Please provide at least 150-word response to each student response below. Be sure to research/cite/reference sources in each discussion.
1st Post: The higher education organizational goals include success of effective student outcomes. The institutional instruction pedagogy impresses upon student performance. The implementation of teaching methods impact on students varies based on instructional loading. First, the definition of teaching loads must be defined. The teaching load comprises instructional hours, the number of courses taught, credit hours, the subject, the level of a subject, the course objectives, and research. The course objectives measure a high level of importance consistent with international comparison on a subject and comprehensive subject matter. For example, an engineering major freshman student taking physics requires a different level of instruction compared to a student taking general freshmen physics. The difference instruction involves the math foundation of the subject. The higher the level of the course/degree, the subject instruction involves a higher level of teaching. The impact on the student’s ability to learn impacts success (Middaugh, 2010).
The example in text reveals how if the organization desires to participate in research activities to attract more funding, the instructional hours would decrease. The organizational goals for those subjects with decrease instruction are impacted requiring a solution. The organizational decision to sacrifice for a better opportunity involves planning. The growing trend involves hiring non-tenured faculty. The group of non-tenured faculty bares no obligation to organization’s scholarship and tenure responsibilities. The organization accomplishes the goal of retaining the tenured expert faculty and continuous growth opportunities. The move or shift from teacher instruction to interactive instruction and learning forces organizations to measure what occurs during instruction. The time and cost are most imperative. The quality of delivery method involves the student’s ability to comprehend, provide feedback, and instructional supervision for organizational success (Middaugh, 2010).
2nd Post: Teaching loads must be navigated intentionally as there are impacts on all sides. Throughout the reading, Middaugh (2010) explained the differences between professors on the tenure track versus those who were not and were focusing just on teaching. Sometimes, loads of courses can cause an imbalance between the institution's expectations and the professor, depending on their track. When the expectations are imbalanced, impacts occur, such as staffing shortages, lack of communication, budgets are impacted, and the reputation of the program or university is also hit hard (McMahon, 2011). When the overload of courses is visible or, in some cases, not, “there are increased ramifications for instructor attentiveness, academic rigor, and student performance (Lorenzetti, 2017, para. 7).” Intentionality is imperative, and students can feel the impacts of a professor's course load. In some instances, assignments are not graded, there are limited to no office hours, and if the office hours are posted, the professor may cancel to focus on other teaching or research aspects. Through research, it was found that adjunct faculty can focus on teaching more and on building their schedules around everything (Lorenzetti, 2017). The same cannot be said for professors studying more on research and balancing courses. Middaugh (2010) explained how instructional costs and productivity were measured within the Delaware study. One of the questions asked was, “Who is teaching what and to whom (Middaugh, 2010, p. 112)?
Throughout this course, we have discussed being intentional and how institutional effectiveness can be impacted from every part and angle of the process. Teaching loads and understanding them is a part of the process. Professors are not the only ones impacted. Yes, teaching loads should depend on the professor and what paths they would like to take (for example, research). However, at the same time, we must look at the impacts on students and overall institutional effectiveness. Middaugh (2010) stresses that having metrics that can create conversations among internal constituents can help, but also understanding that there is no best way to do it. Institutions must plan →, do →, evaluate →, and learn to navigate what works best for them. Teaching loads must be at least considered within the processes.
3rd Post: The understated role of the faculty has created the disconnect between the instructional workload and instructional cost. The role of the faculty tenured or on-tenured measures beyond the scope written into practice. When maintaining programs and quality courses, the instruction role becomes overwhelmed by “other activities”. The dichotomy of low cost/high cost versus low instruction/high instruction volume impacts the quality of institutional programs. If the community and stakeholders (accrediting bodies, job market, students, parents, government bodies) vision for continuous improvement in student outcomes neglect college enrollment, advanced technology, and economic affairs, the state of quality education remains at risk (Middaugh, 2010).
Academic and scholarly activities involve faculty inside institutions course delivery mode and outside the mode. The degree of the activities varies based on faculty research and/or instruction requirement. The faculty involved in research requires additional manpower and hours of dedication to the organizational goals. The additional support requires additional cost during planning. Therefore, beyond the cost of instruction, the faculty commitment to instructional time demands the higher education organization commit to quality oversight ensuring better outcomes. The use of quality should not penalize faculty based on findings but provide feedback to the organization for solutions to changes in higher education challenges and accountability. The changes lead to new and/or improved curriculum adding to value and quality. Equally, the changes can lead to revision/ removal of programs limiting benefits and quality to the organization. As technological advancements continue, the ability to instruct with quality challenges the staff and faculty. The cost to manage necessary pedagogical approaches may increase but afford increase quality measures (Middaugh, 2010).
4th Post: McMahon (2011) examined the institution's role in understanding the impacts that can occur on the budget, reputation, and research when looking at how to maintain a quality program. There is no denying that institutions want to be competitive; however, it can be impactful when looking at the dynamics of teaching and auxiliary costs. “Higher fees can emphasize teaching, but funding cuts towards research can make the rest of the funds more competitive (McMahon, 2011).” By acknowledging this, institutions can create a budget that focuses on the variety of metrics needed to understand cost-effectiveness. If institutions want to maintain a quality program, institutions must recognize that cost innovations are imperative as the shift with higher education continues to expand. The needs dynamics versus what is already set in place must be evaluated to adapt to the changing student demographic. McMahon (2011) listed the impacts of low teaching improvements, including expectation management. As higher education and costs increase, the expectations must align with the goals/objectives of the institution and then be implemented. Once implemented, assessing and evaluating the data can enable understanding the impact of programming and quality. When costs are cut, programming is cut, professors may lose motivation because of impacts within their area, and students may start to withdraw. When there is a negative impact as such, the reputation of the institution decreases, causing fewer students to enroll or more students to transfer. Considering institutional costs is imperative, as programs and services can impact internal and external stakeholders. Cost-effectiveness should be aligned with institutional effectiveness, starting within the cyclical process of strategic planning.
