Scholarly activities ...

My interests are in pedagogy. I was actively developing an introductory textbook with the support of MacEwan administration. That changed without warning in October 2010.

The course releases from Sullivan and Higgins (first two emails) were as a result of applications to work on my textbook. Those applications indicated that I intended to use my developing textbook in the courses I taught to get student feedback.

——————————————————————
From: Patrick Sullivan
To: ΑΩ
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007, 16:40
Subject: Research for Scholarly Activity

ΑΩ

I am pleased to inform you that you have been granted one course release for the 2007/08 academic year to conduct scholarly activity.
Please discuss this release with your chair so that he may consider this factor when assigning your work load for next year.

Pat

——————————————————————
From: David Higgins
Cc: ΑΩ
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008, 17:39
Subject: workload

This note is to let you know that the workloads for ΑΩ and Jonathan ought to be adjusted for research by one course.
Do let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
David

——————————————————————
From: Robert Hilts
To: ΑΩ
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009, 12:30
Subject: Re: 10x text for 2009/10 academic year

Dear ΑΩ:

You have asked for feedback re the adoption of your textbook, and here it is. It is my opinion that any decision to change the general chemistry textbook should be made by a committee composed of general chemistry lecturers, and that the committee should be struck in early 2010, just before the end of the run for the 9th edition of General Chemistry: Principles and Modern Applications, by Petrucci et al, which, of course, is the textbook presently being used by our department. In the meantime, if you want more feedback, why don’t you use your textbook for any CHEM 101/102 sections that you will teaching during the 2009-2010 academic year?

Cheers,
Rob

——————————————————————
From: Robert Hilts
To: ΑΩ
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009, 08:18
Subject: Re: Chemistry Textbook

ΑΩ:

The answer to your predicament is clear: try the modified version of your textbook out on some CHEM 101 and 102 lecture sections.

Cheers,
Rob

——————————————————————
From: ΑΩ
To: Robert Hilts
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009, 14:47
Subject: Use of <my textbook> at MacEwan...

Dr. Hilts

To summarize our meeting on 23 June:

  • the college will change my teaching schedule to be two sections of CHEM 101 in fall 2009 and one section of CHEM 102 in winter 2010.
  • the college will allow me to use <my textbook> in the sections that I am teaching.
  • <my textbook> is at the stage where third-party instructor feedback is critical to development. ABCXYZ is collaborating with me on the development of a solution’s manual for <my textbook>. The college will allow ABCXYZ and other interested instructors to use <my textbook> in the lecture sections that they are teaching.
  • Between CHEM 101 and CHEM 102, students may transition from a section using <my textbook> to a section using General Chemistry. It is the sole student responsibility that they have the correct text for their chemistry section.
  • the college will endeavor to ensure that the same proportion of sections in fall and winter terms use <my textbook>.

Please advise if there are any errors or omissions in my summary.

Thank-you,
ΑΩ

——————————————————————
From: Robert Hilts
To: ΑΩ
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009, 22:03
Subject: Re: Use of <my textbook> at MacEwan...

Sounds right to me, ΑΩ.

Cheers,
Rob

——————————————————————
Prior to October 2010, there were no concerns with me and others using and developing my textbook. During this period, my student evaluations did initially drop. In-class student feedback indicated that this was primarily due to the lack of a solution's manual and a few errors in the textbook. I worked diligently to address these problems and, by April 2010, my evaluations had returned to the departmental average.

——————————————————————
From: Pat Sullivan
To: ΑΩ
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010, 13:26
Subject: Faculty Evals

ΑΩ

Your winter term evaluations have met the standards set out in my letter of Feb 2010. Thank you taking the time and effort to deal with previous student concerns. I trust that these standards will be maintained on future evaluations.

One area of future improvement would be in the text and materials used in the course.

