Recently, on a discipline-specific listserv, tempers flared and egos were bruised. The subject of this virtual brawl, a brawl that went on for weeks? A department’s (or chair’s) decision to control and standardize course content in that department’s course offerings. Also involved in this discussion: the academic freedom at risk for faculty when these mandates are imposed, and then the control of “bad” teachers who don’t follow the mandates or who are unskilled in the arts of teaching. Part of the argument included using standardized / common syllabi for faculty, requiring specific books for courses, and even mandating assignments for courses, especially when the department offered multiple sections of a course.
Here are two types of examples of this debate:
- Example #1: Instructors in all 50 sections of a first-year history course would use a textbook decided by the department chair (a historian), they would use a common syllabus, and they would assess student learning by giving the same tests across all sections. Many of these courses are taught by graduate teaching assistants and adjunct instructors.
- Example #2: In an upper-level writing course, students in all five sections of the course would create portfolios based on the same themes and writing prompts. The readings, from a book the department chair chose, would be consistent across sections. Assessment of student work is done by committee. These sections are taught by tenure-track or tenured faculty.
Advocates of control in large sections of classes made some very good points. A common syllabus, for example, is often very helpful for large departments when graduate students and adjuncts teach many of the lower division, general education courses. The common assignments and syllabi can help new instructors understand the rigor the department expects for its courses. Common assignments and syllabi can help a new instructor understand the scaffolding that needs to occur for student learning to take place, and these tools can ensure that appropriate course content is being followed (that no one is teaching astrophysics or basket weaving in a first-year composition course, for example). Lastly, the consistency of course content can also help students have a similar experience across sections. This can be particularly important for first-year students.
On the other hand, many listserv members questioned a department’s right (authority?) to dictate to faculty what and how they will teach their courses. To have a common syllabus for first-time graduate student instructors is one thing, many on the listserv argued, but to mandate that tenure-track or tenured faculty also follow the same common syllabus with little voice in how the course is structured, how the learning outcomes would be measured (assignments), or even which textbooks the course would use has gone too far. Many listserv members in this camp of the debate question faculty members’ academic freedom if such departments impose such control. Additionally, many wonder if students would learn to navigate a world of choices (easy / hard professors, one assignment type instead of another assignment type, for instance), if they are given no choices.
One major concern from many listserv posters, posters who were pro and con this issue, had to do with the state of university education, state mandated tests, and the No Child Left Behind act. If elementary and secondary schools are training students to receive a lock-step education, how can public universities differ? Can they? Should they?
This is a complex issue.
ProfHacker has been relatively clear over the past many months about teaching and learning: we don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all pedagogy, that one style of teaching is appropriate for all types of students and all types of classes. We have posts about content centered pedagogies, student-centered pedagogies, critical pedagogies, feminist pedagogies, pedagogies that use technology and those that don’t. Each teaching style can work, but how each works depends on the students in a course at that time and the individual faculty member. These pedagogies can also work (or not) depending on what’s happening in the world or even in the lives of students. Again, this is a complex issue.
Nevertheless, how about you? How does your department or institution handle these types of curricular questions? Do you have common syllabi for all courses across all sections? Do faculty members have autonomy to create their own courses as long as student-learning outcomes are met (for courses that have multiple sections)? Do you, as chair or director, wish you had more control over your department’s course content? What do you see as the pros or cons to this issue of “control”? Please leave your comments and suggestions below.
[Image by Flickr user TJook and used under the Creative Commons License.]
Follow Profhacker through your favorite RSS reader: 
17 Responses to Academic Freedom vs. Mandated Course Content
viwap - November 18, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Knowing both sides of the aisle as a former faculty member and now as the chief academic officer of a 2-year institution, I am a firm proponent of standardizing content and learning outcomes across all sections of a course. Not doing so results in academic anarchy rather than academic freedom, with students learning more or less depending on who teaches the class.
Faculty members use their academic freedom by choosing delivery and assessment methods, and by participating in course design and revision processes.
It’s time to stop considering faculty and administrators adversaries, and begin thinking about students and what they learn, not just in individual courses, but in the context of the whole curriculum.
educationnet2007 - November 18, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I was let go from a college teaching job in history because, to put it in the exact words of my supervisor, “you are too creative.”
philosophy - November 18, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Our dept, for full-timers, calls for them to inform the others about their text selections, and the dept has the option of rejecting texts – but it never has, although very occasionally it asks for a justification for a text.
