Faculty X’ed: FAQ on EdX

Colgate and Hamilton have jointly announced that they are joining the EdX consortium.  This initiative was first mentioned by the Deans (Doug Hicks and Pat Reynolds) at February faculty meetings and then formally launched on March 6.

What did the Deans say prior to launch?

• Both Deans emphasized outreach to alumni and prospective students

Doug Hicks: “ We are looking for ways to reach out to alumni groups as

well as to our admissions base…”

Pat Reynolds: “[A]nything we do with edX is basically a C&D 

[Communications and Development?] initiative about outreach to alumni…”

• Both Deans stated that EdX is unrelated to the curriculum:

Doug Hicks: “[EdX] presents materials online in a non-credit model

and thus Colgate’s involvement would not connect to our on-campus

curricular programs.”

Pat Reynolds:  “These offerings are unconnected to our curriculum and

akin to the “alumni colleges (faculty speaking to alums on academic topics)

that we offer at reunions.

• Both Deans mentioned that joining EdX would involve offering public courses: two from each college in the first year.

What did the Deans not say?

• Any explanation of what it means to offer a public course.
• Anything about costs to the colleges from joining EdX.
• Any indication of the length of the contractual obligation made to EdX or whether there is a public course obligation beyond the first year.

What is a public course?

A public course is open to anyone who registers (registration is free) with EdX.  Harvard and MIT, EdX co-founders, have recently released a series of working papers on courses offered in the first year of EdX.  

Those working papers can be found at https://www.edx.org/blog/harvard-mit-release-working-papers-open

In the first year, an average EdX course had 52,605 registrants.  Of those registrants, 35% never even looked at the course materials and another 56% viewed less than half the available course material.  About two-thirds of the remaining 9% of students received a certificate testifying that they had successfully passed the course.  The 2,700 students (on average) who received certificates in a course seem to have passed the course based on multiple-choice exams.

What is a certificate?

EdX offers Honor Code certificates in courses and Verified certificates (where the registrant’s identity is actually verified) in a smaller subset of courses.

The certificates are described at https://www.edx.org/student-faq and the sample certificate  below is adapted from https://www.edx.org/sites/default/files/honor_code_cert.png

Didn’t Colgate’s strategic plan endorse joining a MOOC?

No.  The Strategic Planning working group on Teaching and Learning discussed MOOCs (including EdX) extensively and concluded:

B. Establishing a Philosophical Framework for Moving Forward

Thus we remain committed to the Colgate model. However, we should not ignore the opportunities that online educational approaches might offer. How do we approach these opportunities? The TLWG recommends that Colgate be guided by the question of whether they allow students and faculty to engage with and challenge each other.

• Will faculty be able to work with all students in the course, to comment on work, and to develop one-on-one relationships?

• Will students get to know each other and have the opportunity to grow intellectually from this interaction?

• Is the online opportunity incorporating a significant synchronous component, in which participants are engaged at the same time?

While we recognize that many online courses might meet these ideals, the residential nature of our mission requires that we limit the number and type of online experiences.

Recommendation

We recommend continued exploration of ways in which Colgate might take advantage of online opportunities, including experimentation with some online programming. We believe that online education will continue to evolve and that we not move aggressively until the direction becomes clear and is well-matched to our educational vision.

What might happen if faculty were given a vote on joining EdX?

Amherst College faculty were allowed to make the decision on whether Amherst would join EdX and voted the proposal down.  Press reports indicated that Amherst faculty had serious reservations about issuing Amherst-endorsed certificates in EdX public courses and that the fees EdX charges are significant. 

http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2013/04/17/faculty-vote-down-joining-edx-pilot-program

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/19/despite-courtship-amherst-decides-shy-away-star-mooc-provider

https://chronicle.com/article/Why-Some-Colleges-Are-Saying/138863/

Should faculty have been involved in Colgate’s decision to join EdX and what does the lack of involvement say about shared governance?

Fill in your own answer below:

Summary of the Colgate AAUP Faculty Meeting

February 24, 2014

An AAUP faculty meeting was held on Monday, February 24 and attended by 47 faculty.  The following document provides a summary of the comments, organized by topic area.  The name of each speaker was not recorded so that all could speak freely.  

The ideas summarized below do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of the Colgate chapter of the AAUP and its officers.

