Fast Food Education - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 21, 2005

Fast Food Education

Date: Nov 22, 2005

I am astounded at the number and range of these classes that are being offered. But what I fail to understand is how is it possible to provide a quality educational experience into one or two weeks. How can a student do readings and homework, writing assignments, etc. and process all of this stuff in one week or two weeks?

Amy Young

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Amy, you ask how can a quality educational experience occur in one or two weeks???? How can homework, readings, assignments, etc, be done????? Bottom line is that in terms of human learning, it can't!!!!!

I believe this is a really questionable practice. Sort of like cramming for a final. Psychology tells us that distributed practice is superior to massed practice for most types of learning. What happens is pinheaded administrators look at how many contact hours go into a semester, then figure a way to cram all of these hours into one or two weeks. Hell, why spread it out so much.....we could have 2-24 hour day sessions and be done with it!!!!

Let's face it, it's a money maker. To USM's defense, they're certainly not the first to do this. It has been going on for some time at a number of universities that cram 2-4 weeks of an "intersession" that can be a moneymaker above and beyond the regular academic schedule.

We all know how difficult, if not impossible it is, to adequately cover the same amount of material in a meaningful way during our protracted summer sessions......just because the number of contact hours is exactly the same, wether it be in a summer session or in a 1 or 2 week intersession, there's no way you can cover the same amount of material witht the same level of coverage........AND, there's no way the learning that takes place is comparable!!!......ah, but the money!!!!!! Show me the money!!!!

Edward

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Amy Young wrote:

I am astounded at the number and range of these classes that are being offered. But what I fail to understand is how is it possible to provide a quality educational experience into one or two weeks. How can a student do readings and homework, writing assignments, etc. and process all of this stuff in one week or two weeks? Amy Young

Amy --

do you know the list of courses because you have seen them on SOAR? They aren't accessible from the website (or I couldn't find them anyhow.)

Date: Nov 22, 2005

i agree with amy--two weeks is very short, and i don't see how some courses could be taught in that format. the time to reflect on course material is not reflected in class contact minutes.

however, i saw the list of these courses and who is teaching them, and some respected members of the various councils are trying their hands at this. who can argue against them?!

the bigger issue is where to draw the bright line on how long a course should be, and what principles or criteria are used to draw such a line. 2 weeks too short, what about 3? (we've offered those) what about 5 weeks --like the S and SS courses? i know some universities that have said 5 weeks are too short, particularly for graduate courses. i may be misreading Edward, but he or she seems to think our summer session is too short.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Stephen,

Follow the link at the top of this post. There is a place that says click here to get a list of the courses.

Amy

Date: Nov 22, 2005

long in the tooth wrote:

i agree with amy--two weeks is very short, and i don't see how some courses could be taught in that format. the time to reflect on course material is not reflected in class contact minutes. however, i saw the list of these courses and who is teaching them, and some respected members of the various councils are trying their hands at this. who can argue against them?! the bigger issue is where to draw the bright line on how long a course should be, and what principles or criteria are used to draw such a line. 2 weeks too short, what about 3? (we've offered those) what about 5 weeks --like the S and SS courses? i know some universities that have said 5 weeks are too short, particularly for graduate courses. i may be misreading Edward, but he or she seems to think our summer session is too short.

Long in the Tooth,

All of your questions are completely valid. However, these issues should be discussed thoroughly in Academic Council and Graduate Council. Where do you draw the line?

However, these councils were not given an opportunity to discuss and debate and settle on a wisely worded policy that allows for different types of classes to be taught in these extreme circumstances.

I would argue the other way. If one- or two-week sessions ARE effective, then why are we wasting out time in higher education teaching 15 week semesters?

Amy

Date: Nov 22, 2005

amy--i don't have an answer, and i suspect there is no easy one. that's probably the reason the only criterion used has been class contact minutes. however, these minisession classes have been around since the early 1990's. the discussion may have occurred then. seemed to have fallen out of favor by the late 90's, but it may be that i didn't pay attention to them.

as to your last question--the only answer i have is that students are limited to one or two courses. we have 15 week semesters because students are taking more courses. however, why 15 weeks? other universities don't have 15 week semesters. and 15 week semesters aren't a SACS requirement. a lot of scheduling issues are probably long standing conventions or norms.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