For adjuncts: if they are last-minute hires (which is fairly frequent), the text may be assigned, or there may be a very limited choice of texts. If they are regular adjuncts, with a good bit of lead time, they can propose a preferred text and negotiate if the chair has concerns.
lyndahar - November 18, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I think there is room for middle ground. Developing common learning outcomes and some common assignments scored using common rubrics makes it possible to assess student learning within and across sections of the course. If some faculty members’ sections are outliers with respect either grade distribution or student performance on common assignments, then you have data on which to base a discussion and develop a plan for alignment. How much standardization is desirable or feasible will depend on the campus climate as well as the proportion of permanent faculty teaching the course. If the course is part of a curriculum, then it needs to fill its role in the curriculum. Ideally, we might have common syllabi developed through lots of discussion about learning outcomes and appropriate assignments. But you likely need to give faculty some flexibility to keep their interest up.
dollsey74 - November 19, 2010 at 7:56 am
As a department chair, I try to give both full-time and adjunct faculty as much academic freedom as possible when it comes to course content and delivery of course material. With full-time faculty, whoever teaches the course has the authority to choose the textbook/reading materials; however, if there are 2+ sections of a course, and different faculty are teaching these sections, I advise them to agree on the basic reading materials. Delivery of content is up to each instructor, but I encourage them to work with each other on this. The only things that have to remain the same are the course description, the course learning objectives, the grading scale, and when the final exam/project is due. My university requires all faculty to use the same syllabus template.
With adjuncts, things are almost the same. However, the main difference is that, at times, I have to hire new adjuncts shortly before the start of a new semester. By this time, the text has already been ordered (in most cases). Although, they can supplement the text with other materials if they so choose. With existing adjuncts, I ask them if a different text should be ordered.
I don’t want someone else telling me how to structure my exams and which questions I need to ask in it. Therefore, I don’t do that to the faculty in my department. Besides, I’m not an expert in every component of our program’s curriculum, so I leave it up to the experts to make these calls.
12039333 - November 19, 2010 at 8:07 am
We have common syllabi and prescribed learning outcomes, and an increasing demand for common textbooks, in our core courses. Upper-level courses are presumed to be in the faculty’s areas of expertise, and such decisions are left up to the individual instructor. Works for me.
dld18 - November 19, 2010 at 9:16 am
Although not unanimous, the comments above that reflect positively on common syllabi and assignments are fascinating, in light of general reactions to for-profit institutions that implement similar approaches. Maybe there *is* something to the standardization that some (by no means, all) FP institutions implement.
george_h_williams - November 19, 2010 at 9:23 am
@dld18: For me, the important question is whether or not those common syllabi and assignments are developed collaboratively by the faculty teaching those courses or whether they are handed down from on high without their input. The former, in my opinion, is much better.
11301218 - November 19, 2010 at 9:35 am
Before I got the heave-ho as dean of my college, I advocated common syllabi and common tests in lower division courses
taught in multiple sections. We are in an assessment driven environment. Plus, these courses provide the foundation
for upper division work. It is irresponsible to have wide variation in course content and standards since the students
had to prepared for the junior and senior level courses. The shopping of professors made scheduling and assigning
professors a nightmare. Assessment was a total mess. The department chairs complained about all of these problems,
but when I tried to persuade them to make as much in common as possible, I received relentless push back from them on
academic freedom. The department owns the courses, not the individual instructor. The department is collectively accountable
for quality and continuity of subject development. It is one thing for a chair to dictatorially impose his or her preference
in a course, and another to require the faculty teaching the course to come up with common syllabi and tests. In my much
younger days as a professor, I worked in an environment of common syllabi and tests and it works well as long as the individuals involved do not act like prima donnas.
22212102 - November 19, 2010 at 9:39 am
My college seems to agree with those who discuss a blend of committee-driven and instructor-driver courses. We have six campuses at our community college. Each campus handles the questions of text book selection, syllabus creation, student learning outcomes (SLO), and assessment differently but cohesively. The College, though college-wide discipline committees and Faculty Senate, creates outcomes and objectives for each course. Department chairs and FT faculty on each campus review and agree on textbook selection. Only rarely will one faculty use a different textbook at a campus. PT faculty are sometimes invited to participate in this process. We have a checklist that all faculty use when developing the syllabus. The primary requirement is that all of the course outcomes and assessing the SLO be included. Certain occupational courses such as nursing and aircraft maintenance are much more rigid and consistent across instructors. The math and ESL departments are becoming more aligned with each other, even requiring the same final examinations. This consistency may provide more accurate SLO appraisal or may simply force instructors to “teach the test.” I am working with a curriculum development specialist on a new curriculum for an introductory computer course. The online course will be very consistent for all instructors emphasizing one set of textbooks and one publisher’s Blackboard Vista test bank. The online course has one syllabus and outline that instructors may modify but not rewrite entirely.
