The Arts & Science Council, on which I serve, is the chief governing body of the University of Toronto's faculty of Arts & Science. Recently the Dean's office released a report about a new online tool the faculty is developing to standardize the production of syllabi. In essence it would be a digital form containing fields for required course information. Each professor would be required to fill out the form in lieu of a paper syllabus. The new standardized syllabi would be offered online.
The university administration evidently didn't expect this to cause significant controversy. They calculated that this would simply be one more element of university modernization akin to applying a new coat of paint. Those supporting the idea were gravely mistaken.
The trouble with this matter and why it garnered so much opposition is in what it represents: a transfer of power from individual professors to the Dean's office. A traditional view of education is as a transaction between professor and student. The one wants to learn what the other has to tell him and is willing to provide compensation for the trouble of doing so. Of course there is a need to facilitate this relationship and at a large institution like the University of Toronto there is a need to provide administration to serve as an intermediary between students and faculty.
Of course in the modern university administrators have moved far beyond clerical work. Today they manage massive grants, solicit contributions from donors, provide resources for students such as healthcare, promote the University's brand, manage student life, and even lobby politicians. Modern universities have a dual concept--as places where students and professors are linked a la airbnb and also as massive research and youth centered management centres.
The trouble with the proposal from the Dean's office is that it represents an ongoing shift away from faculty-administration dualism and towards the establishment of the primacy of the latter over the former. Administrators no longer manage all the mechanisms around professors to make it easier for them to teach; administrators now tell faculty how the administration thinks they should instruct students.
The problem this dynamic threatens is the very nature of education itself. Administrators under pressure from business interests are trying to turn education into a standardized commercial product. Education is ultimately a form of providing what one, a teacher, specifically has. An administration cannot very well know what one professor might decide to tell his students versus another. Only a teacher can know what he has to say and it is very hard for a third party to distinguish between the different voices of distinct individuals with the same qualifications and duties.
Education fundamentally cannot be standardized because its value is inherent. Any attempt to quantify it will leave us with well qualified yet uneducated students. There is no need to spend a lot of money on professor's as standardized information providers who are meant to provide a standardized "learning outcome" for a given course regardless of who is teaching. It's a relatively logical jump to start requiring the same syllabus for the same course through the new online tool. One professor said at the council meeting "I want to be able to put a picture of a cow on my syllabus"; he wants for it to be under his control.
There's nothing wrong with administration as a facilitator and offering to put faculty information online is a good form of facilitation. The problem is in coercing scholars to jump through a bureaucratic hoop. That changes who holds power. Dean Cameron please make the new tool non-mandatory; that will effectively disseminate most information while preserving the independence of education which is the bedrock of UofT.
Nota Bene: I will address restoring the process of learning in classes at a later date.
Jeffrey, as I member of the Arts and Science Students’ Union I feel the need to respond to your post on the Syllabus Tool that is being proposed by the Faculty of Arts & Science.
ReplyDeleteSyllabi are an essential part of the learning process. On one hand, they are an important teaching tool for professors. On the other, they are an indispensible informational resource for students. Such information includes office hours, academic integrity information, mark breakdown, accessibility services information, etc. Without such information, many students would find themselves unable to meet instructors’ expectations. Cognizant of this fact, the FAS has rules for the required elements of syllabi in order to make sure the academic rights of students are protected. Professors maintain a high degree freedom as to how they create these syllabi so long as the syllabi contain the necessary elements.
Over the years, ASSU has unfortunately heard of many disturbing violations of FAS rules regarding syllabi, leaving students with the short end of the stick. As it is within our mandate ensure students rights, we decided to look into the manner.
Below, I’ve attached a copy of a report in which we documented the extent of these violations of university and faculty policy. This past summer, the ASSU Executive brought this report to the administration. They proved to be just as concerned as we were about the violations. The Syllabus Tool is part of the Faculty’s response.
Now that I’ve provided some background, I’d like to clarify a few of your misconceptions about the tool. I will add the disclaimer, however, that the information I provide is solely my understanding based on our conversations with the Faculty about the tool.
First of all, it is not motivated by “Administrators under pressure from business interests.” Rather, it is the administration’s response to students being disadvantaged by not receiving the information necessary for them to succeed in their courses.
The Tool, to the best of our knowledge, would not replace the paper syllabus. Those would still be handed out to you as they always have been. The Tool, however, will also allow syllabi to be accessible from a central location online so that students considering taking the course may get a better sense of its nature before enrolling. I do not see how this can be construed as a bad thing.
As the Tool was explained to us, professors should still be able to add additional parts that they feel will enhance its use as a tool for teaching. It was even indicated to us that should they want to put a cow on it, they still could. This of course would come after such vital information as late policy, turnitin.com rules, and the like.
I would like to stress that this tool is not designed to change syllabi as they currently exist. It is designed to make sure that every syllabus contains all the information mandated by the university and Faculty so that students have their best chance to succeed. It would be wrong to deny them this right. This Tool is not a perfect solution, but it is a positive step. Personally, I think it is impossible to argue that one is acting in the best interests of students while opposing this Tool.
Here is the ASSU report: http://assu.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ASSU-FAS-Syllabus-Report-2013-2014.pdf
I serve alongside you, Jeffrey, on the Faculty Council. I have also served on the ASSU executive both in meetings where such a tool was previously discussed, and during the syllabus review which particularly motivated the proposed tool. So, I feel that I am in a position both to note that (a) the presentation at the Council meeting was not well done, and I expect much misunderstanding of what was proposed falls to that presentation; and that (b) the proposal as it has been motivated and presented outside of the Council chambers is well captured by Reid's comment. (At least insofar as I've come to understand the tool, as proposed through these multiple venues). Still, I'd like to repeat a point and add another, both of which were raised in the council meeting, but which may have been lost as the wider council bemoaned (without need) the demise of their beloved bovine.
ReplyDelete(i) The proposed tool is not intended to replace instructor syllabi as they stand, nor to squash instructor creativity. Nor does it require that an instructor disclose that specific knowledge or distinctive voice they intend to impart. Let the cattle graze on. The tool is meant to hold professors accountable to the mere minimum information which instructors are already required to make available, but--as the syllabus review indicated, and as the Faculty acknowledges--which many fail to do. Professors may draft a classroom syllabus separately if they so choose, or to export what little information is required by the tool and build a syllabus around that. One /may/ use the tool as a replacement, but it is not intended as such. It is intended foremost as an accountability measure to that information which instructors are already required to make available: no further liberties are restricted here.
(ii) Secondly, the tool aids students not just in terms of this accountability--that they receive the information they ought to--but also in terms of accessibility. While creative liberties may stand, it is exceedingly difficult to navigate idiosyncratic syllabi. Having been a full-time student for five years, and having taken part in ASSU's syllabus review project, I can testify to nearly two hundred current syllabi, their idiosyncrasies, and their collective illegibility. Despite being relevantly abled, I had an extremely difficult time trying to find simple required information (when assignments are due, how much they are worth, the professor's contact information) across syllabi, both in my courses and in the review project. One can only imagine the difficulties for students with disabilities trying to find such already inaccessible information. Having a standardized "abstract" of a syllabus drafted through this tool makes syllabi more accessible. And this without infringing on an instructor's ability to do as they please with their paper form.
This is not a transfer of power from instructors to the Faculty, nor a restriction of liberties--they are already accountable for these matters. If there is any movement of power, it is found in empowerment: granting students the accountability they are owed, and the accessibility they are due.