September 27, 2021

 

Dear faculty members,

Congratulations on the opening of the 2021/2022 academic year. This update deals entirely with teaching matters.

The teaching technology team at the HUJI Teaching and Learning Unit has produced a short video (in Hebrew), which is available here, with useful tips for improving the use of various digital learning tools. I highly recommend viewing it.

1. Teaching format. Teaching at the university this year will take place mainly on campus, in-person, in classrooms and laboratories. There are two exceptions in this regard: a few courses (mainly courses in non-thesis master’s degree study programs) that are scheduled to be held in the distance-learning format (in these courses, at least two class meetings will take place on campus); and certain cornerstone courses, which are scheduled to be held online (using pre-recorded lectures), with formative assessment throughout the course. These exceptions were determined with the special approval of the teaching committee in the relevant academic units. The rest of the University’s courses will be taught in classrooms, combining digital components (recorded lectures, group study sessions and a forum for discussions on lesson topics), formative assessments, submission of group work and more. In many of the courses, the grade will be determined by alternative assessment methods, rather than in-class exam. In light of our mixed experience during the previous semester, we decided not to conduct parallel teaching ("hybrid" teaching) this year, in which it is possible to participate in a class lesson remotely.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses at least two challenges in the field of teaching: one is the possible absence of teachers due to their or their children’s home quarantine obligation. In these cases, the lessons will be held remotely, using Zoom. In cases in which this is not possible, a substitute teacher will be appointed or make-up lessons will be held at a later time in place of the canceled lessons.

The second challenge is the status of students and teachers who do not have a green pass. Under current regulations, although one may enter campus and attend classes even without a green pass (by presenting an up-to-date negative results of a COVID-19 test), we are required to allow distance learning for students who do not have a “green pass” certificate. This means that while we may be able to enforce the obligation to attend teaching labs and other practical training, there may be difficulty with regard to attending other classes. The requirement to allow "distance learning" for those who do not have a green pass will be implemented by allowing students to view recordings of lessons (these video recordings will be available to the student for viewing, with teacher approval, after class, not live); reading the study material, emailing the teacher and assistance from other students.

2. Recording course lessons. We have significantly increased the number of filming and recording systems in classrooms, and another 50 such systems are currently being installed. According to our rules, the use of lesson recordings is restricted and recording is subject to the instructor’s consent.

Recording lessons is very important to the success of teaching. There are two aspects here: One, a general one, is about the contribution that viewing lesson recordings makes to learning. Many students attest to the great contribution that the availability of lesson recordings makes to improving the quality of learning. The recordings are especially necessary for those who are unable to attend class, for example, due to military reserve service, illness or the obligation to stay in home quarantine. Some teachers are concerned that the recordings will discourage class attendance. The experience gained in units where recordings of lessons have been available for viewing for many years demonstrates that this concern is exaggerated. The extensive absence from classes in the past semester was due to the special circumstances (among other things, the option of attending lessons remotely, thanks to parallel/hybrid instruction, and the fact that many of the students did not live in Jerusalem or Rehovot). In any case, class attendance can be encouraged in other ways, which do not involve harm to students caused by the refusal to allow recording. These means include: enforcement of attendance, giving a favorable grade for active participation in class, holding exams during class and more. (By the way, if a higher grade is given for active participation, those who are unable to participate in the class should be allowed to submit a paper to receive a similar higher grade). There is also an option of making the recordings accessible only to students who present a valid reason for being absent from class.

A second aspect of the need for lesson recordings is unique to the present period. As stated, under current regulations, we are required to allow distance learning for students who do not possess a green pass. This means allowing students to view lessons that have been filmed. In a course where the teacher refuses to allow filming, if according to the dean's decision there is no pedagogical justification for the refusal, we will have to carry out parallel instruction, i.e. broadcast the lesson in real time using Zoom.

I ask all faculty members to allow the filming and recording of the lessons for your courses, and present these considerations to the teaching assistants and teaching fellows as well, so that as many courses as possible are filmed. As indicated, the recordings will not be used by the university for any purpose without the instructor's consent.