In the last 25 years, I have seen the College move from entirely instructor/department controlled courses toward common courses throughout the campuses. I believe we serve the students and community better when we use the same text books, similar assessments, similar courses, and similar resources across all campuses and courses. Students and the community will know what to expect from course XYZ-123 no matter which campus or instructor offers the course. SLO can be more accurately measured from campus to campus. Academic freedom is still ensured because faculty input is invited (by contract) and we have, as yet, not suggested only one set of lesson plans be used. Instructors need the freedom to use their unique skills and experiences while teaching common course content and objectives.
punkassninja - November 19, 2010 at 11:01 am
This push for common curriculum is happening on my campus. Some innovations like common course syllabi I find helpful, especially for adjuncts. However, I feel when applied to writing assignments and tests, it flattens out the curriculum and does not allow for individual instructors to teach from their strengths. I have to give a writing assignment on Japanese literature, even though its far from my personal interest or strength as an instructor, and I wonder how this is helping the students when I feel no ownership of the assignment. Some instructors need help developing curriculum, but those who feel confident in course design should be left well enough alone.
missoularedhead - November 19, 2010 at 11:16 am
At UCI, the Humanities Core Course is structured in such a way that everyone uses the same texts, twice a week all students get the same lecture, and there are weekly meetings with all the section instructors (a mix of tenured faculty, adjuncts, and graduate students). How all of the instructors handle the texts is up to them. Some instructors spend much of their time adhering closely to the lectures, others go in a more creative direction, and still others find a balance of the two. However, every instructor writes his or her own exams, based on a structure decided by the course director (an essay or two, passage analysis, etc). It works because the instructors come from across the humanities, and have different approaches to the material (historical, literary, language based, etc). I can’t imagine what would happen if suddenly we all had to give the same exam.
Similarly, I’ve worked in community colleges where full-time faculty dictate the texts, and even if the adjuncts have huge issues with the chosen text, they have no voice. I find that hugely problematic, and, quite honestly, insulting. Second class, anyone?
dballard - November 19, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Because we are a small arts college with a large adjunct faculty, we do use common syllabi and texts for core classes. The syllabus is created and reviewed each year with input from all the faculty. Individual faculty can determine the assignments, exams, and a fourth of the readings. If an instructor wants to substantially change his/her syllabus, s/he work with the chair or coordinator to ensure that the scaffolded learning outcomes are addressed.
Since we use an online bookstore, the common texts allow students to change sections without returning the books.
For the most part the faculty and students find this arrangement convenient, and the annual discussion about texts and readings also serve as a forum for best pedagogical practices.
simonj55 - November 20, 2010 at 11:35 pm
The problem, as I now realize, is not that a common syllabus is a bad idea; it is that often the syllabus is imposed from above on the faculty. Worse still, it is that instructors have to teach from the same text-book. While operating a shared syllabus often turns out to be quite innocuous, since the instructor can still teach things his own way, using a common textbook, let alone one imposed on him, tends to be burdensome on the instructor. I once had to use a textbook I hated because I found myself correcting its many factual and logical errors. I would prefer a common syllabus with a choice of readings, preferably from monographs, rather than a common syllabus with a common textbook. Having said that, I do not think leaving it up to individual instructors to decide the issues hurts the student learning experience. In fact, rather than concern for the student’s learning experience, it is the determination of textbook publishers to increase market share that is driving the changes.
snwiedmann - November 21, 2010 at 10:35 am
Colleagues of mine (all in the same department with a couple core courses necessitating multiple sections) created an electronic text. One faculty member wrote a “skeleton” text. Other members then created units — each of which explored and expanded on a segment of the skeleton. Every faculty member teaching the course uses the skeleton but picks and chooses which additional units to include.
matt_l - November 22, 2010 at 5:12 pm
I think that the bare minimum is a consensus on student learning objectives for core courses. If faculty get there by creating a common syllabus or curating common content components (a shared textbook or the component system described by snwiedmann) then its all good. But if its imposed by a Department Chair, or even a department committee, this its bound to lead to problems and will ultimately be less effective.
The goal should be shared learning objectives across multiple sections of the same course title.
chronicle_k95dl01 - November 22, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Academic freedom is essential — the faculty controls the curriculum, not administrators. That said, academic freedom over the curriculum is held by the faculty collectively, not as individuals. It should be for the faculty as a body to decide the extent to which curricular decisions are made in a standardized way across sections (still controlled by faculty, but out of the hands of any one individual faculty member) and to what extent decisions devolve to individual faculty members.
If the faculty as a body chooses to standardize assignments, syllabi, etc., academic freedom is still alive and well. If the faculty as a body chooses to leave these decisions up to individual instructors, ditto. But the decision needs to be made by the faculty, as the collective body of experts in the content and pedagogy of their disciplines.