Tag: Faculty

Understanding the Impact of Workplace Incivility in Higher Education – Faculty Focus
“Did you hear that another team member, someone we all knew and worked with, quit today?” said a colleague. “Isn’t this the third one since last month? What is happening in that department?” was my counter question, echoing the concerns of many in the office. Have you ever experienced a similar situation at your workplace and wondered what caused this sudden voluntary attrition? Was it a competitor higher education institution stealing trained resources, or was there a sudden need for higher salaries due to the current economic factors, etc.? After a week, a LinkedIn post mentioned, “… it was time to move forward, as I had hit a breaking point. Quitting is the first step towards finding a healthy workplace!”

Research has consistently shown that women are more susceptible to workplace incivility than men. However, this trend can be mitigated when the direct supervisor demonstrates ethical leadership (Young et al., 2021). This finding offers a glimmer of hope, suggesting that a change in leadership could significantly influence employee morale. Is the stress of adapting to a new management at work a contributing factor? Or is it a case of leadership failing to adjust to the existing culture? Or is it due to incivility in the workplace? These are the questions that keep on occurring.

My experience working at an institution primarily for women has sparked my curiosity and deepened my concern. I often pondered whether these departures were triggered by a sudden event or a long-standing issue that had been suppressed. This connection to the topic has driven me to delve into the reasons behind abrupt job resignations among women in public organizations and the need to understand their impact on resources, policies, etc., in higher education.

What is Workplace Incivility?

According to the research of Tolkerson, Holm, Bäckström, and Schad, numerous factors contribute to the perpetuation of workplace incivility, including the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility from others. Workplace incivility has been defined as “…low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others” (Torkelson et al., 2016).

In her Harvard Business Review article, Christine Porath, professor of management at Georgetown University, wrote that most leaders need to recognize tangible costs. “Through a poll of 800 managers and employees in 17 industries, we learned how people’s reactions play out.” Among workers who have been on the receiving end of incivility:
- 48% intentionally decreased their work effort.
- 47% intentionally decreased the time spent at work.
- 38% intentionally decreased the quality of their work.
- 80% lost work time worrying about the incident.
- 63% lost work time avoiding the offender.
- 66% said that their performance declined.
- 78% said that their commitment to the organization declined.
- 12% said they left their job because of the uncivil treatment.
- 25% admitted to taking their frustration out on customers.” (Porath & Pearson, 2013)
In a webinar on AACN, Addressing the Harmful Effects of Gaslighting in Academic Nursing, Cynthia Clark, founder of Civility Matters, Professor Emeritus at Boise State University, and award-winning professor, scholar, and author who has done extensive research on workplace incivility, discussed “Gaslighting in Academia” (Profile of Dr. Cynthia Clark). This intrigued my curiosity and inspired me to explore this topic.

What is Gaslighting?

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that involves making someone doubt their reality, memory, or perception. It can occur in various contexts, such as interpersonal relationships, politics, media, and workplaces. Gaslighting can have serious adverse effects on the mental health and well-being of the victims, such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, confusion, and loss of trust (Sarkis, 2018).

Gaslighting and Workplace Incivility in Higher Education

While workplace incivility is a broader term that refers to any rude, disrespectful, or aggressive behavior that violates the norms of mutual respect and professionalism, Gaslighting can be considered a specific and extreme form of workplace incivility that involves not only disrespecting or harming the target but also manipulating their sense of reality and identity (Clark, 2024). Individuals or groups can perpetrate gaslighting, which can be intentional or unintentional, depending on the motives, awareness, and power dynamics of the actors involved. Gaslighting can be manifested in various ways, such as lying, denying, withholding, trivializing, blaming, or gaslighting by proxy (Sarkis, 2018). Gaslighting can occur in multiple contexts, but it is especially harmful in the workplace, undermining employees’ trust, confidence, and performance (Clark, 2024).

In higher education, gaslighting can occur when faculty, staff, or students are subjected to subtle or overt harassment, discrimination, bullying, or abuse by their colleagues, supervisors, or peers. For example, a faculty member may be gaslighted by their administrators who constantly undermine their achievements, question their competence, or deny them opportunities for promotion or recognition. A staff member may be gaslighted by their co-workers who spread rumors, exclude them from social events, or sabotage their work. A student may be gaslighted by their instructor who belittles their contributions, ignores their requests, or grades them unfairly. These examples illustrate how gaslighting can create a hostile, toxic, and unhealthy work environment in higher education institutions (Clark, 2024).