3. Enrolment. We are in the midst of a considerable increase in the demand to study at the Hebrew University. Due to the maximum quota of students set by the Planning and Budget Committee (PBC), we had to slightly reduce the number of students admitted for first year undergraduate study (and thus raise the admission thresholds), but the data remained very high relative to the past (Figure 1) (2022 data are not final yet):

 

Accordingly, the total number of bachelor’s degree and master’s degree students has also increased, exceeding the quota set for us. We are continuing to try to secure a further increase in the quota, beyond the increases approved in the last two years (Figure 2) (2022 data, not final yet; the yellow line—total number of students; the blue line—the quota set by the PBC):

 

The increase in the number of students allows us to fulfill a central mission of the University—providing higher education to students and contributing to reducing gaps in society. The increase in the number of students also yields an important addition to the University's income (Table 3) (the amounts are in NIS million):

Total	Tuition	PBC	Table 3: Income from teaching
697.6	197	500.6	2019
732.3	218	514.3	2020
774.6	229	545.6	2021
820.4*	235*	585.4	2022

* Forecast

The income from PBC is determined according to the number of students in the previous year, weighted by various coefficients. If the PBC increases our quota, the income will further increase next year, based on the increase in the total number of students this year.

4. The status of teaching in our culture. I would like to raise a general substantive issue for discussion. In my opinion, there is a substantial positive correlation between the importance attached to teaching at a university and the international academic status of the institution. I am concerned that while our situation in this regard is very good domestically, it is not good enough in comparison to leading universities abroad.

There are various models for modern universities. The main one, which has become the one that characterizes the leading institutions in the world, is the classic German model, which is attributed to Humboldt and the University of Berlin. This model has four main characteristics: (1) The academic institution combines teaching and research (hence its name "university," which derives from the fact that it is an institution that is a common, "universal" community of researchers and students); (2) Researchers (and the institution as a whole) enjoy academic freedom in choosing the areas of teaching and research, according to their assessment of what is interesting and important to research and teaching, while denying the power of the state (despite being the University's main funder), to dictate research and teaching areas; (3) Academic training includes the systematic acquisition of skills of rational scientific thinking and of liberal morality (Bildung), alongside training in the relevant field of knowledge; (4) The curriculum includes a significant component of elective courses, in a manner that respects the academic freedom of students. This was the model according to which the universities in Germany operated in the late 19th century and in the first part of the 20th century, the golden age of these institutions.

After the War, democratization in Western Europe, the exemption from tuition fees and the lowering of admission thresholds, along with the expansion of the middle class, led to the welcome increase in the proportion of students among the relevant age group (a jump from 5% to almost 50%). But the price has been in the quality of academic training. Undergraduate teaching in classrooms, where hundreds of students study, disconnecting the teacher from the students, has meant that the important characteristics of the German model no longer exist in German universities and parallel institutions in Western Europe. The declining status of teaching has led to the fact that although institutions continue to be called universities, the ideal of a community of researchers and students has become merely a slogan. Researchers and students have become two separate communities, the connection between which is quite loose.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the dizzying success of American universities, which have overtaken the German universities in recent decades, is the successful adoption of the classic German model in terms of the status of teaching in academic activity. The leading universities in the United States could not afford, financially, to adopt the pure (and largely elitist) model of a common learning community that characterized the leading universities in England (the model known as Oxbridge, a combination of the names of the two universities that developed it). This is a model that requires habitation of faculty and students in boarding school conditions and close personal tutoring, and such a model is difficult to implement in an institution where tens of thousands of students study. But in the decades after World War II, the leading universities in the United States were able to recognize the importance of teaching, and created a successful synthesis of the classical German model with the English one. Anyone who has taught at an American university (I experienced this during two years of sabbatical, one at Columbia University in New York and one at the University of California at Berkeley) is aware of the great importance attached there to classroom teaching. Beginning already with undergraduate courses, teachers are required to assign students reading material that is at least twice or three times the amount that is customary in our universities in Israel; classes are not carried out as lectures but rather with the active participation of students; faculty members teach compulsory courses (alone, without partners); and teaching satisfaction is crucial in decisions on admission to the faculty at the institution, and on tenure and promotion. Based on the English model, the top universities in the United States run a personal tutoring program, in which each undergraduate student receives personal tutoring from a faculty member throughout the course of the degree, and the student and supervisor must meet at least once per semester. All of these, and more, reflect the central status of teaching in American academic culture: the status is the same or almost identical to that of research.

