University of Maryland University College Administration Response to the Petition Petition Response from Nick Allen October 6, 2004 Dear Colleagues: On September 10, 2004 I received the petition signed by 197 of you, most of whom teach in our overseas contract operations, especially in Europe. Let me say that the leadership of University of Maryland University College takes any thoughtful communication of this sort very seriously. Beyond raising some specific issues, the petition communicates above all a deep concern for UMUC and its future and the role faculty play in our University as it evolves. Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. In reading the petition, I see its concerns falling into two broad categories: one set relates to practices or operations that are not working well and need immediate action. The other set relates to practices at UMUC that are not understood or liked by some and need to be better explained. I will attempt to deal with both sets in this message, but it is clear to me that we need more interaction on some of these. I promise to look for other opportunities to do that in the near future. Course Evaluations Student course evaluations are an important component of UMUC’s ongoing academic quality efforts. During AY 2004, UMUC administered course evaluations in 5352 course sections to 117,339 undergraduate and graduate students worldwide. While this is no small task, providing timely student evaluation feedback to UMUC faculty must be a high priority. I strongly agree with you that receiving student evaluation feedback months after the course has concluded, as described in the petition, is unacceptable. In Adelphi, faculty get their course evaluation feedback no later than four weeks after the academic term has concluded. I will initiate steps to see that a four week turnaround time, or better, is met worldwide UMUC moved to a standard course evaluation instrument worldwide for two important reasons: first, our ability to conduct institutional research across similar courses in both face-to-face and online formats is greatly enhanced when the course evaluation questions are the same, and second, we can make valid comparisons over time throughout the university on a variety of academic quality indicators contained in the evaluation instrument. This information is critical to informing us how we are doing as an institution in our course delivery, and where we need to improve. Also in an age of distance education where our students move from one UMUC operational area to another, it is important we provide them with a common evaluation protocol. As you know, our current course evaluation instrument contains 32 Likert-scale questions and two open-ended questions in face-to-face courses; we add 4 more questions on the impact of technology for online and web-enhanced courses. In online courses students can write as much as they want to our open-ended questions with almost no limit on the amount of text. While it is possible to add additional space for student comments in our face-to-face course evaluation instrument, it does pose some additional administrative considerations and costs. In light of your concerns, I will explore how we can adapt our face-to-face course evaluations to accommodate your desire for additional qualitative comments from students. The mandatory nature of course evaluations in our online courses relates directly to student response rates. When we first went online with the student evaluation instrument, we discovered non-mandatory online course evaluations produced an unacceptably low response rate. The strength of the course evaluation data and the validity of the results are compromised if the overall student response rate falls below 70%. Although students must view and interact with the online course evaluation form, they always retain an option to provide no opinion or no response to any item in the course evaluation. Our internal data show that relatively few actually choose to take that option. Common Syllabus The common syllabus is another strategy for managing academic quality, one that is closely linked to UMUC’s academic outcomes assessment initiative and the core learning goals established for our students. The common syllabus includes the course description, the learning objectives, required texts, and information on key academic policies. In some cases references to course modules and other learning resources are also included. These components are the curricular framework the institution provides in order to assure reasonable consistency in the delivery of our courses to large numbers of students distributed worldwide. Within this framework, we ask faculty to bring their own scholarship, expertise, and creativity to the course they are assigned. How you organize, supplement, and present the course to help students achieve the specified learning objectives is up to you; that is why we appointed you as faculty members. If we do this well, we should achieve consistency across our global university in any section of a course that we offer so that no student is short-changed in their learning. At the same time, every section will be unique in its own right owing to the talent and creativity of the faculty member teaching it and the needs of the students in that particular section. I must disagree with the statement in your petition that: "instructors should remain free to design and implement their courses as they see fit.” This approach may be quite suitable to smaller academic institutions, or to situations where the university is confined to a fixed, residential campus. It is not appropriate for a global institution as UMUC that delivers its programs to large numbers of highly mobile, distributed students. Course descriptions alone are insufficient to ensure that students are exposed to the instructional objectives of the course. At the program level, an appropriate instructional mapping must occur to ensure that individual courses play the correct role in the overall curriculum. Imagine an accounting graduate or a teacher education graduate sitting for their respective professional licensing examination -- their success should rely on a consistent delivery of academic content regardless of where the course is offered worldwide, who the instructor of record happens to be, or what format is used to deliver the course. Contrary to the statement in your petition, the common syllabus is not specifically required by the overseas military contracts. The contract in Europe does require us to provide an electronic copy to the local ESO and COR at least two weeks prior to the start of a scheduled course. The common syllabus is the most effective way to do this, but it is not required by the contract. That was a UMUC decision for the reasons I have described above. You have noted in your