Accountability and Academic Innovation

Don’t Forget the Registrar

by Robert M. Diamond and Peter B. DeBlois

 

Now that Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is using the report of her Commission on the Future of Higher Education to stake out accreditation as the de rigueur battlefront/seed ground/hammer/hoe (various sides are choosing their metaphors) for accountability in higher education, we are seeing institutions, accrediting agencies, and agency accreditors alike scrambling to raise their hands high in a show-and-tell fest, unprecedented since another commission’s report card, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, was sent home nearly a quarter of a century ago.

While faculty, deans, and provosts are earnestly trying to address the accountability issue and to apply a wide range of new instructional and enrollment patterns made possible through new uses of technology, they face the challenges of decreasing resources, increasing enrollments, more demands for non-traditional courses, and a growing entry level population who arrive in class without the basic skills needed to succeed. To be successful, major academic redesign efforts often require the involvement of individuals with skills and knowledge not available at the department level where most of the discipline-specific work is done. While experts in technology, in assessment, in teaching methodology, and in course and program design are sometimes made available to faculty and academic offices, the registrar is, unfortunately, rarely involved in these discussions from the earliest stages.

Such an omission can be costly because the registrar can often be a critical component in academic transformation. No matter which of the many possible outcomes of the accountability movement we are talking about whether a national unit record system; new metrics for gauging academic progress and graduation rates; adaptable information systems for new forms of instructional design; discipline-specific measures of learning outcomes; mission-, demographic-, and Carnegie class-specific success standards outcomes, assessment and  grading criteria, in or a more direct match between learning each instance new support systems and policy changes will often be required and in each instance the registrar is a key agent for any changes that may be required. In the role of translator, arbiter, influencer, recorder, encoder, manipulator, and implementer of academic policy, grading protocols and keeper of official transcript records, privacy policies, enterprise information system architecture, real and virtual classroom usage rules, and academic calendar parameters, the registrar in involved in a wide array of campus activities below the radar of most faculty and many administrators. The registrar, however, can play a vital role in academic innovation by providing invaluable policy counsel and advice about the degree to which information systems can be customized, and, ultimately, can grease the tracks of academic innovation.

The role of the registrar in academic innovation

The registrar has, in fact, a major role to play in four of the most basic academic initiatives found on many campuses:

1. Redesigning and improving the quality of courses and curricula.
2. Enhancing the processes of course management and delivery to create more options and increased flexibility.
3. Translating academic policies into efficient and easily used procedures and refining campus-wide inter-departmental records management procedures accordingly.
4. Maintain official academic records and related processes in accord with state and federal privacy legislation while providing faculty and students with the information they require for quality advising and decision-making.

At far too many institutions, academic support, management, and information systems have simply been unable to keep up with the demands and requirements of faculty and academic units as they explore new applications of technology and new patterns of teaching and learning to improve the retention of students, to increase the involvement of students in the community, and to improve the quality and effectiveness of their academic programs.

The problem is a basic one. Many of the academic procedures and structures we now use were developed in a time when colleges and universities were far different than they are today. The challenges were fewer, the instructional capabilities of today’s technology not even dreamed of, the students far more homogenous and motivated, and interaction between the disciplines was the exception and not the rule, with most instruction taking place on campus in the classroom, the library, or the laboratory. It was a far less complex world for students, faculty, administrators, and staff.

Who should be involved in major academic innovation?

Typical efforts to redesign courses and curricula involve faculty working alone or on a team with other faculty in the discipline. Experience has shown, however, that the most effective projects include, in addition to the stakeholder faculty members, others who bring to the table expertise in areas not found in most departments. Without this broader participation key questions will go often go unasked and unanswered, and important options will remain unexplored. Serving on the core team should be the key faculty members, and an instructional designer or faculty member from another discipline who understands process of change and brings to the table the knowledge of the research on teaching and learning and the ability and willingness to ask hard questions and to test assumptions. Available to the team should be experts on assessment, on technology, and, while often overlooked, the registrar to anticipate and assist in making the necessary adjustments that will be required in academic regulations and system support.

Some of the common issues

When comprehensive course or curriculum redesign efforts get underway at either the graduate or undergraduate level a number of fundamental questions need to be addressed. Among them:

• What were the assumptions being made by faculty about the students entering their courses and degree programs, and how accurate were the assumptions?
• What knowledge and skills did students actually bring to particular classes or programs? (If students entered an introductory course with a wide range of knowledge and competencies, why should they all start at the same place? If students had advanced skills or knowledge, could they be exempted from certain units within a course or curriculum?)
• Must all students move through a course or program at the same pace? If some students required more time to complete a unit, how could we handle grades at the end of the semester when the work was not yet complete?
• When students move at different rates, have different requirements based on prior knowledge and experience, and if work might carry over from semester to semester how can we handle credits, grades, student charges and faculty loads not to mention various student-aid issues? ( For a more detailed list of common questions and how one campus, Syracuse University, developed systems to successfully address these issues see  A  Case Study: Flexible Credit and Continuous Registration which follows.)

Three key lessons can be learned from the Syracuse experience.  First, without the registrar as a key player from the start, no easy synergy can be developed between instructional innovation, academic policy, records procedures, and system adaptation. If those directing the project, whether the focus be on on-campus, off-campus or a combination of both settings, are building on the latest research on teaching and learning and are “thinking outside of the box” new administrative systems will be required and these changes will be impossible to implement without the active participation of the registrars office.  Second, new technology innovations such as e-portfolios and course/learning management systems are often implemented under accelerated pressure jeopardizing compliance with external privacy regulations that the registrar could have anticipated. Third, unless an individual or a design organization, i.e., the registrar or a teaching and learning support unit, becomes a visible proponent of opportunity to adapt technology and policy, new visions will chafe against tradition and sputter at best. The registrar  often brings to the project a knowledge of the institutional change culture, the political and technical history of the institution, and remembers what has worked and why. Without the active involvement of the registrar schools, colleges and academic departments attempting to significantly improve the quality of their academic program can anticipate inefficient or retarded progress.

                                                           

This article first appeared in Inside Higher Ed, Januray 20, 2007.