Teaching from the Grave?

[marshwiggle]

As the very much alive professor caught up in this Twitterstorm, I wanted to follow up here.

For anyone interested in the real story, not the sensationalized and distorted clickbait offered by the Chronicle, etc, here is a good article.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/01/28/concordia-university-says-lectures-from-dead-professor-were-teaching-tool.html

The "teaching tool" designation is misleading, given that you said:

The whole organization, readings, assignments–everything is what he put together.

I'm grading the exams and term papers.

There are two TAs along with myself (Ph.D. art historian) to grade the assignments and exams and give feedback to the students.

It sounds like if there were an AI that could emulate the original instructor, that would be ideal, and you and the TAs would be unnecessary.


As people have pointed out, there's nothing weird about showing an interview or lecture given by a person who is now deceased, but it is strange to have the course dedicated to operating in perpetuity in exactly the format the now-deceased professor set up.

After I retire, (let alone die), no matter how popular my courses are, I expect the next person who teaches them to make changes even the very first time. Within a few years, the courses are likely to be significantly different than how I left them.

[downer]

I am curious how much this costs compared to a regular course teaching the same number of students.

I don't suppose there's an easy way to compare average learning outcomes for this course compared with similar courses taught in regular ways. It would be interesting to try though.

I wonder how accrediting agencies feel about this sort of arrangement.

[mamselle]

From the art history standpoint, there are "greats" whose presentations might well be worth the other issues.

If someone has a set of lectures by, say, Panofsky or Gombrich on iconology, moderated, contexualized, and explicated by a knowledgeable scholar, that could be very useful as a "moment-in-time" snapshot of a more generous stance in interpretive hermeneutics before the goofier lit-crit folks got ahold of it and deconstructed every tiny paint splash (no snark intended...ahem...and there are good applications of lit-crit to art analysis, there are just a lot of crazies, too...selon moi).

I'd gladly take (or would have taken) a class like that.

Maybe the only error was the false assumption was that students with a less in-depth awareness of "who's alive now" would already know that this individual had died quite awhile back, and undergrad and even some early grad students may not always know that. 

Not denying the other issues raised, but there are definite values to be had in historical lectures (note the number of times Bernstein's "Young Audiences" shows are accessed, even now. I just showed the one on modes to my music theory class a few weeks back.)

It's just a problem we didn't used to have before film, video and online dispersal became possible.

M.

[the_geneticist]

As the very much alive professor caught up in this Twitterstorm, I wanted to follow up here.

For anyone interested in the real story, not the sensationalized and distorted clickbait offered by the Chronicle, etc, here is a good article.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/01/28/concordia-university-says-lectures-from-dead-professor-were-teaching-tool.html

The "teaching tool" designation is misleading, given that you said:

The whole organization, readings, assignments–everything is what he put together.

I'm grading the exams and term papers.

There are two TAs along with myself (Ph.D. art historian) to grade the assignments and exams and give feedback to the students.

It sounds like if there were an AI that could emulate the original instructor, that would be ideal, and you and the TAs would be unnecessary.


As people have pointed out, there's nothing weird about showing an interview or lecture given by a person who is now deceased, but it is strange to have the course dedicated to operating in perpetuity in exactly the format the now-deceased professor set up.

After I retire, (let alone die), no matter how popular my courses are, I expect the next person who teaches them to make changes even the very first time. Within a few years, the courses are likely to be significantly different than how I left them.

Exactly.
The students are also being shorted from any potential networking and mentoring that could have happened in this class.  What exactly would a letter from you sound like?  "I was the instructor for the Dr. Awesome Art Guy (RIP) class.  While the students would have really  liked to meet Dr. Awesome and very much enjoyed his videos . . "
Look, if you are an expert in art history and hired to teach this class, then you should have the academic freedom to change the course.  In fact, I would expect you to do so.  Otherwise, you're just a glorified grader.

[Cheerful]

This is an online course offered through the university and a 3rd party company as part of an online education partnership started 10 years ago. The professor in the lectures was an illustrious expert and beloved teacher at my university. He worked with the company to create and develop this course. The whole organization, readings, assignments–everything is what he put together.

Was the dearly-departed prof paid for his work, was there a contract, did he consent to use of these videos, for profit, in perpetuity?  Does his family receive royalties based on tuition revenue for this course?  Who owns the videos?

[downer]

I'd be happy to be a glorified grader if I got glorified pay.

[AvidReader]

I have taught some online classes that run on a similar model: instructors are paid to record lectures in the first iteration, and in the second and subsequent versions of each course offering, the original instructor receives royalties and any additional instructors (or the original one if the same lecturer wishes to go again) are paid to grade and to hold supplemental (live) class sessions. My understanding is that the if the school requests an updated video, it will pay for the recording, but if a lecturer wishes to re-record old material independently, that would not be reimbursed. I would not be surprised if a course ran posthumously and the royalties were paid to estates/heirs. I also believe that a lecturer who ran the second iteration of the course would be paid both royalties and the TA/grading/discussion salary.

AR.

[Prof_Poirot]

The "teaching tool" designation is misleading, given that you said:

I don't write the headlines. And neither the does reporter who put together that article.