The meeting began at 4:21 pm with the introduction of the officers of our AAUP chapter, and opening remarks by the chapter Vice President.  As with the fall meeting held September 30, 2014, this afternoon’s meeting stems from concerns towards faculty governance raised at the AAUP faculty meeting held April 11, 2013.  Items included:  (1) A sense that university committees are losing power by serving an advisory rather than a decision making role.  (2) The structure of the monthly faculty meeting is not conducive towards discussion of agenda items (although it was noted that recent faculty meetings have shown improvement in this area).  Also raised were matters of how well committees work together, whether we have too many committees, and the extent to which faculty voice is diluted by the composition of committees.   The purpose of today’s AAUP faculty meeting was to converse with elected faculty representatives of the Academic Affairs Board (AAB), the standing committees of the AAB, and the University Student Conduct Board.  Future AAUP meetings may include representatives from other committees.  The session began with the introduction of the representatives, followed by remarks from each committee’s representative(s), and concluded with a question, answer, and discussion period.  

Comments made by committee representatives do not necessarily reflect the views of all faculty serving on each committee.

The elected committee representatives were introduced and summaries were given as outlined below. 

AAB.  The representatives reported that current agenda items include structuring of the academic calendar, consideration of transfer credit for on-line courses, further refinement of the add-drop process, receipt of updates on aspects of the strategic planning process, and the University Honor Code.

The Committee on Athletics.  The primary effort of the committee has been on a comprehensive study of the student-athlete experience, aimed at improving the experience in important areas such as minimization of scheduling conflicts with academic programs.

The Curriculum Committee.  The committee has been primarily occupied with new course approvals.  No major curricular changes have come to the committee over the past few years.

The Committee on Academic Advising.  The committee is presently addressing two primary items.  (1) The committee was charged with drafting a proposal for changes to the pre-registration/registration process for in-coming first-year students (student on-line registration).  The proposal is presently tabled.  (2) The committee is seeking to clarify the role of the different advising structures for student-athletes.

The Committee on Information Technology.  A representative of this committee was not present.

The Library Advisory Committee.  Recent activities of the committee include:  (1) The committee reviewed a revised guide on copyright aimed at improving understanding and adherence to rules on copyright.  (2) The committee has solicited input for new journal holdings to support the activities of new faculty.  (3) The committee has considered policy for the culling of low-usage items.

The University Student Conduct Board.  A representative explained that the board reviews student conduct cases, commonly related to plagiarism.  A second representative stated that cases of sexual harassment and assault that used to be heard by the board, are now subject to the Equity Grievance Policy (EGP) process.  The representative expressed concerns towards the EGP process in comparison to that of the Student Conduct Board.  The representative felt that the EGP does not provide the same protections to the accuser or accused.  The smaller composition of an EGP (3 members appointed from a list of 41 people) compared to 10 consistent members on the Student Conduct Board may hurt continuity.  The EGP has no student members whereas the Student Conduct Board has 5 students.

Those in attendance were then invited to ask questions and share comments.   A summary of the questions, responses, and comments are organized by topic area.  Three primary topics were addressed.

1.   EGP Process

In light of the report made above, there were a number of comments, concerns, and questions raised pertaining to the EGP process.

• The origin of the EGP and the limited role of faculty in the formulation of the EGP process were shared and discussed.
• Aspects of the EGP process and its relationship to the elected Student Conduct Board were discussed and attempts were made to clarify the role of each group.
• Issues of fairness and the treatment of students in the process were raised.
• The selection and training of EGP participants and oversight responsibility for the EGP process was queried and discussed.
• The role of the AAUP in addressing concerns towards the EGP process was questioned and considered.

Taken together, there was genuine uncertainty towards the EGP process, the relationship between the EGP and our elected governance system, the level of faculty input, and concerns towards fairness. 

It should be noted that the EGP had not been asked to send a representative to this meeting on elected university governance.  Concern was expressed by EGP members, who were coincidentally present, on the need for balance in the presentation of mission and procedures of the EGP process.  The EGP process originated as an institutional response to a “Dear Colleague” letter sent by the Obama Administration in regard to Title IX protections.

2.   AAB

The functioning of the AAB at the present time and recent past was discussed.

• Some expressed concern over the AAB serving as a sounding board for proposals from the administration, rather than as a forum for discussion.  Cancellation of several meetings over the last two years and a shortening of the meeting time can result in crowded agendas.
• The role of faculty as representatives of their constituents was discussed, along with instances of feeling undercut in attempts to represent viewpoints of constituents.
• A sub-group of the AAB convened in the summer months, rather than deliberating as a full committee during the academic year.
• Some felt that the AAB has not been functioning as well as it could. 
• It was suggested that we need not revise the whole governance system, but rather strengthen the voice of the faculty within the system we already have.

