NCU teaching model

For NCU students:

Do the NCU mentors/instructors create or at least tweak their course syllabi to reflect their expertise? What is their involvement with the student beyond assigning and grading papers, or are their student interactions limited to project feedback? In short, how do the mentors personalize the courses they "teach?" What compensates for the absence of a lecture?

 

I don't know how I would know if they tweak it . I have had some instructors just grade the papers and other I have spoken to several times throughout the course. The stats professor was amazing where she helped me apply theory to what I was doing at work and even did some "work" projects for/with me.

 

The NCU mentors don't create syllabuses. They are issued a syllabus and the learners simply complete the assignments. As others have noted, it's basically a correspondence school that uses the advent of the internet, Microsoft Word, Excel, email and in-house messaging. There are no "lectures." Success rests exclusively upon on the student and there is little for the mentor to do except evaluate the learners work; it then becomes incumbant on the learner to make the corrections and improve. It's definately a vast improvement over the method that Abe Lincoln used in the 1800s, but it requires personal tenacity nonetheless.

 

In the absence of active mentoring, would it be more a more accurate label to call the mentors "evaluators?"

 

No, it depends on how involved you want them. I have had most as "paper graders" and a few (2-3) as instructors that were interactive. The difference: I asked for help.

 

Mmmmm probably not. It's still the job of the teacher to "mentor" the student by providing feedback so that the learner can learn. The operative phrase for NCU is "active self-learning;" the mentoring occurs when feedback is provided by the mentor.

 

How involved are the mentors prior to the submitting of assignments? Do they offer suggestions/clarifications on how to approach papers/projects?

How much opportunity is there for mentors to weave their professional experiences throughout the course? Must that all be solicited by the student?

 

I've had some good mentors and some really poor ones. I had a great mentor once. She really did a wonderful job providing feedback and helped me increase my understanding of the topic. A few mentors have not really provided any feedback other than a "Good Job". I think it took them all of 2 minutes, if that, to read my papers. For the most part, I've had good mentors. One mentor would provide me with some feedback and write me a dissertation on anything he found lacking. He really loved to write.

It can be hit or miss with mentors. You often have the opportunity to ask for a specific mentor. I've done that a few times and it has worked well for me.

 

In those instances where the feedback was limited to a paltry "good job," do you feel confident that you accomplished the course objectives? And without a qualified instructor's meaningful feedback, how can you measure your successes and shortcomings?

 

None. But it was the same way (for me) when I took external coursework at Columbia Union College and University of Phoenix. It might be a good idea for instructors to post some sort of welcome letter that addresses those concerns.

That's difficult to answer. In an in-resident course, the instructor can easily weave his or her experiences into the lecture; but in an external course, the instructor can only offer critique of completed assignments. That's a pro verses con of in-resident courses verses external courses. I made more professional contacts in my in-resident Masters program, but I've learned more in NCU's doctoral program. Which is more valuable? It probably varies with each person.

 

What's the basis of comparison? The question is difficult or too subjective to answer.

That will probably be measured by the number of future successful or unsuccessful graduates. I guess.

 

Why so many questions? I get the feeling you are looking for chances to shot holes in things...maybe I am just paranoid.

 

Even in those instances I feel I met the objectives. The objectives of each class are clearly stated in the respective syllabus. Typically, I am very familiar with the topic, too, since I have many years experience in the field.

In some regards, I think the NCU experience is not too much different from what some European PhDers experience. Obviously, I cannot speak for all European programs.

I work with a number of PhD degreed folk from England, Scotland, and Ireland. My boss has a PhD from an English school. I have talked to them about their experiences. They tell the tale that you are pretty much on your own there except for having to meet with your supervisor once in a while.

As for shortcomings...I have a number of years experience in engineering and computer science. I feel I have a good handle on where my deficiencies are. To that end, I have taken more courses to help me become more learned in a particular area.

Bing

 

I took a neuropsychology course at a B&M that was taught by an adjunct hired at the last minute (at the pleading of the department chair who was his friend). The "professor" was no doubt very knowledgeable and respected in his field, but he had no real teaching chops to speak of. My term paper was returned to me unmarked with the exception of my grade, an A. But absent any feedback, and certainly no meaningful feedback, I have no way of assessing the quality of my work. If an instructor at NCU (or any similar non-residence-type program) is similarly disconnected, issuing little more guidance than the posting a grade, the student is left unable to assess how well or deeply they've understood the material.

 

It is the root of the questions?

 

Only in part.

This instructor delivered a PP at each lecture, used other visual aids, and various copyrighted tools of the neuropsychology trade.

 

Could it be that for that particular class (and, in particular, that particular topic) your paper did not require feedback? There are times when a student does exceptionally well. Even a blind hog finds an occasional acorn.

If a learner actually does the coursework, then he will invariably learn.

We can ping-poing back and forth the methodological differences between internal (in-resident) courses verses external (DL) courses. The most notable method of learning in internal courses are the lectures. That's where the professors either shine (or not). I have some notable memories from undergraduate and graduate professors who really shined; I also have some nightmarish memories of internal professors who were less-than-stellar (aka duds). What is most notable is the method of teaching: the lecture.

The most notable method of learning in external courses is active self-learning. That's where the learners either shine (or not). I have some notable memories from undergraduate and graduate external courses where I learned a notable about of information; I also have some nightmarish memories of external courses that were bearishly difficult because they rested on the active self-learning concept i.e. there was no professor to stand up in class to explain a lot of questions that arose. What is most notable is the method of learning: the active self-learning model, minus lectures.

Which is superior? It probably depends on the course that is being studied, as well as individual characteristics. There are many people who freely admit that they don't have the necessary self-discipline to sign up for external courses; they freely admit that they need a requirement to actually go to class and have the material provided to them via a lecture because, otherwise, they would fail. Thus we have one group of students who are able to thrive on the active self-learning model, while another group of students will readily admit that they would flunk.

So we're back to the original question: which model is superior? It depends on who you ask!

 

I have no interest in debating that, that wasn't my intention; this is a distance learning forum after all.

I just find the notion of calling paper graders (which appears to be the case in many, many instances) mentors disingenuous. I suspect that the label doesn't live up to Merriam-Webster's definition: a trusted counselor or guide b: tutor, coach

I don't doubt that NCU's approach works well for many people, and I may yet become one someday, but describing the faculty as "mentors" strikes me as marketing sleight of hand. It suggests a level of instructor involvement that appears to be the exception to the rule.

 

Clapper, in your opinion, what would be an appropriate title for online adjunct professors that would avoid the perception of "marketing sleight of hand"?

 

I tossed out the term "evaluator" before. Doesn't have much cachet -- OK, it has none -- but it may be a more accurate and honest description.