The conditions at the leading American universities are different from those in Israel in many respects. The "teaching load," i.e. the number of courses taught by each faculty member, is smaller at American universities than what is customary here in Israel, and the administrative assistance there is much more extensive (not to mention the salary gap). There are also institutions that, thanks to their wealth, are academically successful even without actually engaging in teaching. Despite this, if we wish to survive, in the sense of continuing to make progress in our international status and even just to prevent a setback in it, we cannot afford not to take teaching seriously. I believe that we are doing well in this area, but not yet excellent.

Naturally, there are considerable differences among faculty members, as well as among academic units, in the degree of importance attached to teaching. There are many faculty members and academic units at our University who take teaching seriously. They recognize that it is the duty of every faculty member at the University to teach at least one compulsory undergraduate course, alone and not jointly with other faculty members, in a group of 100 or 150 students at most. These faculty members are aware of the obligation to review and update the course material every year. They ask students questions, creating a framework for active learning. Likewise, these faculty members see teaching as an opportunity to advance science. However, alongside these faculty members, we have too many who view teaching as a burden. This is reflected in the attempt to avoid teaching as much as possible (and there are quite a few faculty members who do not teach even one compulsory undergraduate course). We still have a policy of cramming hundreds of students into one classroom. There are units where faculty members teach very little (if any) courses in their first years at the university. In some cases, papers submitted by students are not reviewed at all and no feedback is given on them, and the assessment method is based, in whole or in part, on multiple-choice tests, without sufficient pedagogical justification for it. I think this hurts our academic achievements.

Shirking teaching responsibilities hurts first and foremost the faculty member him/herself: the faulty member misses an opportunity to learn new discoveries in relevant fields for the purpose of preparing lessons in fields that only touch his/her research fields. The faculty member also misses an opportunity to reformulate common insights in the field, to answer difficult, thought-provoking questions, which students raise, and misses the opportunity to be exposed to research that students refer to, and insights from other courses and other areas of knowledge that students offer. The notion that investing in quality teaching comes at the expense of research is incorrect. Quality teaching is critical to improving research. Quality teaching is a great way to increase the chances that students will choose to continue to graduate studies under the guidance of the faculty member, and thereby contribute directly to the advancement of the faculty member's research.

Students expect high-level teaching, and they expect demanding requirements that will challenge them and satisfy them intellectually. They expect fair exams, which do not test the ability to identify “trick answer choices” and overcome sophisticated formulations. Students expect coordination among courses, so that there is no overlapping among different courses and there are no errors in assumptions about the skills students have already acquired in previous courses. Students expect to get to know us and expect that we will get to know them. They expect personal advising by faculty members. They expect the heads of the academic units to manage the teaching in the unit, and to recognize that their role is to ensure quality teaching, by conducting unit teaching workshops, in-depth peer feedback, cross-sectional conversations with students and many other steps.

Changing our organizational culture when it comes to teaching is essential to us. The coming academic year will be dedicated to intensive activities to promote the quality of teaching at the University. Among other things, we will work to further increase the use of formative assessment, in which students study in teams and submit papers that receive detailed feedback. We will apply the method of measuring credit points in courses according to "learning load," and not according to the number of lessons in the class. We will strive to completely avoid holding courses attended by more than 150 students per class. We will work to abolish arrangements according to which certain faculty members do not teach compulsory undergraduate courses (or teach such courses jointly with a number of other teachers) and we will work to eliminate the situation where, in certain units, faculty members in the first years of their tenure hardly teach. We will consider measures to prevent the use of multiple-choice tests. We will expand the participation of faculty members in the student advising program. As stated, the purpose of all of the above measures and initiatives is to get us all to take teaching seriously.

 

I wish you a successful academic year. Thank you for your dedicated work, and for your significant investment in our academic activities.

Sincerely,

Barak