CURRICULUM
By
Daniel D. Barron and Christine Westbrook
This chapter contains reports and summaries of the data on curriculum
as reported by the responding schools for the 1999-2000 academic year.
For those schools on the quarter system, the notation "qt" will
be used. Some schools have indicated that "units" or "courses" are used
instead of a specific number of hours of credit as guidelines for degree
requirements. In such cases these units are indicated as the respondents
reported them. Following each table will be listed descriptive information
which does not lend itself to the general reporting pattern of the table
but is important to the interpretation of the question asked.
All
56 schools with ALA accredited programs reported this year. All of the questionnaires received were
usable; however, as has been the case each year, respondents, in some
instances did not complete each item; therefore, the totals in all tables
may not always add up to the 56 responses received.
Following some preliminary comments on aspects of structural
changes, the remainder of this chapter presents data on more volatile
aspects of curriculum issues, such as distance education, use or regular
and adjunct faculty, faculty teaching loads, cross-listed courses, curriculum
committees and curriculum changes.
Program Structure
Following
the practice of the past two years, Tables III-1 through III-29 dealing
with various structural elements of the program are not included in
the printed version of this Report.
They are published in the web version (http://ils.unc.edu/ALISE/2001/Curric). Some comments about and highlights from
these tables follows:
Distance
Education
Respondents described a number of ways in which they offered
courses away from their home campuses at distant sites. Table III-30
contains the data reported by the respondents related to courses taught
in their distance education programs.
Because of the inconsistency in the surveys, classes were only
counted once, even if they were taught more than once in the year.
A total of 76% of the responding schools provided one or more
courses away from the home campus in 19997-2000. This year forty-three
schools reported a total of 522 courses taught as distance education. The range is from 1 to 38 courses and
the average is 12 courses offered per school.
Thirty schools indicated that they expecting to expand their
distance education programs. These
changes include:
·
British
Columbia — Plans to offer two new courses in September 2000.
·
California
– Los Angeles — Plans to make scheduling more convenient on many courses
for those coming from great distances.
·
Clarion
— Plans to offer more Internet courses.
·
Clark
Atlanta — Planning its first course utilizing distance-learning technologies.
·
Dominican
— Plans to add more classes and more locations using video conferencing.
·
Drexel
— Hopes to offer the MS
degree with a concentration in Management of Digital Information in
Fall 2000.
·
Florida
State — Expects to add at least two new courses per year at the graduate
level and three courses per year at the undergraduate level to be delivered
via the Internet.
·
Hawaii
— Will offer one course via the Internet.
·
Illinois
— Plans the continued addition of courses not previously taught via
the Internet and use of emerging technologies.
·
Kent
State — Plans an increase in the number of distributed education offerings.
·
Kentucky
— Plans to add five new Internet-based courses in Fall of 2000, and
then two additional courses each year thereafter.
·
Maryland
— Plans to offer off-campus courses at one remote site.
·
North
Carolina - Chapel Hill — Is offering one course using a web-based approach
during the Fall of 2000.
·
North
Texas — Plans to continue developing course offerings on the web.
·
Oklahoma
— Plans to review and develop a comprehensive distance education plan
and to introduce web-based courses.
·
Pittsburgh
— Plans to introduce a FastTrack MLIS in Summer 2001 pending Provost
approval.
·
Queens
— Plans to increase offerings.
·
Rhode
Island — Plans to increase the number of TV delivery courses and add
Internet courses.
·
Rutgers
— Plans to increase offerings via distance education.
·
St.
John’s — Is evaluating a new online elective course to determine the
feasibility of this method of delivery for other parts of the curriculum.
·
San
Jose — Plans to offer web-based courses.
·
South
Carolina — Reports that it began a second MLIS program cohort in Maine
during the Fall of 2000.
·
Southern
Connecticut — Is beginning a 2-year assessment of online courses and
plans to offer additional support (e.g. mentoring) and a student portfolio
assessment after initial core courses are completed.
