and suggestions received by Steve Brauner. Revision prepared April 21st following steering committee meeting on April 12, 1996. (4) Subcommittee on Faculty and Staff Janet Sawyers (Chair), Joanne Eustis (Co-chair) Fri, 12 Apr 1996 Draft of notes of meeting of the Faculty and Staff Subgroup of the Self Study Committee FACULTY: TYPES OF LEARNERS Collegiate, Library, Extension, Admin. & Professional Faculty, Research Faculty, Public Service Faculty. Some discussion of types of faculty, decided to go with Faculty Handbook definition of faculty for faculty policies. STAFF: Classifications not discussed; Discussion focused on the inclusion of staff with faculty and the possible ramifications of this decision. General agreement to include with faculty. ASSUMPTIONS: 1.Students and their learning needs will be placed ahead of faculty preferences (what, when, where, how they will teach). Faculty have probably reached the limits of personal autonomy. Raises questions of how and to what work faculty time will be assigned and by whom. 2.Funding will be contigent on delivery of valued outcomes. Thus, new assessment measures will be needed for individual faculty and the university as a whole. Faculty will be accountable not only for how we spend our time but for the results of out time on task in terms of our institution's mission. 3. Use and mangagement of Faculty time will be different. Less time to pursue individual interests with greater emphasis on time invested in terms of mission and constituent service. 4. University will no longer have a monopoly on learning at post secondary levels. Technology will make the integration of education and practice in many professional fields a norm which will test out ability to keep universities distinct from for-profit service industries. The primacy of our credentials rests on their quality and our ability to state what they mean at each level (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.). We must meet a constant expectation for continuous improvement in the quality and range of services or lose "market share." 5. Change will no longer be incremental. 6. Techonology will change forever the dominate model of synchronous, time-linked interaction that has made teaching and learning complimentary and interdependent. Learning will no longer depend on a faculty member's teaching. Classroom/teacher/student won't disappear just won't dominate. Teaching and learning will be separated. 7. Resources will not be increased. Without this increase, how will we provide better services, conduct research on institutional effectiveness, report on performance to constituents, expand technology infrstructures and provide more individually tailored instruction? How will we choose what to do and what to ignore. 8. Faculty salaries will continue to be the largest portion of the budget and most other resources are fixed, thus faculty time is the only resource that can be changed. 9. Students will be different than today's students.(Greater diversity, emphasis on life long learning rather than a degree for life long career, students will have greater expectations; range of preparadedness to enter will greatly expand; student adaptation to hyper-learning will exceed most faculty. 10. Faculty will have new roles in facilitating learning and thus will need to develop new skills (e.g. collaborative learning; collaborative teaching; as a trained pedagogical researcher with the skills necessary to collect information systematically from students, to use this information as formative evaluation to benefit students while they are learning and to use it to improve his/her own abilities to stimulate learning in next cohort of students.) 11.Faculty have little control over the institutional factors that inhibit the creation of alternative learning environments, registration systems, classroom assignments, equipment purchase and deployment. 12. Research will be more applied, focused and tied to mission of institution instead of discretion of individual faculty (where does this fit with President T's focus on individual pinacles of excellence?). 13. Great need to recognize and give high priority to faculty development. 14. Tenure and promotion and post tenure review may be replaced with a contractual system. A small number of outstanding teachers on campus, supplemented with adjuncts and contractual agreements with faculty at other institutions. Topics to Study in the Faculty/Staff Subcommittee: Educational Reframed as Faculty Development; needs of new faculty, long term faculty Current programs: CEUT- possible expansion beyond focus on under-graduate; Faculty Development Institute- need for continuous development to stay up to date; Writing Program. Educational Framework Campus culture--need for interdisciplinary thinking; acculturation both social and professional; emphasis on "teaching how to learn". Decentralization and need for vertical organization to respond to constituents needs/probems may result in less rigid College and Departmental structures with more emphasis on collaborative, interdisciplinary approach. Links to research, service Delivery mode & facilities Issue of quality control; onsight vs. home vs satellite; role of industry & businesses outside of the university in providing courses. Extra Facilities Need for facilities and support staff to support innovative teaching; ? about proposed new building; conversion of current classroom space; space for faculty to develop "sense of community" Educational & Technological History Constraints imposed by state- funding, issues of duplication of courses; Where does the reward system (T&P, Post Tenure) fit ? Societal Factors Discussion focused on sense of community --need for a balance between professional and personal life of faculty; Where does cyber community fit with sense of community; Campus Culture We would like to propose another category which focues on campus culture. For faculty this would include balance between personal and professional lives, t&p issues, etc. What should Tech be doing? What are the consequences of the above? Much of the above was taken from the Change: May/June 1995 Magazine of Higher Learning Vol. 27, no3. "Future Work: Faculty Time in the 21st Century" Cross-cutting Issues: These issues from one of Ed Fox's memos may be examples of cross-cutting issues. Thu, 25 Apr 1996; Subject: key comments from our group 1. We noted that there is no "dimension" or "overlay" to deal with content or knowledge areas or disciplines. We believe there should be one. It is important to consider likely changes related to colleges, schools, programs. This can be faced in a general way - is Virginia Tech addressing the needs of the Commonwealth as a landgrant institution as new fields emerge or move to the background? How does our "coverage" shift in time relative to the Information Age (e.g., see new growth in high-tech areas at GMU, JMU)? What will be the effect of the ACITC and other building efforts? 2.We noted a tension between a. moves toward use of technology in education, with shifts away from the credit for contact model and b. scheduling issues, including the push by the Commonwealth to use classrooms more hours each day. We feel this topic needs to be addressed. There is a lot of emphasis now on changes regarding "places", e.g., new buildings, new labs, high-tech conference rooms, ..... However, how "places" fit into "times" of students, faculty and staff is crucial as well and is often not considered as carefully. For example: * Can classrooms be transformed for the Information Age so they have multiple uses? * Will some/all of them have distance learning connection so remote groups are part of a class? * Will students working on projects have (scheduled?) times that they can meet, perhaps in classrooms or in various sizes of seminar or conference rooms? * Will conference rooms in dorms be counted as classrooms? * How does the "evening" fit into the life of learners: intellectually, socially, culturally, artisticly? Tue, 21 May 1996 Regarding the discussion Anne and I had about evaluation, here are some more ideas: * The University should be responsible for long term educational studies since it is hard for those to be done through research projects. For example, longitudinal studies are better done centrally, since they are then immune to organizational changes too. Also, evaluation studies involving skills that are rare, or where results should be correlated among departments or even colleges, should be centralized. * Education, the main purpose of the university, should be evaluated using the best methods we can, as a result of our own thinking and planning, not just in response to outside pressures. * We should undertake formative evaluation for all innovations in education. There might be a line item calling for this on the Yellow Internal Approval Form, with monitoring by the relevant Dean, for all Sponsored efforts. For all non-sponsored efforts, whoever provides resources (CEUT, Educ. Technologies, ...) should ensure this is done. * When we undertake summative evaluation of faculty, it should be about the education they supervise, not about how they teach. That is, we should not just evaluate instruction --- how does that apply when one spends thousands of hours preparing a self-study course? * Evaluation probably should involve all of the following: - longitudinal studies - surveys - focus groups - log analysis (of WWW servers, etc.) - peer review by others at University - peer review, especially of content and documents, by experts in the topical area outside the university F. M. Anne McNabb Dept. of Biology Virginia Tech Blacksburg VA 24061-0406 email: happy@vt.edu ph. (540) 231-6118 FAX (540) 231-9307