Pat 

——————————————————————
From: Robert Hilts
To: ΑΩ
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010, 17:27
Subject: Use of <my textbook> as the Primary Textbook for your CHEM 10X Lecture Courses

Dear ΑΩ:

It has come to my attention that you are using your work-in-progress <my textbook>, and not the approved departmental textbook, “General Chemistry: Principles and Applications” as the primary textbook for your two Fall 2010 CHEM 101 lecture sections. It would seem that I have to remind you that in August 2009, you and I reached the agreement that while it would be perfectly acceptable for you to use <my textbook> as a supplementary workbook, it was not to be used as the primary textbook for any of your first-year CHEM 10X lecture sections. All faculty are expected to teach to the syllabus and to use the approved chemistry area textbook for their lecture courses. Moreover, the institution will not support the use of non-peer reviewed textbooks, such as your own, as the primary resource for the university-level sciences courses taught at MacEwan.

I would like you to please explain to me in writing why you made your book the primary textbook for your lecture courses in breach of the agreement reached in August 2009. I will be forwarding a summary of your response on to the Associate Dean of Science.

Sincerely,
Robert Hilts

——————————————————————
From: ΑΩ
To: Robert Hilts
Date: Sat 16 Oct 2010, 23:17
Subject: Re: Use of <my textbook> as the Primary Textbook for your CHEM 10X Lecture Courses

Dr. Hilts

I have looked through my records and cannot find any agreement we reached in August 2009. Please provide me with a copy of this agreement so that I can properly respond to your email.

Thank-you,
ΑΩ

——————————————————————
From: Robert Hilts
To: ΑΩ
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010, 12:59
Subject: Re: Use of <my textbook> as the Primary Textbook for your CHEM 10X Lecture Courses

Hi ΑΩ:

The agreement, which was verbal, was made in the presence of Dr. ABCXYZ. Due to the passage of time, however, ABCXYZ cannot remember the details of the agreement.

Thank you,
Robert Hilts

——————————————————————
From: Robert Hilts
To: ΑΩ
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010, 14:18
Subject: Use of your textbook at MacEwan

Dear ΑΩ:

Despite the fact that you claim not to remember out verbal agreement, all faculty are expected to teach to the syllabus and to use the approved chemistry area textbook for their first-year lecture courses. Moreover, the institution will not support the use of non-peer reviewed textbooks, such as your own, as the primary resource for the university-level sciences courses taught at MacEwan.

Faculty members are to act within the frameworks of course syllabi and course practices established by the faculty members in the department. As you are aware first year chemistry courses have always used the same textbook in all sections.

Teaching requires significant coordination and the imposition of a certain degree of structure, as well a need for agreement on such matters as general course content, syllabi, and examinations. The department has procedures and a committee to decide on introductory text books and the book you are using is not the designated primary resource for the first-year courses.

Sincerely,
Robert Hilts

——————————————————————
From: ΑΩ
To: Robert Hilts
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010, 16:44
Subject: Re: Use of <my textbook> as the Primary Textbook for your CHEM 10X Lecture Courses

Dr. Hilts

Your email comes as quite a surprise. The impromptu premeeting last week was also very surprising, but informative. You mentioned you are uncomfortable being forced to ask me questions that -- and you emphasized this -- that did not originate with you and that you personally had no problem with me using my text. You stated that you are required to ask these questions because you are my direct supervisor and are following the ‘chain of command’. I whole-heartedly agree that you are in an uncomfortable position and ask that you do what is morally right.

However, you did make inaccurate statements that must be corrected. And I must correct your statements with similar veracity.

>It has come to my attention that you are using your work-in-progress <my textbook>, and not the approved departmental textbook, “General Chemistry: Principles and Applications” as the primary textbook for your two Fall 2010 CHEM 101 lecture sections. It would seem that I have to remind you that in August 2009, you and I reached the agreement that while it would be perfectly acceptable for you to use <my textbook> as a supplementary workbook, it was not to be used as the primary textbook for any of your first-year CHEM 10X lecture sections.

I have no record of an August 2009 meeting between you and I. However, we did meet on 23 June 2009 regarding the use of <my textbook> at MacEwan. I summarized the meeting via email and you responded with, “Sounds right to me, ΑΩ. Cheers, Rob” One of the points in the summary is “the college will allow me to use <my textbook> in the sections that I am teaching.” (The entire summary is attached.) At no time during the meeting was there any mention of a ‘primary textbook’ or ‘supplementary workbook’.