3.   Academic-Athletic Conflicts

The ongoing work of the Committee on Athletics towards examining the student-athlete experience, particularly as it pertains to conflicts with the academic programs was discussed further.

• A desire was expressed for a clear statement of priorities.
• It was observed that our elected faculty representatives have a challenging task.
• A member of the committee stated that a report will be made at the April faculty meeting. 
• It was stated that the committee has been getting very good cooperation from the Athletic Department.  A member of the Athletic Department in attendance affirmed a high-level of cooperation.
• A member of the committee expressed a continuing desire for feedback from the faculty as the work of the committee continues.

4.   Other
A question was raised on why faculty accept unelected, ad hoc committee positions.  Faculty were encouraged to decline appointed positions.

     

The meeting concluded at 5:51 pm.

Prepared by Rick Geier, Secretary of the Colgate University Chapter of the AAUP

I Value Student-Athletes and I Signed the Open Letter on Athletics

by Lesleigh Cushing

Associate Professor, Religion and Jewish Studies

Tim Mansfield recently asked me, as a member of the faculty who signed the open letter on athletics, to speak with the Alumni Council about the letter.  As a signatory of the letter, I endorse its main points.  But I am also a strong supporter both of Colgate athletes and our athletic program generally.  There seems to be a common misperception - evident in many of the comments I have read online and in conversations I have had with students – that anyone who signed that letter devalues Colgate athletics.  I hope it will be helpful, then, if I explain both why I have such high regard for so many of the student-athletes I have encountered and why I signed the Open Letter.

Why I Value Student-Athletes

I have had many high-achieving student-athletes in my classes over the years.  I know well that some of our student-athletes are among our very best students academically, and I have had the pleasure of teaching some of these truly exceptional students. 

I have also taught a lot of student-athletes who are not at the very tops of their classes, and I have been struck consistently by the receptiveness of these to constructive criticism.   Perhaps because they are accustomed to losing as well as to winning, perhaps because they are used to working as a team, perhaps because they strive constantly to improve themselves, I have found student-athletes to be especially able to hear critical feedback without becoming defensive.

I often teach at 8:20 in the morning, and I am grateful for the presence of student-athletes in the classroom at that hour.  They are the students who have already been up for some time, who are alert and responsive because their days are already well underway.  In my experience, they are the students who energize my early morning classes.

I am concerned about the health of our student body.   On a campus where binge-drinking is rampant, I value the fact there is a core of students who endeavor to treat their bodies with respect, students who are profoundly aware of the potential and limitations of their own bodies.

I am thankful for the many athletic events on our community’s calendar. I like having my own children go to Colgate games. I hope that they will see our student-athletes as modeling healthy, active living, as exemplifying the power of teamwork, as exhibiting dedication and discipline.

Why I Signed the Open Letter on Athletics

I signed it raises important structural questions.  It raises concerns about classes missed.  It wonders how tenable it is for a student-athlete to balance well the (sometimes competing) demands placed on her by academics and athletics.  It speaks to the encroachment of athletic programming into the academic week. 

I signed it because I know of teams whose schedules necessitate students missing more than three classes a semester, which seems to me and to many other faculty members the limit of class sessions a student should miss.

More specifically, I signed it because as a professor who tries to build community and to engage students intellectually outside the classroom, I am frustrated by the near-impossibility of convening students after 4 pm for dinners or lectures or screenings.  This is not a problem exclusive to student-athletes, but student-athletes consistently have the most difficulty weaving these events into their schedules.  I signed the letter because I hoped it might prod us all into a careful examination of our collective schedule and a sustained discussion of how we organize and use time. 

More particularly, I signed it because it speaks of an encroachment of athletic demands on the academic week.  This is an encroachment with which I am very familiar: for three and a half years, I served as University Professor for Core 151: Legacies of the Ancient World.  As a result, I sat at a table at drop-add twice a year trying to find sections of Core 151 for the hundreds of students lined up before me.  Over and over again, I watched students scour the course offerings for classes that did not conflict with their teams’ lifting or practice schedules.  Every semester, I received countless emails from students asking to be admitted to a particular section because it was the only section that worked with their training schedule.  In my view, this was a clear sign of a loss of balance.

I am committed to my student-athletes and to athletics at Colgate.  I am committed to academics at Colgate. In my view, there is often little tension between these two statements.  But some of the time—at add/drop and course registration, in particular; in evening programming—the tension is obvious.   I signed the letter because I believe it is time for all of us to have an open, thoughtful, respectful discussion about finding a better balance between these two strengths of our institution.