The Roles of Contemporary Faculty, Unbundled

Time and technology have had a serious impact on education. Whether in the traditional classroom, at a distance, or any blend of the two, academic technology has made teaching much more exciting, but it has also been overwhelming and often frustrating for many teachers who just are not ready for it, or do not have the time to take advantage of it.

With the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning, the functions of both teachers and students have endured continuous change. The teacher used to be the center of the class; now, the students are the center of the class, and this is a major change for many teachers.

The meaning of learning has changed as well. It no longer implies that students are learning from the teacher. Students often learn from each other, from other members of the educational community, and from a variety of other resources as well. One student may be knowledgeable in a particular subject/topic, and another student in another subject/topic. At any moment, a student might be teaching and/or learning.

So, while all of this technology enhanced, student-centered learning is taking place, what is the teacher doing?

Years ago, this question was easy to answer—a teacher does everything involved in teaching a class, from planning the course, through assessing its objectives. In some cases, this is still true. However, in a typical course today, especially those with online components, many teachers are discovering that they need to learn and do so much more in order to keep up with the demands of their fast-paced, high-tech consumers—that is, their students.

When making a comparison to traditional classroom instructors, Simonson (2005) refers to today's online instructors as "skeuomorphs—elements of design that have lost their original function, but are nevertheless retained. If we look at the teacher's changing role superficially, as some do, one might conclude that teachers have no real purpose anymore; they are skeuomorphs" (p. 40).

Although our present-day teachers may not seem to be acting like their predecessors, they are still teaching, albeit in a different way. The demands on contemporary faculty are changing and along with these changes have come new roles with very different expectations (Bermant & Knight, 2002). Some of these roles are embraced, while others are not welcomed at all. Let's review some of these roles.

The days of basing an entire course on textbooks and supplemental materials are becoming few and far between. Today's students want to be engaged in exciting learning activities. This means that faculty are often designing their courses themselves, or at least gathering materials from a variety of sources.

When designing courses, faculty may work as part of a design team to establish the content for the course. This typically includes the selection of materials, activities, assignments, and so forth. The development team might consist of curriculum developers, instructional designers, assessment designers, and subject matter experts (faculty members and/or professionals from the field).

Faculty are frequently asked to incorporate online components into their courses. With little training in academic technology and its pedagogical implications, they often add technology to their existing courses without understanding how it might impact the teaching and learning experience. In some cases, the faculty alter the course and its content to "fit" the available technology, thereby changing the original instructional objectives (Paulson, 2002).

When developing a course, faculty may work as a part of a development team to determine which academic technologies and pedagogical techniques are best suited for the course, with an emphasis on the delivery of the course—traditional, online, or blended. The development team might consist of faculty, multimedia designers, and audio-video technicians, as well as members of the design team. This role is often filled by instruction technologists.

With courses being offered in numerous sections, and being delivered in a variety of ways (traditional, distance, blended) and by various faculty, it is crucial to ensure that every section of the course is delivered consistently. This includes making sure the course sections are delivered in accordance with institution, program, and design standards.

When delivering many sections of a course, faculty (and other personnel) may work as a part of a delivery team, led by a course manager. In addition to recruiting the members of the team, the course manager may also train, mentor, and evaluate the members of the team. It is important to promote an environment in which every member of the team works toward the common goal of providing every student with a consistent and quality educational experience.

With the shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning, the function of both students and teachers seems to have inverted. Students frequently learn from each other, as well as from other academic resources, such as the Internet. Consequently, course delivery is often referred to as course facilitation. Nevertheless, the course material must be "delivered" to the students, and it is still the teacher's responsibility to supervise this process, regardless of its format.

When delivering a course, faculty may work as a part of a delivery team, led by the course manager. A course may be delivered by full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, professionals from the field, or any combination thereof. It is especially important that those who will be delivering a course are familiar with student-centered learning, as well as the academic technology that will be used in the delivery process.

Mediating a course involves working with students to help them appreciate course content in ways that are meaningful to their personal understanding and suitable for their individual learning styles. This process is a subset of the delivery process, and is essential for high-quality instruction. Mediation is becoming the most influential aspect of the overall learning experience today, especially with the use of online discussion and chat forums.

When mediating a course, faculty may work as a part of a delivery team, led by the course manager. A course may be mediated by full-time faculty, part-time faculty, adjunct faculty, or any combination thereof. Graduate teaching assistants often assume this role as well, since most faculty are simply too busy, and some are not comfortable with interpersonal interaction required for successful mediation.

Along with the movement toward student-centered learning is the concept of student-centered assessment, in which students are encouraged to engage in self-assessment on their path to assuming responsibility for the quality of their own work (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005). Student-centered assessments are linked to instructional goals and an explicit set of performance objectives that are derived from those goals. In addition to informing the instructor how well the students were able to achieve each instructional objective, these assessments also indicate to the designer exactly which components of the instruction worked well, and which need revision (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005).

When designing assessments for a course, faculty may work as part of the design team to confirm that assessment items correspond one to one with the performance objectives. It is important to ensure that the performance required in the objective matches the performance required in the assessment item (Hagerott & Ferezan, 2003). The design team might consist of curriculum developers, instructional designers, assessment designers, and subject matter experts.

Evaluation, both formative and summative, involves making the course as efficient and effective as possible, and is perhaps the most important aspect of the course design process. Formative evaluations occur throughout the design process, whereas summative evaluations are conducted after the design is complete.