If there was a meeting in August, I have no record of it and the 23 June meeting contradicts the assertion you make above.

>All faculty are expected to teach to the syllabus and to use the approved chemistry area textbook for their lecture courses.

MacEwan faculty are required to teach to a common Master Course Syllabus, but I know of no such requirement to teach to a common course outline. As far as I know, I am teaching to the Master Course Syllabus. ‘Expected’ doesn’t mean ‘required’.

This is the third year I have been using <my textbook> and this is the FIRST I have ever heard that “All faculty are expected to ... use the approved chemistry area textbook for their lecture courses.” This is definitely not the case in English, where every instructor uses their preferred instructional materials. It is not the case in Business accounting, where instructors endeavor to use the same text, but they are not required to do so. In fact, the daytime and evening instructors regularly use different text, based on personal preference. (based on a conversation with Jerry Zdril)

Regarding teaching to the syllabus, it is my understanding that faculty can teach the course material in any order they desire, provided they cover all the material to the required depth by the end of the term. It is common practice that everyone teaches the material in the same order because
* it is pedagogically sound
* students from different sections can assist each other
* the CRC staff know where students is at and can assist them
* some labs require certain material to be covered in lecture first

The instructional order used by MacEwan chemistry is by no means the only valid order. Our instructional order is generally referred to as ‘atoms first’. Another equally valid order is ‘reactions first’. Petrucci is actually laid out in a ‘reactions first’ order.

I should mention that *I* am the one that proposed the change to the current atoms first instructional model in 2004.

Looking at my course outline: my order of instruction follows very closely the order of instruction used by other instructors. About the only difference is the timing of ‘Compositional analysis’ and the order of ‘gases’ and ‘chemical reactions’. In CHEM 102, my order of instruction is the same as other instructors, just with a different textbook.

Considering how MacEwan grants transfer credit: given a course outline from another institution, MacEwan puts little weight on the textbook and order of instruction, focusing primarily on the homology between courses. ACE (Alberta Chemistry Educators) has generally agreed on 80 % homology for transfer credit.

Please direct me to the policy that requires all faculty to use the same course outline and the same approved chemistry area textbook for their lecture courses.

>Moreover, the institution will not support the use of non-peer reviewed textbooks, such as your own, as the primary resource for the university-level sciences courses taught at MacEwan.

Again, this is the FIRST I have ever heard this. I requested and received permission to use <my textbook> three years ago because I successfully argued that student feedback is critical to developing a quality textbook. And Indeed, student feedback has definitely improved <my textbook>. Please realize that the development of a textbook is not a ‘weekend project’. The development cycle is one year in duration and it takes several iterations through the cycle to hone a quality resource.

Secondly, <my textbook> *is* peer reviewed. I have received substantial feedback from ABCXYZ (MacEwan), ABCXYZ (Bluffton), and ABCXYZ (Victoria). ABCXYZ included the attached observations in addition to his thorough review of <my textbook>.

>I would like you to please explain to me in writing why you made your book the primary textbook for your lecture courses in breach of the agreement reached in August 2009. I will be forwarding a summary of your response on to the Associate Dean of Science.

You accuse me of ‘breaching an agreement we reached in August 2009’. I’m sure you appreciate the severity of your accusation. I have no record of an August 2009 meeting with you regarding this. I DO HAVE correspondence from a 23 June 2009 meeting where you agree with the summary statement, “the college will allow me to use <my textbook> in the sections that I am teaching.”

Additionally, in Feb 2009, you state “In the meantime, if you want more feedback, why don’t you use your textbook for any CHEM 101/102 sections that you will teaching during the 2009-2010 academic year?”

I ask that you retract your email and specifically the accusation that I have breached an agreement or I will be forced to seek other avenues to clear my name.

Once this is done, we can discuss the underlying concern you allude to.

Thank-you,
ΑΩ

——————————————————————
From: David Higgins
To: ΑΩ
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010, 10:23
Subject: Meeting concerning textbook

Hello ΑΩ,

As you know, the question of the use of the text on which you have been working as the principal textbook in your sections has been referred to me.

