Report to the Community No. 1 – February 2008

Stephen McClatchie
Vice-President, Academic and Research

The academic renewal process, a key component of Mount Allison’s Strategic Statement, was launched on 14 January 2008 with the release of Changing to Preserve: Renewing Academic Programming at Mount Allison. This discussion paper has been considered by faculty, staff, and students on an individual basis as well as in groups, both formal (Board of Regents, Departments, Faculties, Faculty Council, SAC) and informal. In some instances, the Vice-President, Academic and Research, and/or the Dean(s) were in attendance during group discussions. Several dozen written responses were received from individuals, committees, and Departments.

In responding to the discussion paper, some chose to engage with some or all of the eleven questions posed. Others chose simply to respond to the two principal ones dealing with the completeness of the paper—the sense was that the paper was largely complete—and advice on the process. The response from the SAC Academic Affairs Committee was excellent and is attached with permission to enable faculty members to get a sense of some students’ views.

This is the first of a series of reports to the community that will be issued as the process unfolds. It provides a summary of the initial feedback received and outlines the next steps in the process.

In general, the response to the paper was positive. Understandably, there is evidence of cynicism in some quarters, but there is also evidence of considerable enthusiasm across the institution, or at least of a hopeful “willing suspension of disbelief.” Several noted the “historically charged” element of a number of the questions. It appears that some have seen the paper and the process as implying that our programs are “broken,” which is certainly neither my view nor the intent of the paper. Others expressed a concern that “we”—it is unclear exactly who is meant here—had already decided on the outcome to some or all of the questions. This is not true. To my mind, the only outcome that is a given is that we will achieve all three of the overarching goals outlined in the paper; I do not pretend to know how we will do this, only that we will.

Experience has shown, however, that the density of the document and the sheer number of issues that it raises makes it difficult to get in to it in a systematic and comprehensive way. Many people suggested that we form a series of strategic working groups or task forces to engage with individual issues. This we will do. We will also ensure that these issues are discussed in larger groups such as Faculty Council as well. Wherever possible, we will provide models for discussion in order to make the issues more concrete. We will also consider implementing changes as pilot projects in the first instance, in order to measure their impact.

The following comments and suggestions were made in discussion or by written submission.

• It is important to note that “academic renewal” is always already underway. Since the paper was released, significant changes to courses and programs have been passed by Senate, several Departments have instigated changes to course delivery, and the development of the 2008-09 timetable has occasioned other changes and refinements to course offerings.
• There is strong support for the idea of increasing the flexibility of our degree structures and program requirements. (One respondent preferred the notion of “agility.”)
• Small class sizes, particularly in the upper years, as well as small-group experiences in the early years are seen as fundamental to our identity. These should be preserved and, in the case of the latter, expanded.
• While many people made specific suggestions about our overall degree structures and program requirements, the current structure of Honours, Majors, and Minors appears to have broad support across the institution.
  • Honours and Majors requirements vary greatly by discipline. Does this make sense? Are there principles behind this variance? Should there be uniform standards across the institution? Should more academic credit be given for a thesis?
  • There seems to be a need for both course-based and research Honours programs.
  • Many expressed an interest in returning to Joint Honours programs. What are the pros and cons of this?
  • Several Science departments strongly urge a review of the general B.Sc. requirements.
  • A number of people suggested more exploration of capstone courses or experiences in order to integrate the various degree requirements and instil a greater degree of coherence in the program.
  • Greater use of cross-listed courses was seen as important.
  • Others commented that it would be useful to be able to continue to add new courses even after the calendar deadline has passed—could we move to the on-line calendar being the “official” one?
• There was a mixed view on distribution requirements, although everyone agreed that they should be reviewed and other possible models considered (e.g., develop more synthetic introductory courses like Science 1001). Some people felt strongly that this “mandated recipe for breadth” was inappropriate and resulted in a general lowering of standards. Others, equally strongly, see them as important to introduce students to a wide variety of disciplinary and epistemological paradigms.
  • What is the purpose of distribution requirements? How do they contribute to the coherence of a degree?
  • One articulate response suggested that we need to move beyond the reflexive answer (“that they introduce students to a broader range of subjects and that this exposure results in a more holistic, liberal education”) to recognise that in many cases “all we’ve done is coerce reluctant students to take up space in already full introductory classes where they memorise enough to fill the arbitrary requirement but actually learn nothing.” Instead, and in order to make distribution requirements actually mean something, we need to devise set of (meta-) learning outcomes and a means to measure their fulfilment. We also need to find a way to integrate this learning into programs.
  • Others echoed this need to find ways to assist students in making the links between disciplines.
• There is an interest in exploring and piloting other models for timetabling and delivering courses, e.g., concentrated courses, more spring/summer courses (which would “count” as part of a faculty member’s assigned teaching as per s. 12 of the Collective Agreement).
• There was strong support for the idea of exploring secondary credentialing, e.g., the development of certificate programs, whether disciplinary based (e.g., business) or skills based (e.g., information literacy, foreign language).
• Many people commented on the importance of information literacy and suggested the development of an intentional strategy in this area. The professional librarians and archivist, in particular, have key roles to play here.
• We should develop a training program for student assistants.
• Academic support services are essential and require more development (e.g., writing/numeracy centre, second-year advising).
• Two additional questions were suggested:
  • “What type of (institutional) environment will facilitate continuous innovation and improvement of academic programming?”
  • “How are our programs different from those of other institutions, and why?”

Students’ Administrative Council (SAC) Response
Academic Renewal Discussion Paper

Compiled by the SAC Academic Affairs Committee
February 15, 2008

• The importance of fostering effective teaching methods in Mount Allison courses and supporting teaching innovation, including application of feedback from student evaluations of teaching.
  