petition that some common course syllabi are "uneven in quality." If so, I share your concerns about this problem, and it needs to be remedied immediately. I urge you to get involved with this effort to help us strengthen those syllabi. If you see problems with the course syllabi or course materials assigned your course, the first step is to communicate your specific concerns to your overseas academic director, or to the program chair in Adelphi, Maryland via the 999 Webtycho classroom. To aid you in that process I will see that the names of all these individuals and their contact information will be published so there will be little doubt with whom you should communicate when you see problems with the curriculum. Online Education Course Modules As you know, UMUC has a longstanding commitment to online education. We have determined that online education is a core strategy to the growth and vitality of our institution. We have also determined that such courses will have several characteristics including a common core of faculty-designed content. The undergraduate course modules serve as a course guide resource and were designed by teams that include faculty who specialize in the content area as well as skilled instructional designers. As with the assigned reading materials, we want all students taking a particular course to interact with the course modules regardless of which faculty member is assigned to teach a particular section of the course, or where the student is located. While individual faculty cannot delete the modules from assigned courses, we welcome your feedback about the existing modules, and encourage your involvement in the design of new ones. I urge you to provide that feedback to your overseas academic director or your program chair. Common Final Examinations At present, a limited number of common final examinations are being tried out or planned. Most are directly related to assessment of the University’s core learning outcomes. In addition, we may periodically use some externally developed instruments to sample student progress on an institutional basis. I expect we shall add these gradually focusing on large multi-section courses in key content areas. The use of common final examinations is a sound practice in an educational environment that places a premium on an institution’s ability to assess student learning outcomes. The University System of Maryland Board of Regents, the Maryland Higher Education Commission, and our regional accrediting body, the Middle States Association on Colleges and Schools, have ever-rising expectations to hold institutions accountable for the academic performance of their undergraduate and graduate students. We must respond to these increasing academic quality demands. The common final examination is a tool that provides faculty and administrators with a data-driven ability to know with confidence that students have mastered the academic objectives for their courses. These data also provide faculty and the institution with the information needed to make program improvement decisions. At UMUC, we embrace assessment and seek to build a university culture that is very comfortable using qualitative and quantitative data for continuous improvement. The common final examination is designed with faculty participation and can only improve with further faculty involvement. The common final, however, does not preclude faculty from implementing other assessment strategies within their courses and I certainly expect faculty to do so. Equity and Employment The last part of your petition comprises a number of statements related to equity and employment conditions across UMUC operations. As you are aware, UMUC is an institution that is undergoing a transformation to fulfill the mission and goals of our new strategic plan. The long-term stability and vitality of UMUC are strategically linked to our ability to successfully manage growth and build academic quality. To accomplish those goals, we must assure that our students receive a consistently high-quality academic experience wherever they seek enrollment in UMUC. UMUC is a complex institution that is trying to integrate three historically very distinct operations (Adelphi, Asia, and Europe). We have made some progress in building a common curriculum and establishing common ranks and identity for our faculty; however, there are differences in roles, expectations, and remuneration systems, which will persist. Overseas faculty and staff are appointed to fulfill the terms of the respective Department of Defense contracts; thus they operate under a different set of employment constraints than do other UMUC employees. Still another challenge will be how UMUC manages the overseas contract operations in a changing defense environment, and what that will mean for faculty teaching under the contracts. UMUC wants to serve the U.S. military overseas for as long as they need us, as we have for many years. However, significant changes in the size, deployment, and rotation of service members and their families over the next several years will likely impact the number of faculty we employ on the ground within the contract areas, and what we ask of them. If we manage these changes well, and achieve the growth we expect in other parts of the University, we shall be large enough to find a place in the university for any faculty displaced by changes overseas, assuming they want to stay with UMUC. The statement referred to in the petition that overseas faculty are "not qualified" to teach for Adelphi is simply not true. If you have been appointed as either a collegiate or adjunct faculty in UMUC’s overseas operation and you want to apply for a faculty or administrative position in your field in the Adelphi operation, you are as eligible to apply as any other faculty member in UMUC. And I encourage you to do so. In addition, the advantage of having one worldwide curriculum with a measure of standardization across the institution is that once you are assigned to teach a given set of courses in one part of the university, you are qualified to do the same in another part. So it works to both your advantage and that of UMUC. I hope this message will serve as a step in addressing some of the concerns you have raised in your petition, and I trust this discussion will continue with me and other members of the UMUC leadership. For those of you in Europe, President Heeger, Dean Hrutka, and I will join Director John Golembe at the October 23 faculty meeting in Heidelberg where we shall have another opportunity to do so. Once again, thank you for voicing your concerns. We shall continue this dialogue and to work closely on these important issues with the respective chairs of the University’s advisory councils, and with the leadership of UMUC’s overseas operations. Sincerely, Nick Allen webmaster