Journal of Academic Ethics

, 7:223 | Cite as

Should Faculty Members be Exempt From a Mandate to Receive Instructional Design Training Because of Their Rights Under Academic Freedom?

  • Cindy Poore-Pariseau


The quality of the educational experience for students may be at risk if they are not taught in ways that are effective and pertinent. While educational institutions (administrators, faculty senates or a combination) may try to compel faculty members to gain knowledge of and utilize up-to-date learning and instructional design strategies, these faculty members may baulk at this mandate, citing academic freedom as their right to design their courses in any way they see fit. Following is a discussion exploring the issue, suggesting that regardless of how academic freedom is interpreted, faculty members have an ethical obligation to deliver instruction in ways that do not violate students' rights to learn. Consequently, institutions have a right as well as a duty to compel their faculty members to follow through with this obligation.


Academic freedom Instructional design Faculty members ethical obligations 


  1. AAUP. (2008a). Academic freedom. In 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Retrieved November 27, 2008 from
  2. AAUP. (2008b). The statement. In Statement of Professional Ethics. Retrieved November 27, 2008 from
  3. Birtwistle, T. (2006). Are we collectively guilty of complacency? An update on the continued confusion over what is academic freedom and what may become a battle for academic freedom./ Education & the Law, //18/(2), 207–215. doi:10.1080/09539960600919936
  4. Bennich-Björkman, L. (2007). Has academic freedom survived?—An interview study of the conditions for researchers in an era of paradigmatic change. Higher Education Quarterly, 3(61), 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bristol Community College. 2008. Public higher education system. In Mission Statement. Retrieved November 26, 2008 from
  6. Cameron, D (March 1996). Academic Freedom and the Canadian University. Research File, 1(3), Retrieved November 27, 2008, from–96/vol1n3_e.pdf
  7. DeMitchell, T. A., & Connelly, V. J. (2007). Academic freedom and the public school teacher: An exploratory study of perceptions, policy, and the law. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (1), 83–117. Retrieved from–live&scope=site.
  8. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Gardner, H. E. (1999). Multiple Approaches to Understanding. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 70–89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Gearhart, D. (2001, Spring). Ethics in distance education: Developing ethical policies. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4 (1). State University of West Georgia: Distance Education Center. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from∼distance/ojdla/spring41/gearhart41.html.
  11. Giroux, H. (2006). Academic freedom under fire: The case for critical pedagogy. College Literature, 4(33), 1–42. Fall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IBSTPI. (2008). Publications. Retrieved October 3, 2008 from
  13. Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Sarasin, C. (2006). Learning style perspectives: Impact in the classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Rose, D., & Meyer, M. (2002). Teaching Every Child in the Digital Age. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  16. U. S. Government. (2008). Section 508. In 508 Law. Retrieved May 2008 from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Capella UniversityMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations