The UW Parkside Flexible Degree Option Exploratory Group

Task Discussion

• 
  Terry Brown   Aug. 28, 2012, 3:38 p.m.

  Here are Dr. John Koker's remarks to the Board of Regents last week regarding the flexible degree option:

  /media/uploads/files/ProvostBrown/2012/08/28/Koker Rmrks to rgnts2012.pdf

• 
  Terry Brown   Aug. 26, 2012, 3:46 p.m.

  Dr. Aaron Brower, Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning at UW Madison, has been appointed Interim Provost at UW Extension and Special Asst to the President of the UWS for the Flexible Degree Option.  Dr. Brower addressed the Board of Regents on Thursday, with Dr. John Koker, dean at UW Oshkosh. Both Dr. Brower and Dr. Koker agreed to let me share their comments with you.  I will post Dr. Koker's when they are available.

  Here are Dr. Brower's notes for his remarks:

  /media/uploads/files/ProvostBrown/2012/08/26/notes for FD talk w BOR 8-23-12.pdf

• 
  Vera Kolb   July 13, 2012, 11:39 a.m.

  Here is my input about the “Inside Higher Ed” article, specifically about the opinion of Goldrick-Rab. I cite her first: “I think there is a lot of well-warranted suspicion among the faculty,” said Sara Goldrick-Rab, an associate professor of educational policy studies and sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, adding that faculty members -- many of whom want to be involved in the program’s development -- have received scant details. Goldrick-Rab also said she hoped the faculty staffing the new degree programs would be tenure-track and tenured faculty, not adjuncts. “If they are going to staff this with adjuncts, then we’re going to have a problem,” she said. “Faculty are not interested in being a part of the continued move toward adjuncts and away from tenure.” I think that faculty are heterogeneous. Some of them teach from the yellow notes which have not changed since their tenure. Other faculty welcome the opportunity to do new things and explore new avenues of teaching. I think that people who do not want to participate should be left alone. Nobody is interested in their negativity which started as soon as they learned that there are new things that they may need to do. The faculty who are interested can work productively with adjuncts. Adjuncts can be great experts. We can see the example in the UW-P Criminal Justice Department who has a former Kenosha prosecutor as an adjunct. He teaches students how the jury works, and gives real examples from his career. What is wrong with this? Part of any tenure involves teaching. If a faculty member works with the adjuncts, who may come straight from the real world of jobs, this combination can only benefit the students. The adjunct may teach students how to meet the specific tasks of the current jobs that exist on the market, and the faculty may provide a broader background on the subject, so that the students adapt better to the future market needs. I see it as a win-win situation. My opinion is not set in stone. The discussion about this has not even started yet. However, I hope that this was helpful.

• 
  Vera Kolb   July 11, 2012, 3:32 p.m.

  I have enjoyed tremendously studying the “CAEL” materials on “Competency-
  Based Degree Programs in the U.S.”, that Rob Barber has forwarded to us.  Actually, while Kenosha was baking at 105 degrees, I was sitting in my cool basement reading the stuff, for which I took three days.

  Let me convey to you my first impressions.  Firstly, I do believe that there would be a group of students who would respond favorably to the Flexible program. However, there would be a danger of people not following through, which we must combat by providing a proper follow up and counseling. When I was a Wisconsin Teaching Scholar, a few years back, there was another participant, from the Madison Continuing Education Extension, who was in charge of distance education.  Her project was to study why so many distance education students drop out.  Thus, we must understand the risks and be prepared to help these students stay on course.

  Secondly, not everything in the CAEL paper was convincing. Particularly worrisome was the constant comparison between competency-based approach vs. traditional course work. The authors label the latter as  “seat-time”, thus  in a derogatory manner.  This is not helpful.  Grades are not given for “seat-time”, there are other requirements, exams, reports, research papers etc., which lead to the grade. I believe that it was not necessary to beat the traditional courses into the ground, especially when the competency-based program has many of its own qualities and a lot to offer in general.

  I do believe that Parkside has a unique position to offer flexible degree program from a point of view that Parkside professors (at least most of them, I think) love to teach independent study and to involve students in the high quality work.  I think that developing new teaching modules to meet flexible degree would be reasonably easy.  Any professor who ever taught Winterim (I did it for Polymer Chemistry and Green Chemistry) knows well that a lot can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time, if the material is chosen wisely and if students are motivated.  As a matter of fact, our new schedule, which has a longer winter break, would be ideally suited for such courses.  We could even help along our regular students to finish sooner.

  Vera Kolb