The Other 85 Percent

David A Resnik Says:

I earned an MBA from Capella and am currently enrolled in the last course to complete my Research Core for a doctoral program. In addition to my normal consulting employment, I am an adjunct professor at a local university. I feel quite comfortable in an academic environment. I continue to feel that I made the right choice with Capella.

I state this despite having prior knowledge that my MBA would be granted by an institution that is not AACSB accredited, something that was not a major concern to me but which generates sneers and jibes from certain family members and friends who are alumni of conventional programs. I also regret that Capella no longer participates in honor programs, such as Golden Key, Beta Gamma Sigma, Sigma Beta Delta, Delta Mu Delta, or even the more specialized honor societies such as Mu Kappa Tau for marketing. I think both of these situations should change and would multiply the value of Capella degrees.

At the local university where I teach, very few instructors are engaged in research. The vision of the institution is far different from most academic organizations as it focuses exclusively on practitioners as the product. In my opinion, the school’s accountability is reflected in the number and caliber of the applicants, the percentage that choose to matriculate, and the fact that retention continues to be a serious challenge.

As I see it, the contrast with Capella is remarkable. For such a young entity, it is clear to me that Capella’s educational ‘production’ processes are well understood and the structure of the courses incorporate the vision in a consistent manner. I do wonder what percentage of the faculty is asked to be engaged in curriculum development; where I teach, some departments offer the opportunity even to adjuncts to contribute, while other departments are managed in the ‘classical’ manner.

I attribute part of the difference to the selection of experienced faculty from other institutions, who are more dedicated, in my view, than the norm. The few Capella grads who have taught courses in which I have enrolled have been outstanding and far more involved than I had expected. As the school grows and produces more home-grown educators, I expect this trend to continue as the vision continues to be reinforced by design.

As a Capella learner, I do not know the effect of the evaluations that I have completed for each course I have completed. I have always provided a comprehensive response to each evaluation, as I feel it is part of my responsibility. I trust that the collective responses are considered as some measure of the effectiveness of a particular section instructor, along with other criteria that provide a longitudinal view as well. I expect the documentation provided through the online interface greatly simplifies this process. I think this contributes to the efficacy of the process.

Where I teach, the administration relies very heavily on student feedback near the end of each course. As very little mentoring of new instructors takes place, a large pool of adjuncts is needed because the turnover of instructors is high, particularly if they state their grading rubric and actually stick to it. Adjunct faculty in particular have no recourse to counter students’ voices after-the-fact, when there is little documentation collected through the traditional bricks-and-mortar interface.

From my experience, I think that Capella is on target and follows a successful model. I have been amazed at the diversity of my peers and the intellectual level at which most discussions take place. I agree with your assertion that faculty attitude forms an integral part of the achievement of greater accountability for learning outcomes. However, consistent with open-book management, I think that both faculty and the learners should have access to more detailed data of these issues.

October 4th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Keith Hampson, PhD Says:

David – The reference to the relationship between research and teaching is important one, I think.

I’m currently reading David L. Kirp’s wonderful book from 2004, Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education. I highly recommend it. While it’s not a particularly rich source of analysis, it provides great stories of the battles that have been waged within universities over the proper role of commerce.

One of the pieces that strikes me as particularly interesting is the description of the fights that occurred at the University of Chicago as it found itself sliding in the rankings and short on funds. The renowned academics at U of Chicago resisted (money-saving) changes to the undergraduate curriculum that they believed would lead to a less rigorous educational experience.

But as the author points out, many of these star academics actually taught very little undergraduate courses. As is common at many traditional universities, the higher your rank, the ‘better your research’, the less teaching will need to do – if that is your preference. Instead, adjuncts and graduate students assume this responsibility.

What’s interesting about this for me is that it links to the divide between research and teaching. Academics routinely argue that their research is fundamentally linked to their teaching. This argument is often made as part of lobbying efforts to limits on teaching load.

But if it is the case that undergraduate education can be delegated to those that either don’t have the time to do research or have yet to fulfill their research duties, the claim that research and teaching are linked becomes somewhat suspect.

As you are likely aware, the faster growing segment in the higher education market is the ‘for-profits’. These schools typically don’t require that their teaching staff do research. This feature is used by critics of for-profits as ‘evidence’ of their lack of legitimacy.

You know where I’m going with this.

Those of us that have taught at the undergraduate level know that the link between one’s research and teaching is not always strong. Sometimes, your research is too specialized to be of particular relevance to a lower level undergraduate courses. Sometimes you are assigned courses that are not closely aligned with your research. Sometimes, your research is just too complex. And sometimes it simply isn’t ready for presentation.

We need to also consider how undergraduate teaching has changed since we first came up the occupational model we’ve fought so hard to defend. In the early 20th century, undergraduates were an elite group. At that time a scholar’s research would very likely be relevant and understandable to this group of undergraduates. Today, though, undergraduate education is mass education – often more of an extension of high school than a gathering of gifted students and scholars. In this context, the gulf between research and undergraduate education becomes much wider.

November 1st, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Mike Offerman Says:

Keith, thanks for responding to David’s comment. I just want to recognize the importance of your final paragraph. The very nature of the baccalaureate degree is changing and the idea that it is more like an extension of high school is interesting. Perhaps we need to rethink the way we currently divide learning up across the various sectors or levels. Should we be thinking of K-10 and then 11-14, for example?

Thanks again,

Mike

November 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 am