Folks concerned about this situation need to know that this course is actually produced by a for-profit company using a different brand name as the university that employs me. It's a kind of partnership between the university and an e-learning company that goes back maybe 10 years. Part of the deal is that non-art history department students can get real university credit. I think we've all seen arrangements like this across the US as universities try to outsource and "partner" with online companies. This is a better version of that kind of arrangement.

Read the article. This is all explained there.

And part of the situation is that I don't get to change the content of this course. I have 3 of my own courses this semester, for a total of 190 students. That's why the university hired me. To teach my own classes.

I also know that some folks at the university are pissed off at the online for-profit company. The company were told that the professor had passed away and didn't do anything to update the course. But when the s**t hits Twitter and the newspapers, it's not the e-learning company people get mad at, it's my department--who aren't in charge of the course. My department just supplies the labor.

I trust you'll forgive me if I come across a bit tetchy. It's been a very trying few days.

[marshwiggle]

I have taught some online classes that run on a similar model: instructors are paid to record lectures in the first iteration, and in the second and subsequent versions of each course offering, the original instructor receives royalties and any additional instructors (or the original one if the same lecturer wishes to go again) are paid to grade and to hold supplemental (live) class sessions.

Are they forbidden from changing any assignments, tests, etc.?

[AvidReader]

I have taught some online classes that run on a similar model: instructors are paid to record lectures in the first iteration, and in the second and subsequent versions of each course offering, the original instructor receives royalties and any additional instructors (or the original one if the same lecturer wishes to go again) are paid to grade and to hold supplemental (live) class sessions.

Are they forbidden from changing any assignments, tests, etc.?

Not in my instance. The lectures stay the same, but the assignments (and even some of the readings, for humanities courses) can be swapped out/updated/modified. Sometimes there is a moment when the lecturer says "Now for the exam, you'll do X, Y, Z," and then in the discussion section the active instructor can say, "Now, you heard the lecturer say X, Y, Z, but you'll be doing Q instead because . . ."

When I've taught for them (5 or 6 times, maybe?), I've looked at the old assignments and revised or changed them as necessary, and added or changed supplemental readings as well. I don't tend to touch primary readings (reading Hamlet instead of The Great Gatsby doesn't work well with recorded lectures, even if the themes are similar) and if the lecturer mentions the secondary readings in lectures, I'll keep them on the syllabus as supplemental or optional readings even if I want my own cohort to focus on something else. But on a few occasions, I've kept the courses pretty static anyway, usually because of time and once because the original was cohesive and I wasn't as up on the material as I could have been.

Prof_Poirot, this sounds like a mess, and I hope it blows over soon (and is resolved to your best satisfaction quickly and quietly). It sounds like the model I've experienced could actually work for you, but I'm sorry you are getting caught in the crosshairs with something rather outside your control.

AR

[Prof_Poirot]

Prof_Poirot, this sounds like a mess, and I hope it blows over soon (and is resolved to your best satisfaction quickly and quietly). It sounds like the model I've experienced could actually work for you, but I'm sorry you are getting caught in the crosshairs with something rather outside your control.

AR

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. From your description, it sounds like we're both working with very similar types of online classes. Glad to hear it has worked well.

[Caracal]

[
And part of the situation is that I don't get to change the content of this course. I have 3 of my own courses this semester, for a total of 190 students. That's why the university hired me. To teach my own classes.

I also know that some folks at the university are pissed off at the online for-profit company. The company were told that the professor had passed away and didn't do anything to update the course. But when the s**t hits Twitter and the newspapers, it's not the e-learning company people get mad at, it's my department--who aren't in charge of the course. My department just supplies the labor.

Obviously, you aren't responsible for any of this. However, I do think there's something messed up about a university entering into an arrangement where they cede control of the content of courses to an outside party and the people actually in charge of running the course in the department don't have full control. But, you didn't make that arrangement, you're just following instructions from your employer.

[mleok]

So, econcordia is a separate entity from Concordia University? Because, it looks like a pretty tightly knit relationship.

[marshwiggle]

So, econcordia is a separate entity from Concordia University? Because, it looks like a pretty tightly knit relationship.

From the eConcordia website:

All eConcordia courses are for-credit courses and may count towards your Concordia degree.

Seems pretty tight to me.

[polly_mer]

Folks concerned about this situation need to know that this course is actually produced by a for-profit company using a different brand name as the university that employs me. It's a kind of partnership between the university and an e-learning company that goes back maybe 10 years. Part of the deal is that non-art history department students can get real university credit. I think we've all seen arrangements like this across the US as universities try to outsource and "partner" with online companies. This is a better version of that kind of arrangement.

This is the course-in-a-box model that was starting to be examined about ten years ago by US accreditors for quality comparable to the individual university face-to-face courses.  Being unable to change the course content by the new instructors is exactly one of the areas of concern.

The blame does go squarely on the department because they are certifying that these courses-in-a-box are of similar quality to count for credit.  If the department is not regularly reviewing the courses to ensure they are up-to-date and are revised for new content, including the fill-in-the-blank current-instructor-name parts, then the department is not overseeing the curriculum.

No student should have been surprised at who is really teaching the course and would therefore be answering questions if this course were set up correctly as course-in-a-box  After all, those daily emails would all state your name as instructor of record and your name should be plastered all over the course with the auto-substitution of instructors-name-here.

It sounds a lot like you don't want to admit to being a glorified grader in the gen ed course ripping off students and being a professor for the major courses.  A professor gets control over content and pedagogy as part of academic freedom.