Paul Brandon wrote: > > > First of all, this is *not* an academic freedom question since he was > not fired because of the *content* of what he was teaching. > Rather, the issue is whether he was requiring his students to know > (and answer test questions on) content not specified in the syllabus > -- a violation of the contract between the student and the state.
Hi Paul, I'm sure I'm probably misreading the above, but how is "requiring his students to know .... *content* not specified in the syllabus" not about content? And now for my mini-rant not aimed at Paul: More generally, I worry that we, as a profession, are taking the idea of uniformity to such extremes that it really has begun to impinge on issues of academic freedom and ultimately, reducing the quality of education. In the case of the above, what a shame that extra learning, content, material, exposure, etc. is considered a violation of the contract. It seems to suggest that we must not violate our students right to a minimal but only a minimal education. In terms of psychology, I see a push for standardization across departments, programs, and universities. Ironically, we recently had a discussion on TIPS that argued that such uniformity is not possible or even desirable when dealing with different student populations. Nonetheless, I think that there are basics that everyone completing Intro, for example, should know (e.g., research methods, basic content). The Undergraduate Learning Outcome and Goals highlight those basics for an undergraduate psychology education. However, does this suggest that we can't teach above and beyond these goals? I don't think so. Unfortunately, I see some institutions as beginning to move towards highly uniform courses in the pursuit of standardization. I worry about what I perceive to be as a push towards teaching specific content (students must learn X, Y, and Z) only presented in this particular way with uniform assignments/class exercises. I have seen this particularly in relation to online courses where the faculty are required to use and only use the program template with accompanying materials developed by a single faculty member. Does such an approach potentially only serve to diminish the unique strengths that each of us as faculty members bring into the classroom and our differing teaching styles? Does such an approach reduce each individual faculty member's effectiveness due to the proscribed approach to teaching the specified material. Also, can we not present additional material that draws on our strengths, knowledge, and research to excite students about psychology? It was such passion on the part of my professors when I was a student that drew me to psychology. And what impact does this limiting approach have on teaching students how to learn and think critically about psychology, engendering excitement about psychology, promoting exploration, etc. all within the framework of the content of psychology? If we begin to rely (as some universities and colleges now do) on standardized, multiple-choice tests at the end of a student's degree as a primary assessment measure, do we end up just teaching to the test? In the end, are we moving towards a place of such standardization, uniformity, and rigidity that we are being asked to become technicians as opposed to teachers? It seems to me that we need to move towards some sort of balance between standardization including necessary goals/outcomes and teacher creativity, academic freedom, etc. In the end, I think this would be most beneficial to students and the educational process. And, while I'm at it, do we really all need to use the same textbook? If a mid-level (or low or high) intro text is used across all courses within a department/university, don't the students all get essentially the same content? One faculty member might select a text because of the slight international focus, another for its consideration of gender and other diversity issues, someone else because of the greater level of cognitive or social content. Isn't it ultimately better for the student to have an instructor who is excited about the material/content of their textbook as opposed to just putting up with it because it was selected some time ago by others with potentially different interests or their friend is the author? Academic freedom was designed to protect faculty in relation to them teaching, researching, exploring controversial ideas. In psychology, there are plenty of controversial ideas and areas not definitively answered by the research literature. As a peace/political psychologist, I can attest to fact that the discipline includes a lot of murky waters with an occasional hidden minefield. Certainly, academic freedom demands a responsible use of that freedom. Nonetheless, those of us who work in potentially controversial and political areas of research, not only value but need the protections associated with academic freedom. Firing someone for providing supplementary but largely complementary materials seems to me to be an erosion, albeit seemingly mundane erosion, of one's freedom to teach a specific course to the best of their ability. However, couldn't it then make it much easier to fire someone for teaching something controversial? To Peace, Linda -- Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology and International Human Rights Past-President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence (Div. 48, APA) <http://www.peacepsych.org> Steering Committee, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) <http://www.psysr.org> Secretary, Raphael Lemkin Award Committee, Institute for the Study of Genocide <http://www.instituteforthestudyofgenocide.org/> Webster University 470 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO 63119 Main Webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ <http://www.webster.edu/%7Ewoolflm/> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's (and woman's) best friend. . . . Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