I agree in principle with Amy that these mini-session courses are problematic, but it seems more plausible to offer a 100 or 200 level course in such a format. Yet, I see that there is every level of course being offered, including graduate courses (one by our nemesis Ken Malone!). A one-week graduate level 3 credit hour course? What a joke.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

long in the tooth wrote:

amy--i don't have an answer, and i suspect there is no easy one. that's probably the reason the only criterion used has been class contact minutes. however, these minisession classes have been around since the early 1990's. the discussion may have occurred then. seemed to have fallen out of favor by the late 90's, but it may be that i didn't pay attention to them. as to your last question--the only answer i have is that students are limited to one or two courses. we have 15 week semesters because students are taking more courses. however, why 15 weeks? other universities don't have 15 week semesters. and 15 week semesters aren't a SACS requirement. a lot of scheduling issues are probably long standing conventions or norms.

Of course, my last question was meant to be a bit silly. But I think the key here is the difference between "educational experiences" within a university setting and "course content" It seems to me that any non-traditional delivery method (1-week or online or correspondence) seems to emphasize "content" when we know that interactions in the classroom as well as in the hall or in front of the building or in the library are often as important as "content." I realize that I have painted non-traditional delivery with a broad brush, and I recognize that there are situations where non-traditional methods are entirely appropriate AND consistent with "educational experience." For example, I believe that many (though not all) studies abroad and international studies educational experiences fall in this category.

I maintain that most of the classes being offered in the winter mini-session may be "academically" inferior. In fact, in the case of gen ed core classes, there may be some very serious issues with meeting the requirements spelled out in the Bulletin.

Amy Young

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Actually this history of mini-sessions goes back at least as far as 1970 when I was an undergraduate. However, the short sessions were seen as ideal times for the teaching of the kinds of courses that would not normally be taught during the regular semesters -- unusual subject matter, intensives, applied knowlege courses. In other words, this was seen as a period whose intent was to encourage faculty and students to do things they would not ordinarily undertake.

They were never (at least at that time) viewed as situations in whic core courses or basic disciplinayr courses would be taught.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Amy Young wrote:

long in the tooth wrote: amy--i don't have an answer, and i suspect there is no easy one. that's probably the reason the only criterion used has been class contact minutes. however, these minisession classes have been around since the early 1990's. the discussion may have occurred then. seemed to have fallen out of favor by the late 90's, but it may be that i didn't pay attention to them. as to your last question--the only answer i have is that students are limited to one or two courses. we have 15 week semesters because students are taking more courses. however, why 15 weeks? other universities don't have 15 week semesters. and 15 week semesters aren't a SACS requirement. a lot of scheduling issues are probably long standing conventions or norms. Of course, my last question was meant to be a bit silly. But I think the key here is the difference between "educational experiences" within a university setting and "course content" It seems to me that any non-traditional delivery method (1-week or online or correspondence) seems to emphasize "content" when we know that interactions in the classroom as well as in the hall or in front of the building or in the library are often as important as "content." I realize that I have painted non-traditional delivery with a broad brush, and I recognize that there are situations where non-traditional methods are entirely appropriate AND consistent with "educational experience." For example, I believe that many (though not all) studies abroad and international studies educational experiences fall in this category. I maintain that most of the classes being offered in the winter mini-session may be "academically" inferior. In fact, in the case of gen ed core classes, there may be some very serious issues with meeting the requirements spelled out in the Bulletin. Amy Young

Amy, thanks for the direction.

I agree with you. I am very dubious about whether algebra can be effectively taught this way -- if the math folks out there reading this think otherwise then I'll give in. Mary is teaching a survey of Shakespeare -- and although I admire her very much, I don;t know that I can be convinced that one can read, think about and discuss enough Shakespare in this kind of time frame to make the course the true kind of survey it would be in a conventional semester.

To put it another way - has the subject we teach in the regluar semester become so undemanding and watered town that it is easy to cram into this kind of time frame? Or will it work the other way -- once students begin to twork in this new time frame with the inevitable short cuts needed to make it work, will that then dilute the conventional courses?

This is a very slippery slope and I am shocked that we are walking down it with little or no discussion or academic controls.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Some colleges/departments/schools on campus are offering an incentive for professors who teach intersession courses. Professors can earn as much as $5,000 during the one-week or two-week period. With this amount of payment being offered, professors are more likely to offer these types of classes.