  
• The need to consider all academic programs equally when making financial and administrative support decisions.
  
  
• The necessity of effective academic support resources (particularly academic and career advising) and adequate investment in these programs.
  
• The essential recognition of the diversity of students’ academic backgrounds both when entering Mount Allison programs and throughout their degree; academic planning focused on incorporating varying needs.
  
  
• The importance of the liberal arts idea of a diversified undergraduate education and opportunity for sampling of different and challenging disciplines.

• The SAC believes that the academic administration must ensure that there is balanced financial and administrative support for both lower and upper year courses.
  
  
• The institution should attempt to foster a more personalized, innovative first year academic experience while preserving the research-intensive, small class experience at the upper levels. We firmly support the effort to provide dynamic, exciting classes at the first year level.
  
  
• All academic programs should receive equal consideration and attention during the Academic Renewal process. Any decisions taken as a result of this process should consider the needs of all respective programs equally.
  
  
• The SAC supports the call for a discussion on the system of distribution credits, as an accompaniment to a larger discussion of Mount Allison’s subscription to a liberal arts educational model.
  
  
• If we are following a liberal arts ideal, all Mount Allison students should have access to all disciplines at an introductory level. Opportunity for students to sample other disciplines and broaden their knowledge base is essential, particularly if their tuition fees serve to cross-subsidize more costly disciplines.
  
  
• A post-secondary education is a huge financial investment for Mount Allison students. The SAC would urge the academic administration to consider students’ financial burden in making any changes to programming that would require additional student fees.
  
  
• Any changes to the degree structure should be made only after extensive and conscientious consultation with all stakeholders in the institution, especially students and faculty in programs that could be changed.
  
  
• The Mount Allison student body is academically very diverse. In addition to investing in current and new academic programming, the institution must also focus on ensuring student success in those programs through adequate academic support services.
  
  
• Students entering Mount Allison do so from very different backgrounds. For this reason, the SAC firmly supports the idea of ‘Challenge for Credit’ and re-affirms the need for academic advising and support for students who find a first year challenging. We would like to see the continuation of the Academic Mentors and First Year Advising programs.
  
  
• Mount Allison has a large gap in academic advising services for students, particularly those in their second year of study who have yet to declare a major. In addition, the academic counseling services given through the Student Development Counsellors are often over-subscribed and as such should likely be expanded. Career counseling services are almost non-existent.
  
  
• Students graduate from Mount Allison with diverse plans and career aims. For this reason, the SAC supports the idea of a broad range of academic programming and the use of innovative teaching methods to serve these varied needs. As a community, we must try to balance the skills-based with the research-based, disciplinary intensive elements of the Mount Allison degree while undertaking the Academic Renewal process. The institution must also try to provide opportunities for practical application of both types of knowledge, perhaps in the form of increasing potential for co-op and internship programs.
  
  
• The SAC firmly believes in the principle that students should not only be taught how to absorb content, but also how to think critically and from a researcher’s perspective.
  
  
• The SAC supports the concept that interdisciplinarity must increasingly be built into Mount Allison’s academic repertoire. However, we would also like to highlight the importance of maintaining the coherence of our degrees and our interdisciplinary programs.
  
  
• Increasing the interdisciplinarity of our existing academic programs and potentially expanding our academic offerings will necessitate a broad and deep suite of library resources. Any change or expansion in this respect must be accompanied by investment in library resources and a sustainable system for acquiring the appropriate resources for our programs.
  
  
• The SAC also supports the idea that all faculty (including new faculty) should be research-active and current in their field, as it improves classroom experience and can offer crucial student research opportunities.
  
  
• Teaching is a great strength of the Mount Allison faculty, and attention should be given to encouraging development of teaching ability in addition to encouraging research activity. The student evaluations of teaching can be very useful in developing such teaching ability. The SAC believes that the Purdy Crawford Teaching Centre is a crucial campus resource, and would encourage all faculty to take advantage of this resource.
  
  
• Following this, another major strength of Mount Allison is student access to high-quality, full-time faculty and undergraduate research. The SAC strongly suggests that the institution increase student research opportunities wherever possible.
  
  
• The SAC sees merit in the concept of piloting interdisciplinary courses (preferably on an optional basis) as a means of trying out new academic formats.
  
  
• Co- and extra-curricular activities are important elements of the Mount Allison experience. We would suggest that a greater commitment of campus financial resources such as endowment funds could be used to support activities (e.g. speakers, conferences, etc.) that complement the academic experience.

• The SAC on behalf of students would like to echo the idea that the Academic Renewal process must be open and transparent with student opinion and participation solicited at each stage.
  
  
• We would suggest that the Vice-President hold a series of issue-based discussions or working groups in which students and faculty can tackle broad concepts and eventually more specific initiatives, in addition to the traditional ‘open community meeting’ model. We believe that it is important for students and faculty to participate in this process together and share their often different perspectives on the issues at hand. We would also suggest that participating students be appointed by both the SAC and the Deans, ensuring that a broader range of student opinion is included. Open fora in which issues could be discussed will remain essential so that all stakeholders are given equal opportunity to participate.
  
  
• We would also suggest that the Vice President Academic & Research remain in close contact with the SAC’s Council throughout the process. If the Vice President is able to attend Council meetings periodically to discuss the process and its progress with student councilors, the students as a whole will have greater access to the process through the distribution of Council minutes. If students have direct contact with senior academic administrators throughout the process, they will be more likely to perceive it as accessible and current.
  
  
• The SAC believes that the student body will participate more fully if they believe that their views are considered and taken seriously by faculty and the academic administration, and that every possible effort should be made to ensure that this is the case.