Although we typically think of students evaluating courses and faculty, peer evaluation of faculty is also becoming an important aspect of the overall evaluation process. These evaluations provide faculty with guidance and feedback about their ability to teach their courses. They also provide opportunities for professional development in educational technology and in the application of best practices of online teaching and learning in their courses (Mandernach Donnelli, Dailey, & Schulte, 2005). These evaluations are typically conducted by faculty in the course management role.

At some institutions, academic advising is offered through a centralized advising office. In most cases, however, faculty are still required to advise many students, and it is often too much work for them to handle effectively. This is why the movement towards the centralized advising office began. Contemporary students simply require more attention than most faculty are capable of providing. Nevertheless, the typical faculty member is accountable for academic advising, and it must be considered one of their roles.

Although the concept of unbundling was first introduced in education decades ago (Troutt, 1979; Wang, 1975), it was not proposed as a solution to the multifaceted role of faculty until recently. This is primarily due to advancements in academic technology and the increase in online education, especially at a distance. Basically, unbundling involves assigning the diverse roles of faculty to those who are best suited for them. Rather than incorporating the responsibility for all technology and competency based functions into a single concept of "faculty member," faculty roles are disaggregated and assigned to distinct professionals (Paulson, 2002). This applies to full-time faculty, part-time faculty, adjunct faculty, professionals in the field, teaching assistants, and support staff.

Although unbundling is often proposed by administrators as a means of reducing operating expenses, there are other benefits that are equally important. By assigning the varied roles to those who are best suited for them, the entire process of instruction becomes more efficient. Additionally, unbundling provides educational institutions with an opportunity to rethink traditional instructional methods by comparing different scenarios. This may help them to identify faculty-role assignments that are unproductive, and enable them to redistribute role assignments in an effort to increase the efficiency of their instruction (Paulson, 2002).

Once an institution decides to unbundle their faculty roles, how might they identify who is best suited for the various roles? Several factors may be used to determine the assignment of these roles. Experience, both in education and with technology, and hierarchical status are some of the typical considerations. Politics may also be an influential factor.

When determining how to allocate faculty roles, experience is likely to be the primary deciding factor. If a faculty member has experience with pedagogical theory and practice, then he or she will likely be well-suited for the course design role. If a faculty member has experience with academic technology and its pedagogical implications, then he or she might be well-suited for the course development role. Faculty with proven managerial/leadership experience will be well suited for managing the faculty who will be delivering courses. The approach becomes quite obvious—determine the experience of faculty members and assign them to the roles that require that experience. This also provides the less experienced faculty with a means of promotion that is not simply based on time. As faculty gain experience, they can assume more complex roles.

The hierarchical status—full-time, part-time, adjunct, and so on—of the faculty will also be a deciding factor. Part-time and adjunct faculty typically are not involved in the course design and development processes. They are more likely to be involved in delivery and mediation processes. As they gain more experience and exposure at a particular institution, they may have opportunities to become full-time faculty, as well as opportunities to assume other roles.

As is true in many areas, politics are sure to be involved in unbundling at some point. Faculty with higher rank and/or tenure may request, or possibly insist on being involved in roles that merely suit their preferences. In such cases, it is imperative that administrators ensure that roles are assigned according to knowledge and experience, or the process of unbundling may be destined to failure.

Academic institutions typically offer a variety of course formats, such as lectures, laboratories, and seminars, and each of these may employ distinct models of instruction. Academic technologies enable even more delivery methods by utilizing synchronous and asynchronous applications. The array of possible configurations is endless. Paulson (2002) provides the following example of how some of the unbundled roles (referred to here as activities) might be implemented in a typical undergraduate lecture course:

In an unbundled environment where they may be participating in multiple teams, faculty are likely to be on-campus for at least five full days per week. This creates challenges when recruiting both full-time and adjunct faculty who likely have preconceived notions of the traditional faculty role (Hagerott & Ferezan, 2003). Some will embrace the freedom to focus on a few, distinct roles. Others will hesitate to relinquish the many roles they have grown accustomed to over the years.

The potentially substantial changes in faculty roles that are attributable to unbundling will inevitably have an impact on faculty cultures (Paulson, 2002). How faculty will respond to the proposition of reorganizing the very essence of their livelihood depends on how it is implemented. Will administrators be able to provide the proper balance and distribution of faculty and roles, while simultaneously satisfying personal needs, subduing political agendas, and so on?

Unbundling, as applied to faculty roles, is a fairly new concept, and warrants future research. During typical research studies, the faculty and role data that are typically collected at various stages in the course development process is based on personal experience or observation, and is often incomparable (Paulson, 2002). Unbundling can help make these studies more effective by enabling researchers to identify the specific instructional activities for each role and establish standardized definitions for them. Subsequently, decisions can be made about each activity, such as whether and when it occurred, how long it took each faculty to complete it, and how much it cost (Paulson, 2002). Unless and until such an approach is taken, research results will be of little value.

The incessant demands of contemporary students mandate a high level of accountability from educational institutions. With student enrollment constantly increasing, administrators are always looking for opportunities to utilize their limited faculty more efficiently. The demands on contemporary faculty are also continuously evolving, and many faculty are realizing that they need to assume more roles in order to keep up with the demands of their fast-paced, high-tech students.

By unbundling the numerous roles of faculty, we ensure that each faculty member is performing only the roles he or she is best suited for. This will undoubtedly increase their productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency, as well as improve the educational experience for their students.

Finally, the unbundling process will provide many exciting opportunities for instructional technologists as well. Many faculty will welcome the opportunity to work with instructional technologists when designing and developing their courses. This will also free more of their time to do what they do best—teach!