As a student, I am hesitant to enroll in an intersession class due to the amount of material that must be covered. I, too, am concerned about the student's ability to actually learn instead of memorizing the material and being able to retain the material covered for future courses.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

The history department considered these short term classes and decided to offer them only at the 200 level under a yet-to-be created special studies/topics heading. We didn't see how one could legitimately offer upper-division material in two weeks.

There was interest among faculty in putting forth special, limited-topics courses in which travel to local historic sites would be central feature of the experience. When one considers these short courses like domestic versions of study abroad, they make more sense. There was a strong consensus that foundational courses such as the U.S. Survey were impossible under this format.

One thing to keep in mind about these classes is that grades are not due until the end of the spring semester, so longer writing and research assignments can be assigned.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

When I attended college (right after they invented dirt) the standard operational procedure called for students to do 2 hours of study for each hour of lecture. Even today introductory physics texts give this guidance to students. This "drive through window" approach to education will help keep Mississippi in last place, even though more people will have diplomas.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

I think the faculty at USM is so outstanding that they will have little difficulty with these short courses. The students are also equally outstanding. It may prove a little difficult for our student athletes because of time restraints,but I feel they will rise to the occasion.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Mr.Mac wrote:

I think the faculty at USM is so outstanding that they will have little difficulty with these short courses. The students are also equally outstanding. It may prove a little difficult for our student athletes because of time restraints,but I feel they will rise to the occasion.

This is sarcastic, right?

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Ray Folse wrote:

When I attended college (right after they invented dirt) the standard operational procedure called for students to do 2 hours of study for each hour of lecture. Even today introductory physics texts give this guidance to students. This "drive through window" approach to education will help keep Mississippi in last place, even though more people will have diplomas.

Yes, but USM will generate more SCHs than MSU and UM!

That's all that matters.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

given that UM has 72 minisession courses in the college of liberal arts alone (whew!), i don't think we'll beat them. i got a sheet today with the enrollments in our minisession classes, and as of today, only 6 will meet the minimum enrollment requirements.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

I notice that the English department is offering a two-week course in my plays and poems. I'm telling you from the dead (I can do that, just like in my plays) that there is no way that you can learn a wit about my work in one or two weeks. You're a fraud if you think otherwise.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

i'll defer to folks in the english department to decide whether the course is educationally defensible on a minisession.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

long in the tooth wrote:

i'll defer to folks in the english department to decide whether the course is educationally defensible on a minisession.

Do the faculty in each affected department even vote to approve these courses? If Academic and Graduate Councils approved the minisessions, then shouldn't it be possible for any faculty to teach any course without any more approval or oversight?

If the price is right, faculty can be found to say they will teach a "quality' course. I hope both Councils take another look at this. Next thing you know high school teachers will be hired to do these minisessions and there will be no one to question it.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

i assume departments did--as indicated upthread, the history department had a discussion of the courses they felt would work in a minisession. that's the reason i said that if english approved the shakespeare course being offered, that's good for me. i will trust them to make a sound judgment.

as to the councils approving the minisessions, we've had them for years. i don't know why a reapproval. i worry that if more oversight becomes the rule, then a department that takes a previously approved course and wants to teach it on a 5-week schedule or at night the like will have to have it approved again. as i said upthread, what's the bright line? when does the schedule on which a course is taught become a problem and when does is it not a problem?

Date: Nov 22, 2005

long in the tooth wrote:

i assume departments did--as indicated upthread, the history department had a discussion of the courses they felt would work in a minisession. that's the reason i said that if english approved the shakespeare course being offered, that's good for me. i will trust them to make a sound judgment. as to the councils approving the minisessions, we've had them for years. i don't know why a reapproval. i worry that if more oversight becomes the rule, then a department that takes a previously approved course and wants to teach it on a 5-week schedule or at night the like will have to have it approved again. as i said upthread, what's the bright line? when does the schedule on which a course is taught become a problem and when does is it not a problem?

Sorry to say I do not believe this assumption is a safe one. Not all chairs operate as openly as the chair of history. Not all departments are fully engaged in the curricular issues of their programs as a whole. We have numerous departments now staffed by many new academics who not only may not understand all of the issues but who are not always in a positon to cast the vote they would like. We have a number of new programs that appear to be the product of a variety of academic hucksterism. We have many incentives being thrown put to jump on the train -- but very few incentives being given to preserve academic intregrity.

