Modularization threatens the heart of Queen’s education
Dear Editors,
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre the falcon cannot hear the falconer, Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,” (from The Second Coming, a poem by W.B. Yeats).
A proposal for the biggest structural change to undergraduate education across the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) in the past 21 years that I have been at Queen’s, will be debated at Faculty Board on Friday Nov. 22. “Modularization” would significantly reduce the minimum total credit units required for all Major, Minor, and Specialization degree plans in both the Arts and the Sciences faculties. This initiative has definite benefits for students in that it will provide flexibility, enable them to readily take double majors, and promote multidisciplinary learning. It will also make our Major degree structure match that of the other major Ontario universities. Although, why exactly that would be a benefit is, in my view, debatable, since surely there’s a value in being distinct and offering some “uniqueness” to our degree structures.
Finally, and most importantly, given the current Queen’s austerity-driven initiatives to substantially reduce teaching personnel (faculty, instructors, support staff, and teaching assistants), there’s absolutely no doubt that modularization will have huge pragmatic benefits in terms of the FAS’ future capacity to provide undergraduate degrees.
However, management decisions—especially big structural ones—based on pragmatism alone are liable to failure. Institutions—perhaps universities especially—can only be effective if decision-making is based on some combination of pragmatism with ideals/vision. For me, the ultimate vision of Arts and Sciences undergraduate education is to facilitate a student’s rise from dependent learning to independent learning, so that they’re then enabled for a lifetime of further advances in their understanding of themselves and the world around them; so they can go off and explore, investigate, conceptualize, synthesize, and be creative/original; so they can make a strong positive contribution to society.
Yes, there are many, opportunities of helping this process along across all our programs in large first and second year classes, but the best ways are in small third and fourth year classes—that’s when you and your students can look each other in the eye, and you can see and feel their enthusiasm and respond accordingly. That’s when you can best facilitate independent learning, and the generation and exchange of ideas. That’s where the university’s “heart” beats strongest for undergraduates. “Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer…”
To be clear—I’m not suggesting for an instant that the institution is on the verge of collapse, but I’m suggesting the ideals at its heart are under serious threat. The further out the student is spinning from direct eye-to-eye contact with the instructor, the weaker the connection, the weaker the communication, the weaker the learning.
So, what’s all this got to do with the proposed modularization initiative? Currently, there’s a significant portion of students completing FAS degrees without ever taking a small seminar course, or a specialized lab or field course, let alone a one-on-one honours thesis—just medium and large classes, maybe group projects, but no individual “capstone” experience. The administration’s push for fewer full and adjunct professors, fewer lab instructors and other teaching support staff, fewer teaching assistantships will all result in fewer courses (small third and fourth year courses in particular), and probably fewer of our “smaller” departments (i.e. those that are smaller in size, not in pedagogical significance).
The reduction in teaching personnel combined with hopefully the same number of students (i.e. no declines in enrollment) adds up to the following: We’ll still have some small third and fourth year courses, but proportionally more of our undergraduate students will complete their degrees just by taking only medium/large first, second, and third year courses… proportionally more of our students will not get, or be encouraged to take, the chance to experience the true “heart” of what we can offer them.
What’s absolutely extraordinary to me is that throughout all the administration’s push for modularization over the past 18 months, there’s been little or no talk of vision or ideals. There’s hardly been even an acknowledgement of any potential negative impacts, let alone any discussion of efforts to develop and incorporate specific measures to counter the inevitable loss of small class-size teaching. Almost no mention at all. And, I in particular, should know because I have been serving as a Chair of Undergraduate Studies for the Department of Biology over most of that period and have attended Faculty Board meetings monthly as is the duty of the role.
The “Rationale” text submitted to Faculty Board in support of the modularization motion contains nothing but positives. And for your information, this is by no means the first time over the past 18 months that I have expressed my fundamental pedagogical concern openly to colleagues, as well as directly to the administration. Overall, it feels like such concerns have “fallen on deaf ears,” and reading “between the lines,” it almost seems as if the primary focus of the entire initiative is to reduce the future demand for small class-size courses—pragmatism without ideals. Yes, a huge amount of administrative time and effort has already gone into developing and pursuing the details of implementing the modularization initiative across all departments in the FAS.
Progress is so advanced that, once approved, modularization is realistically planned to begin in the upcoming academic year. To be frank, at this stage, the “cart has been drawn well before the horse.” And so many reading this will think: what is this guy doing “holding up progress?” But is it really progress?
I fully acknowledge that Queen’s FAS is experiencing a severe monetary crisis (although I note from some financially savvy colleagues that there’s much to debate on the actual extent of that severity). Accordingly, I acknowledge that there are fundamental pragmatic reasons for modularization. But pragmatism alone is simply insufficient. We need, and have a responsibility, to handle this austerity wisely—not just as accountants, but as academics. We need to be cognizant of, and actively address, the negative pedagogical impacts that threaten the “heart” of what we do as teachers. Hence, the upcoming vote on the modularization initiative is a matter of principle for me.
As a teacher, I’ve spent more than 25 years committed to trying to provide the best learning opportunities for my students that I am capable of. I know that these opportunities are greatest in small fourth year courses because I have personally experienced it… and I also know there’s a very long history of pedagogical research evidence to support my claim: class-size fundamentally influences the quality of teaching and learning. Therefore, in all conscience, as someone who cares deeply about education, how can I do anything but vote against this initiative since otherwise I would undeniably be voting in favour of substantial denigration/deterioration of the future quality of our undergraduate programs?
In short, before pursuing this path, we need to first begin a discussion, and then see some specific initiatives, aimed at enshrining protection mechanisms so that as many “falcons” as possible will have the fundamental pedagogical opportunity to fully, slowly, and deeply hear—and communicate with—the “falconers.”
Sincerely,
Paul Grogan
Professor, Department of Biology, Queen’s University
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.