I would like now to hear from you on this subject.  Could you please contact Maria Stecyk in order to make an appointment to meet me on either Monday or Weds. next week?

Thank you.
David

——————————————————————
To: David Higgins
From: ΑΩ
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010, 15:18
Subject: Summary of our meeting...

David

At yesterday's meeting, you stated that you had heard Dr. Hilts perspective and were asking for my perspective on the use of an alternate general chemistry textbook -- the textbook I am developing -- at MacEwan. Below is an overview of the points I presented.

*OVERVIEW* I am developing a general chemistry textbook, <my textbook>. <my textbook> consists of 20 core chapters plus chapters on the applications of chemistry in specialized fields: food science, environmental science, forensic science, pharmaceutical science, chemical engineering, etc. Most of the core chapters are nearing completion and I am working with specialists in other disciplines to develop the applications chapters.

*PERMISSION* In 2007, I requested permission from <the Chair> to use <my textbook> with the CHEM 10x sections I taught. I argued that student feedback was critical to developing a quality student resource. <The Chair> agreed and approved my request. It was recognized that development was a multi-year, annually iterative, process. I am currently in the third year of getting student feedback and expect to have sufficient student feedback in a year or two.

*COURSE OUTLINE* Dr. Hilts repeatedly states that departmental policy dictates only one text be used for CHEM 10x. Simply, no such policy exists. Even if a policy did exist, I received permission for a multi-year trial of <my textbook> with MacEwan students.

*PEER REVIEW* Dr. Hilts argues that only peer reviewed texts can be used at MacEwan. Again, no departmental or institutional policy dictates this. Indeed, many MacEwan instructors use self-developed course-packs instead of commercial textbooks. I doubt that many course-packs are peer reviewed. In chemistry, 'peer review' of a textbook often amounts to paying someone a few hundred dollars to read and provide feedback on a few chapters. Dr. Hilts states that <my textbook> is not peer reviewed. I humbly disagree. ABCXYZ taught both CHEM 101 and CHEM 102 using <my textbook>. On regular occasions, ABCXYZ provided me with feedback on the textbook material he was teaching. Both Dr. Hilts and ABCXYZ (Bluffton) were provided with a copy of <my textbook> and provided feedback on a few chapters. ABCXYZ, an instructor and author at the University of Victoria, conducted a very thorough review of the completed core chapters and provided extensive feedback thereon. His cover letters are attached. I draw your attention to the following comments made by ABCXYZ:

"I particularly appreciate the clear explanation[s] of complex theory and experiment, real-life relevance, an infectious pleasure of studying, reflecting, and writing, [and] a balance between logical sequencing, repetition, and side connections, ..."
"...just the refreshingness and sensibility of the writing and sequencing is enough to set this book apart."

<my textbook> *is* a peer reviewed textbook. 

*STUDENT FEEDBACK* Students have been generous with their feedback on <my textbook>. Every iteration of <my textbook> (currently field test III) has received increasingly positive reviews. Indeed, I have students interested and involved in the development of <my textbook>, from working on the Solutions Manual to preparing material for the textbook itself. 

*EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS* <my textbook> is not 'just another textbook'. In developing <my textbook>, significant effort was put into identifying the challenges and limitations of existing textbooks and developing <my textbook> to address these challenges. Some of the educational innovations in <my textbook> are given below
* The last ten (or so) chapters of conventional textbooks are rarely taught. I replaced these chapters with the applications chapters discussed above and have specialists in these fields preparing these chapters. While the applications chapters may rarely be taught, anecdotal evidence suggests students are eager to read these chapters without them being assigned. This introduces students to how chemistry and science impact the real-world, gets them interested in learning more, and introduces students to potential careers in these disciplines. Teachers could also assign these chapters as the basis for in-class discussions.
* The interconnectivity between the chemistry sub-disciplines and between chemistry and other science disciplines is emphasized.
* There is an emphasis on real-world problems. Numerous examples and exercises explore real-world problems and use accurate scientific data. Figures are true to experimental data; no artistic license has been applied. (Surprisingly uncommon in conventional textbooks!)
* Numerous 'Chemistry in action' sections focus on real world applications of the concepts being presented in the text.

*SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY* (Discussed as 'SOTL' during our meeting.) The AGC approved 'University-Wide Standards for Interim Title of Assistant Professor' lists as one form of scholarly activity, "Textbook or curriculum reform that changes understanding in the field or innovates the instruction in the field (not simply routine revision)."

I submit that the development of <my textbook> meets both the criteria for 'changing understanding' and 'innovating instruction'. During the development of <my textbook>, I was forced to revisit and critically assess both my understanding of chemistry and of the way it is conventionally presented. I discovered several areas where material could be presented better and incorporated that into <my textbook>. I also discovered some areas where current technology could improve on what is traditionally presented in texts. I documented these areas with the intent to revisit them once <my textbook> was completed.

Students are currently involved in the development of <my textbook>, from working on the Solutions Manual to preparing material for the textbook itself. 

MacEwan is now a University and faculty have an opportunity to engage in scholarly activity and to involve students in these scholarly activity projects. I am eager give students the opportunity to engage in this scholarly activity, with the goal of publishing the results and having students presenting at chemical education and/or SOTL conferences. 

Projects: innovative concept maps, temperature dependence of the van der Waals coefficients, anomaly in ionic vs. atomic radius, consolidating the Lewis and VSEPR bonding models, dimensionality of equilibrium expressions, textbook and ancillary material development, collaboration with Alberta Education re high school chemistry education, ...

The benefits to students, myself, MacEwan, and <my textbook> is obvious.

*ACADEMIC FREEDOM* At my mention of academic freedom, you sharpened your tone and stated, 'anyone attempting to imply that academic freedom has any place in this discussion is introducing a red herring.' I humbly disagree. I draw your attention to the following sections from C5054 (Academic Freedom).

Policy: Grant MacEwan University values, advances, and protects the principles of academic freedom; this includes freedom of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and publication.

3.5.1 Teaching
Academic Freedom includes the right to teach and propound academic and course subjects without fear of censure. To that end faculty members have the right to select course materials, content, methodology, and sequence of subjects.

3.5.1 and 3.5.2 also include the statements:
"Faculty members are to exercise this freedom responsibly within the frameworks of course syllabi and course practices established by
faculty members."
"Teaching and curriculum development necessarily require significant coordination and the imposition of a certain degree of structure, as well a need for collaboration and agreement on such matters as general course content, syllabi, and examinations."

I am following the master course syllabus, just using a different, equivalent, textbook. I explained this to Dr. Hilts in my email of 20 October 2010:
>Regarding teaching to the syllabus, it is my understanding that
>faculty can teach the course material in any order they desire,
>provided they cover all the material to the required depth by the end
>of the term. It is common practice that everyone teaches the material
>in the same order because
> * it is pedagogically sound
> * students from different sections can assist each other
> * the CRC staff know where students are at and can assist them
> * some labs require certain material to be covered in lecture first
>The instructional order used by MacEwan chemistry is by no means the
>only valid order. Our instructional order is generally referred to as
>'atoms first'. Another equally valid order is 'reactions first'.
>Petrucci is actually laid out in a 'reactions first' order.
>
>I should mention that *I* am the one that proposed the change to the
>current atoms first instructional model in 2004.
>
>Looking at my course outline: my order of instruction follows very
>closely the order of instruction used by other instructors. About the
>only difference is the timing of 'Compositional analysis' and the
>order of 'gases' and 'chemical reactions'. In CHEM 102, my order of
>instruction is the same as other instructors, just with a different
>textbook.