If this sounds like a broken system then that is absolutely correct.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

"upthread" -- I like that word.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Emma wrote:

"upthread" -- I like that word.

It's like "upthecreek" without the paddle. That's where you'll find USM.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

stephen--i don't feel as comfortable as you do in making judgments about a particular course based on my "perception" of the faculty, chair, department, or whatever. i, as you, know mary villeponteaux (sp?) in english. i'm willing to trust and defer to the english department's judgment. i don't think that a higher body is in any better position to judge the educational justification for such a course. if we don't start trusting one another at the departmental level, i think we're in for a long period of trouble at USM. saw it before, about 20 years ago, and it wasn't pretty then. departments and colleges taking pot shots at others.

i'll repeat--i'm looking for some "bright line" criteria to make judgments if we don't trust departments and their chairs.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

historian wrote:

... One thing to keep in mind about these classes is that grades are not due until the end of the spring semester, so longer writing and research assignments can be assigned.

In the course my department sometimes teaches during our Wintersession, students get reading materials several weeks in advanced and then papers are generally due several weeks after the course ends.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

long in the tooth wrote:

stephen--i don't feel as comfortable as you do in making judgments about a particular course based on my "perception" of the faculty, chair, department, or whatever. i, as you, know mary villeponteaux (sp?) in english. i'm willing to trust and defer to the english department's judgment. i don't think that a higher body is in any better position to judge the educational justification for such a course. if we don't start trusting one another at the departmental level, i think we're in for a long period of trouble at USM. saw it before, about 20 years ago, and it wasn't pretty then. departments and colleges taking pot shots at others. i'll repeat--i'm looking for some "bright line" criteria to make judgments if we don't trust departments and their chairs.

I know Mary as well and I also trust her judgement and that of the English faculty.

There are departments (it is rumored) where course submissions might go out from the chair (having previously made an agreement with an individual faculty member) and never submitted to the rest of the faculty for vetting.

We teach theatre history in this program -- I think a historian would be perfectly correct to question whether we could teach theatre history effectively if we decided to put it into the intercession.

I actually don't think I need to make a judgement about a particular course -- I am speaking to general group of trends which I do regard as dangerous. Some of these might be the trend to expand enrollments, to subtly lower the standards for students who are enrolling; to create new programs and new courses without having them go through appropriate academic oversight; the hiring of many young academics to replace the many years of experienced academics who are leaving, the rising numbers of adjuncts; an administration that always speaks of quality but never defines it and hence turns the notion of quality into a marketing slogan; a lack of vision from topside that speaks to the university as anything other than a cog of the business community; the depiction of faculty members as beings who are motivated by personal profit rather than a uniquely personal mission of education, research or fellowship in the intellectual community which is then combined with incentives that, in lieu of any kind of oversight are potentially corrupting. We have already had the experience of having the administration lie about our enrollments by creating a course with false enrollments. So the corruption is already quite present.

We have academic oversight committees for a good reason -- because individual faculty members or even whole departments sometimes do not always see how they fit into the big picture and while it is important to maintain the relative autonomy of the parts it is also in the interest of the whole to be sure that the quality and integrity of those parts is sustained. In the current climate I do not think a hands off policy on the part of the faculty, which is charged with overseeing its own offerings, can be justified. It has become too easy for Deans and chairs to "influence" departments and individual faculty members. It is too clear - or at least it is an open question -- if members of this administration operate honestly -- and thus too unclear what influences are operating to affect course offerings. Clealy the drive to populate this campus with students is a major factor in the many of the new initiatives. This is itself is not evil -- but failing to adeuqately monitor the relationship between motivation and the actual execution of the initiative can lead into some prety shady territory. Academic oversight isn't just about checking the p's and q's or about making sure an individual faculty member is honest and capable in putting a course together. It also concerns itself with the climate under which such changes happen -- a check to be sure that the decision that is happening is indeed one sactioned by the faculty of a department and is not the product of intrigue or inappropriate influence.

Date: Nov 22, 2005

Trying to think like an undergrad -- it would have been interesting to take my "Art in America" course in a minisession. Very intense and connected and interesting. But Algebra? "The Continental Novel" (wherein we read War and Peace)? Hardly. But Folk Dance would have worked nicely, or Ice Skating, or Music Appreciation -- but not German 101, or Latin, or Trig. Some things just can't be absorbed in that length of time. (In the case of me and Trig, a hundred weeks would not have sufficed, alas.)