Do the TV Course Proposals Put
        Arts and Science Programs at Risk?
             Jim Clark, 15 April 1994
     The Senate has just received a proposal that
recommends the dramatic expansion of TV course offerings,
the removal of control from A&S to Continuing Education, and
expanding the resources of Continuing Education to handle the
TV courses.  Although already passed by the Academic
Planning Committee and forwarded to Senate for approval at its
Monday meeting, the proposals have received little or no open
discussion in Arts and Science (A&S).  I believe that the TV
course proposals could compromise traditional A&S courses
even moreso than they are already and could divert increasingly
scarce resources away from the core A&S programs.  I also
wonder at what point in the processing of program changes
such concerns are addressed?  Below are some specific
questions that I think need to be raised and answered.
1.  Many of the qualities of good instruction identified by our
     course evaluations are difficult to achieve in TV courses
     (e.g., encouraging participation, being sensitive to
     student learning).  A survey of our 1993 graduates
     showed that such properties were the best predictors of
     student satisfaction with their education at UofW.  Can
     TV courses in fact meet the normal standards of quality
     university instruction?  Who is in the best position to
     make that judgment?
2.  The graduate survey showed that students primarily came
     to UofW because of its location, small classes, and the
     quality of its teaching and programs.  Will extensive use
     of TV courses negate these strengths (e.g., location),
     compromise our image as a small, accessible university,
     and raise doubts about the quality of instruction at
     UofW?
3.  If we legitimize TV courses, can we in fact compete
     successfully with larger and wealthier players (e.g.,
     UofM, other institutions, consortia)?  Might our best
     protection be to argue that TV courses are useful for
     genuinely distant education, but are no substitute for
     regular classroom instruction?
4.  The proposal moves control for the TV courses out of A&S
     and into Continuing Education.  Is not an FCAS
     committee analogous to the Honours Committee or a
     Senate Committee analogous to Academic Standards a
     better model for control of A&S TV courses, especially if
     legitimate academic concerns are to have sufficient
     priority over such practical matters as money and if there
     is the potential for TV courses to reduce enrollments in
     regular A&S classes?
5.  If expanded facilities are needed for the management of
     A&S TV courses, should not these resources be centered
     in A&S or university-wide structures (e.g., Records) to
     minimize redundancy and to ensure that all A&S students
     benefit from the expanded resources?  For example, why
     duplicate academic advising or other resources in
     Continuing Education when A&S services could be
     expanded if necessary?  Why have two systems for
     handling student questions and problems, especially
     when individual students might use both systems?  Might
     an autonomous TV course unit be overly concerned
     about its survival as a budgetary unit?
6.  Many financial questions remain unanswered.  What is the
     estimated cost and source of the current and additional
     resources required for the TV programs?  Will funds be
     diverted from the already scarce resources of A&S
     departments, even though we offer the courses?  Why
     are more TA hours per student allotted for TV courses
     than for regular courses?  What is the net projected
     benefit of the courses and what assumptions underlie
     those projections?  For example, is it anticipated that TV
     courses will reduce stipend positions, with minimal
     savings, or is the long-term aim to reduce the number of
     regular full-time faculty required to service a given
     number of students?  How will the financial returns from
     TV courses, if any, be allocated within UofW and how do
     they benefit A&S (or do they)?
7.  How will the TV courses be evaluated?  Evaluations could
     include monitoring enrollment patterns, withdrawal and
     continuation rates, course evaluations (with approval of
     the instructors), and specially designed assessments
     (e.g., questionnaires, interviews with randomly selected
     students).  How can we ensure that the evaluators are
     chosen for their sensitivity to academic concerns?

     These questions and uncertainties indicate to me that
A&S should be extremely deliberate and vigilant in the
development of the TV courses.  The existence of such
questions also raises fundamental questions about the manner
in which substantive program changes are undertaken at UofW.
1.  Is there a well-defined route by which proposals of an
     academic nature come to Senate?  The TV course
     proposals seem to be coming in an indirect manner
     without open discussion by A&S faculty.
2.  Are there clear guidelines for the process to be followed in
     the development of new programs?  Is open consultation
     required?  Must draft documents be circulated?  Do
     comments have to be invited from the constituencies
     affected by the program changes?  What happens to
     proposals that do not follow these guidelines?
3.  Does approval by the new Academic Planning Committee
     mean that Academic Planning views a proposal as
     complete and thoroughly vetted, or is Academic Planning
     a preliminary step in the process?
4.  Do the many committees at UofW interfere with the smooth
     communication and evaluation of information about
     programs and related curriculum matters?  Is it clear
     which committees are responsible for what?  Are lines of
     communication clear?
5.  Do program changes require formal approval within the
     affected unit (e.g., A&S) before being considered at the
     University level?
6.  Do all proposals have to be forwarded by some standing or
     ad hoc committee that will ensure a balanced
     examination of proposals, or can program changes be
     advanced solely on the basis of individuals who favor the
     proposals?
7.  Are there guidelines for the range of concerns that must be
     addressed in program proposals (e.g., impact on existing
     programs, availability of resources)?  These are a normal
     part of course proposals within A&S, but are there similar
     requirements at Senate, perhaps especially for proposals
     that do not come from A&S?
8.  Are A&S faculty viewed as a valuable pool of experience
     and ability that can be used in the vetting of new
     programs, or are they instead viewed as obstacles to be
     avoided or overcome on the road to the perceived "new
     realities" at UofW?

     How Senate answers these questions about due process
will determine whether or not the TV course proposals have in
fact reached a stage that warrants consideration of the
recommendations.

     My primary purpose here is to raise some questions
about the specifics of the TV course proposals and about the
way in which program changes occur at UofW (or at least this
particular change).  For what it is worth, my own view is that
the proposed TV courses could destroy the image that has
given UofW its relative stability over decades of university
teaching while losing out in competition with larger and
wealthier institutions for the new "distance-education" market. 
I also believe that little opportunity has been given for faculty
input and for faculty control of the TV course
recommendations, and that they should therefore be rejected or
directed to an appropriate committee for more thorough
evaluation.