3.5.2 calls for "collaboration and agreement on ... examinations." It is humorous to note that *I*, on behalf of the chemistry instructors, inquired with the Dean's office this past summer for a common final exam time so that we could move towards consistency and collaboration on examinations. This request was flatly rejected. (see attached)

*Academic Freedom is critically important to this issue.*

*COST* In my interest to educate the populous and to get feedback from abroad, I have made the electronic version of <my textbook> FREE for personal use. The latest draft of <my textbook> (field test III) can be downloaded from www.<my textbook>.com. While in development, MacEwan students may use the electronic edition for free. An in-class survey showed that many students still wanted a print copy of the textbook, so I make available through the bookstore print copies of the chapters specific to CHEM 101 and CHEM 102. Printing only the necessary chapters saves on the student cost. Also at the request of students, the printing was divided into a CHEM 101 version and a CHEM 102 version. <my textbook> is sold on a cost-recovery basis -- about 50 $ per term (600 pages, color).

Petrucci sells for about 170 $. Furthermore, Dr. Hilts requires his students to purchase his workbook, at a cost of 40 $ per term (150 pages, b/w). Students taking both terms of CHEM 10x with Dr. Hilts pay over 250 $ for chemistry textbook resources.

*COMMUNICATION* I had communicated my intention to only focus yesterday's meeting on the communication between Dr. Hilts and myself. However, you did not express interest in the 'history', only in the immediate interest regarding the textbook. I submit that the history is critical to me being in your office yesterday. Dr. Hilts continually refers to an August 2009 hallway meeting with Dr. Hilts, ABCXYZ, and myself. Dr. Hilts is the only person who has any recollection of this meeting and of the decisions made there. There is no record of this hallway meeting or of any decisions made there. However, there is record of a meeting that occurred on 23 June 2009. Dr. Hilts received and responded to an email summarizing the decisions of the 23 June 2009, affirming they were correct. The decisions of the 23 June 2009 meeting are in stark contrast to those proposed by Dr. Hits to have come from the supposed August 2009 hallway meeting. I submit that our meeting yesterday -- based on Dr. Hilts' recollection of a hallway meeting no-one else remembers and which forms the foundation for his 12 October 2010 email, which I disagreed with, leading to Dr. Hilts turning this over to you -- has a flawed foundation.

In his most recent correspondence, Dr. Hilts now states he was on sabbatical and not at the 23 June 2009 meeting. This too is contradicted by his correspondence. His sabbatical was in Edmonton and there are ways of determining if Dr. Hilts was at MacEwan on 23 June 2009.

Interestingly, Dr. Hilts' email correspondence does not match his personal communication. You received copies of his email correspondence. In person, Dr. Hilts is almost apologetic that he is sending these emails. He comments that he is between 'a rock and a hard place'. (This was alluded to in the preface to my 20 October 2010 email.) He comments that he is being directed to take this action and that he had significant administrator assistance drafting the 12 October 2010 email. 

***********************
In closing, I assume you want to move forward from a foundation of truth and in a manner that ensures MacEwan faculty have the unimpeded opportunity to engage in instruction and scholarly activity.

Thank-you,
ΑΩ

——————————————————————
From: ΑΩ
To: David Higgins
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011, 09:59
Subject: MacEwan support of <my textbook>...

Dr. Higgins

At the end of our meeting on 18 January 2011, you commented to the effect, ‘It is news to me that you felt the institution was supporting your development of the new textbook.’ I was surprised by your statement and would greatly appreciate a clear statement from you regarding any past and/or present support of my textbook by Grant MacEwan University.

Thank-you,
ΑΩ

——————————————————————
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011, 12:08
From: David Higgins
To: ΑΩ
Subject: Re: MacEwan support of <my textbook>...

Hello ΑΩ

I think that the phrase ‘news to me’ covers the case.  Your textbook is your undertaking, hence it is news to me that you would consider it to be an institutional undertaking.  It is not.  No discussion about or request for support has ever reached me or the associate dean - hence my surprise when you stated that you considered ‘<my textbook>’ to be supported by the institution.

David

What!? Both Higgins (Dean of Arts and Science) and Sullivan (Associate Dean of Science) were on the committee that awarded course releases for the development of my textbook! 

——————————————————————
Contrasting this, Hilts, Sullivan, and Higgins told the harassment investigator that they considered my textbook development scholarly activity and were supportive of it. They likely didn't realize I would receive a copy of their submissions.