·
Southern
Mississippi — Plans to offer more Internet courses, more courses with
the Internet as a component, and to involve a higher percent of the
faculty in distance education.
·
Tennessee
— Plans to migrate from interactive television to synchronous web-based
delivery.
·
Texas
— Plans an increase in web-supported courses.
·
Texas
Woman’s — Plans a moderate increase in Internet course delivery.
·
Washington
— Plans to add an MLIS distance education program in the Summer of 2001.
·
Wayne
State — Plans to increase the amount of electronic course delivery with
off-campus classes.
·
Western
Ontario — Plans to allow limited access to some courses by distance.
Faculty
Compensation for Distance Education
Faculty
members were compensated for teaching distance education courses within
their regular teaching load in all of the schools that reported teaching
away from the home campus. Of
these, nine report various forms of other compensation as listed below:
·
Alabama
— Pays adjunct faculty on a per
course basis.
·
Clarion
— Faculty receive additional cash
incentives or professional development funds.
·
Dominican
— Pays per course for adjunct and
emeritus faculty.
·
Drexel
— Indicates that faculty are given
the option to teach off campus and are compensated separately.
·
Illinois
— Indicates a reduced teacher load
as compensation.
·
Oklahoma
— Regular full-time faculty and
adjuncts receive additional compensation for summer sessions.
·
Rhode
Island
— Provides travel reimbursement.
·
South
Carolina
— Provides extra compensation on
a per student basis in courses broadcast out-of-state.
·
Southern
Mississippi
— Pays additional compensation
through a continuing education budget, Gulf Park Campus budgets, and
USM program budget.
·
Wayne
State
— Reports that full-time faculty
teach regular distance education courses within load plus expenses.
Salary and expenses are calculated on a per course and location basis
for part-time faculty.
Individual
Course Offerings
Respondents
were asked to indicate how many courses they list in their catalog and
what percent of those courses were taught during 1999-2000. Table III-32
(was III-31 in last year’s edition) presents data related to their responses.
Regular And Adjunct Faculty
Respondents
were asked to indicate the number of required and elective courses taught
by both regular and adjunct faculty on the home campus of their school.
Table III-33
(was Table III-32 in last year’s edition) contains a summary of those
responses. Regular,
full‑time faculty taught 76% of the required
courses and 63% of the elective courses.
Adjunct faculty taught 21% of the required
courses and 32% of the elective
courses. Other (undesignated) faculty
accounted for the remainder.
Faculty
Teaching Load
Respondents
were asked what was the regular teaching load for faculty during the
academic year, the summer load, and the maximum number of hours a faculty
person might be able to teach as an overload. Table III-34
(was III-33 in last years report) contains a summary of these data.
Courses
Cross‑Listed With Other Units
Respondents
were asked to list courses that were cross-listed with other units in
their respective institutions and to indicate which unit had the major
teaching responsibility for the individual courses. Table III-35
(was III-34) contains a summary of the data related to the courses for
which the Library and Information Science unit had the major teaching
responsibility. Table III-36
(was III-35) contains a summary of the data related to the courses that
were cross-listed and for which another unit in the institution had
major teaching responsibility.
Curriculum
Committees
Respondents
were asked to describe the composition of their standing committees
on curriculum. Table III-37
and Table III-38
(these tables were III-36 and III-37 last year) presents the data related
to their responses. Two
schools indicated that they did not have a curriculum committee. Many
schools specified staff and others as committee members. Those specifications
are noted beneath Table III-37.
Curriculum Changes
Respondents were asked to indicate the nature of changes within
their curriculum during the past year. Table III-39
(as III-38) contains a summary of those responses. Following the table
are the specific changes as indicated by the individual schools.
Specific
Curriculum Changes
Table III-40
(formerly III-39) shows the specific course changes indicated by the
respondents. The changes are listed by school.
Respondents were asked to indicate the nature of curriculum changes
under consideration within their school during the past year. Table III-41
(was III-40) contains a summary of those responses.
| Table of Contents | List of Tables | Previous Chapter
| Next
Chapter |
|