The following material arises from the University of Oregon's productivity planning process and is made available here in the hope of engaging the whole university community in that process. This material contains the conclusions of one of the nine productivity working groups; it does NOT represent official university policy.

We solicit your responses and suggestions. Please direct them to the chair of the working group or to Charles Wright, Department of Mathematics. 

To: Charley Wright

From: Dan Kimble, Chair, Teaching Innovation Productivity Group

Membership: Douglas Carnine, Education Suzanne Clark, English Susan Lesyk, Academic Learning Services Terrence O'Keefe, Accounting R. Palm, Arts and Sciences Regina Psaki, Romance Languages Jeffrey Stolet, Dance Jim Upshaw, Journalism Hill Walker, Special Education Jack Whalen, Sociology

Subject: Committee Report

GUIDING PRINCIPLE. Our committee discussed a number of possible ways to improve productivity in undergraduate teaching. Early in our discussion we focused on a guiding principle which was that whatever we decided to put forward for further consideration must increase the quality of our undergraduate curriculum. In addition, of course, we anticipate that some quantitative increase in productivity would also be likely to occur if these suggestions were implemented effectively.

IDENTIFIED THEMES. At the close of our last meeting, we found that we could identify two major themes that had emerged in our discussions, as well as some suggestions that did not fit directly into these two themes. Our two main themes were (1). The appropriate use of communication technologies to further teaching effectiveness. and (2). Fostering of increased student involvement by a more systematic introduction of student interaction groups. We believe that judicious consideration of these two themes may significantly enrich the quality of the undergraduate experience at Oregon. While ideas related to these two themes were guided primarily by concerns for increased quality of instruction, we believe, happily, that there may be measurable quantitative productivity gains as well.

SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS: APPROPRIATE USE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES.

We suggest that the appropriate use of television, both in the form of video tapes and (as technology permits) interactive TV could be very useful. We also want to emphasize that we do not suggest simply videotaping lectures for delivery to large audiences as a means to increase student "contact" with lecture material. However, there were several suggestions that met our approval for appropriate use. These include:

*** Videotapes of the instructor discussing with a small number of "surrogate students" issues concerning class assignments, term paper goals and specifications, course themes, projects, etc. These videotapes would be done early in the quarter (or even before) in an attempt to cover the most-often-asked questions regarding that particular class. These tapes would then be placed on reserve in the library so that students could view them. This would, in our view, improve the communication regarding these issues in a way that saves both student and instructor time. This would not, of course, replace office hours, but should reduce the number of students coming to office hours to ask the same questions. It also should free up some class time that is otherwise spent going over administrative course details. While such details are important, class time spent on them tends to deflect the instructor from the basic goal of lighting intellectual fires in the minds of students. Implementation costs would include provision of VCRs in appropriate places in the library and preparation of videotapes. (Question: Could Instructional Media Center be helpful in this effort?)

*** Invest in the technology to allow a faculty member to simultaneously interact with students in two different classrooms. This might be particularly useful with large enrollment courses where room size is a current impediment to increasing productivity. One variation would be for the instructor to split his "live" and "TV" presence equally between the two sections over the duration of the course. Obvious advantage: more SCH per instructor. Possible drawback: Students may not feel well served in TV section. Possible solution: introduction of interactive capacity for TV section. (Question: Is this feasible from a technology and/or cost standpoint?)

*** The "computerized professor". Arrange via local e- mail facilities that students have 24 hour/day access to syllabus, current assignments, brief course notes, changes in schedule, reminders about deadlines, location of study groups, etc. We do not think students need necessarily have access to the actual professor on a 24 hour per day basis, although some enterprising students have already discovered that they can ask question via e-mail! Probable advantage: Saving of instructor and student time in obtaining course information. Possible drawback: Not all students have access to e-mail. Possible solution: Install common use computer terminals in dorms, EMU, etc?

*** A needed low-tech improvement. Many classrooms have chairs bolted to the floor. This severely limits flexibility of classroom space for class discussions, breaking up into smaller groups, etc. Question: Is it possible and realistic to "unlock" a few of these bolted down classrooms. Assumption: There will not be many (any?) new classrooms constructed in the near future.

SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS: STUDENT INTERACTION GROUPS. The experience of several committee members supports the value of student interaction groups in enriching the curriculum. While these ideas are applicable to both graduate and undergraduate courses, we believe that these groups are under-utilized at the undergraduate level. Specific suggestions include the following:

*** Break class into groups of 8-10 person discussion groups which meet regularly (once/week?) on their own to discuss course material. One or more students may be designated as "discussion leader" for the week, with this role rotating throughout the term. Goals of the discussion groups could vary from simple review to construction of short papers, class reports, or panel discussions to be shared with the whole class. There are many possible variations here. Monitoring of discussion groups may be advisable for first session or two (perhaps by graduate GTF?) but our collective experience suggests most students would take these sessions seriously. Some component of course credit should probably depend on participation (attendance?). Possible problems: Logistics of meeting places, problem of quality control. Possible solutions: Meetings in dorms, EMU rooms, spot monitoring. Possible quantitative increase in productivity may happen if these sessions satisfy the "fourth or fifth hour" of credit for courses that have been recently increased in credit hours. We believe that the likely advantages outweigh the possible drawbacks, but recognize that a pilot program in this area may be useful.

*** Increase the writing component in courses by organizing writing groups (reference: Peter Elbow's "Writing without teachers"). Variations on this could also include increase in already tried ideas such as "writing across the curriculum". Possible drawback: No obvious increase in quantitative measures of productivity unless use of such groups would free up instructor or GTF time.

*** Use advanced undergraduates as unpaid TAs in lower division courses. Compensate these students with small numbers of credit hours. Such students could lead discussion groups, hold office hours, help proctor exams, serve as occasional tutors, etc. This would be educational for the TAs and would increase options for other students. Possible problem: Opposition from the graduate student union. Solution: Work out details in a fashion that make it clear that this would in no way impact GTF support.

SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS: OTHER IDEAS. Not all of our discussion was centered on the two main themes outlined above. Several other specific suggestions seem worth passing on.

*** More careful monitoring of registration of small enrollment courses that satisfy some specific distribution requirement to even out such course enrollments. Advantages: Relieves pressure on some courses, increases student progress through university requirements. Possible drawback: May be impossible for registrar to do this effectively.

*** Team teaching. Team teaching by a number of faculty (with a course coordinator) was seen by our committee to be an effective and interesting way to improve productivity and also enrich the quality of instruction. With, for example, 15 instructors giving two lectures/ term, an entire course can be offered with modest effort on the part of any one instructor. With large enrollment courses this could make a significant impact on student credit hours. Possible drawback: Continuity is a potential problem. Students need to have sufficient continuity and structure. Solution: Course coordinator must be sensitive to this issue. Also, some means of compensation must be available for instructors. (Could participation be rewarded by diminished committee assignments?) Successful examples of team teaching exist now. For example, HUM 351, "The Medieval Experience" and HUM 410, "The Idea of Europe" may serve as interesting models.

*** Use of 1-2 credit short-term workshops. Such courses could be built around a specific topic and be held over weekend (12-18 hour intensive course), or between terms. Advantage: Increased student credit hours in shorter periods of time. Possible drawbacks: Quality is of possible concern, as fatigue and other factors can interfere with learning. Instructor availability: May not be a problem if course is counted into regular teaching load on a credit for credit basis. Instructors from the community could also be used here.

*** More use of credit by exam. Although this was not discussed in our group, it is an idea that has surfaced in informal conversations I have heard around campus. Obvious advantages are increased productivity in terms of student credit hours satisfied. Possible drawback: Quality is always of concern here, but advantages and careful construction of exams should help on this aspect. Instructors will need some compensation for construction and grading of exams. Details should be developed on a departmental level, and need not be uniform?

*** Whatever changes are eventually made in our undergraduate program, they should be widely publicized so that students are made fully aware of changes before they are implemented. Many students are nervous about what is going to happen to their educational opportunities at Oregon, and clear and careful communication appears necessary to reassure them that the quality of their education is not only not going to diminish, but may, in fact, increase.

PROPOSALS SEEN AS NOT DESIRABLE: In addition to the above ideas, our committee discussed several other possibilities and rejected them as undesirable for a variety of reasons.

*** "Two-tier" faculty. We reached consensus that it would not be good to institute a two-tier tenure-track faculty in which some faculty are hired specifically as teachers, not expected to engage in research or other scholarly activities above class preparation. For many reasons this "solution" seems at odds with our status as a research university. While we do support the idea that all tenure track faculty should be involved in undergraduate research, we do not agree with the notion that some faculty should be teachers only. In reality, of course, some faculty do move into such a role, usually late in their career, and in some cases this may be accommodated by the department. While allowing for such exceptions to the general principle, we strongly disagree with the suggestion for a formal two- tier faculty.

*** Our committee was cool to the suggestion that teaching of low enrollment upper division and graduate courses be combined across OSSHE institutions. It was felt that we need to maintain our own specific identity, and that some of our strength is at the upper division undergraduate level. On the other hand, combining sections of low enrollment, generic undergraduate and graduate courses across departments within OSSHE institutions (e.g., statistics?) might indeed increase both productivity and quality of instruction.

[Submitted by: Charley Wright
Wed, 1 Dec 93 14:01:03 PST] [Copyright 1993, University of Oregon]