Inefficient Workplaces

Incivility adds to faculty/administrator stress levels, erodes self-esteem, damages relationships, threatens workplace safety and quality of life, and negatively impacts faculty recruitment, retention, and job satisfaction. Therefore, creating and sustaining communities of civility is imperative for all academic work environments (Clark et al., 2021). Gaslighting can have severe and lasting effects on the psychological, emotional, and physical health of the targets, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociation, chronic pain, and suicidal ideation (Stern, 2018).

Nation’s Current Workplace Landscape

According to the Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being, one of the Current Priorities of the U.S. Surgeon General is “Workplace Well-Being.” The survey suggested that 76% of U.S. workers reported at least one symptom of a mental health condition, 84% of respondents said their workplace conditions had contributed to at least one mental health challenge, and 81% of workers reported that they would be looking for workplaces that support mental health in the future (Written Document on Workplace WellBeing.2022). To support workplace wellbeing, creating a plan with the following five essential components can help reimagine workplaces as engines of wellbeing.

The five essentials of the framework are:
- Connection and Community
- Opportunities for Growth (Written Document on Workplace WellBeing.2022)
Recommendations

Regular assessments are needed, and the data needs to be studied at higher educational institutions. HR, Compliance, and Ethics Policies should include examples to increase awareness of various levels of incivility. Before quitting, employees should be aware of the available options and use forums to discuss examples to be self-aware. Providing periodic surveys and reviews, updating training based on feedback and current issues for employees at higher education on HR policies, the Code of Ethics, and faculty ombudsmen can help prevent and address gaslighting and other workplace incivility.

When employees quit, it is no longer uncommon to suddenly walk out of the door without a courtesy notice period or transition report of their current responsibilities. While employers are concerned about employee performance and evaluations for merit raises, retention, etc., they should be publicly ranked based on their performance towards employees working in government and non-profit organizations. We have all heard the phrase “Treat others just as you want to be treated!”, but are we all implementing it at our workplaces?

Ranjitha Rao is the Budget/Financial Analyst Manager at the College of Nursing at Texas Woman’s University. She is dedicated to supporting academic and administrative goals through financial oversight. As an active member of the TWU Staff Council, she fosters a spirit of unified community among staff members and provides opportunities for their democratic representation. Through her involvement in the Staff Council, she promotes a positive and collaborative work environment and serves as a representative advisory member, presenting recommendations to university leadership. Ranjitha is also committed to fostering healthy workspaces, ensuring faculty, staff, and students thrive in a supportive and productive environment. Ranjitha holds a background in engineering and is currently a Ph.D. student focusing on leadership in higher education. She also holds a Master’s in Business Administration, with an emphasis in Accounting and Management. Additionally, as an adjunct, Ranjitha has taught first-year incoming classes, focusing on curriculum and strategic success, to help students transition smoothly into their academic journeys, along with accounting and healthcare administration classes for undergraduates. Ranjitha’s research interests include competency-based education, workforce development, leadership, management, and financial well-being in higher education. In her free time, Ranjitha enjoys exploring financial trends, participating in community events, and contributing to initiatives that promote financial literacy and education.

References

Anderson, J. (2023, August 2,). Five Essentials for Workplace Well-Being. https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/orangeco/2023/08/02/five-essentials-for-workplace-well-being/

Clark, C. M., & Fey, M. K. (2019). Fostering Civility in Learning Conversations: Introducing the PAAIL Communication Strategy.10.1097/NNE.0000000000000731

Clark, C. (2019). Combining Cognitive Rehearsal, Simulation, and Evidence-Based Scripting to Address Incivility.10.1097/NNE.0000000000000563

Clark, C. , Landis, T. & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2021). National Study on Faculty and Administrators’ Perceptions of Civility and Incivility in Nursing Education. Nurse Educator, 46 (5), 276-283. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000948

Porath, C., & Pearson, C.The Price of Incivility. January – February 2013, https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility

Torkelson, E., Holm, K., Bäckström, M., & Schad, E. (2016). Factors contributing to the perpetration of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility from others. Work & Stress, 30(2), 115-131. 10.1080/02678373.2016.1175524

Young, K. A., Hassan, S., & Hatmaker, D. M. (2021). Towards understanding workplace incivility: gender, ethical leadership and personal control. Public Management Review, 23(1), 31-52. 10.1080/14719037.2019.1665701
Source link
May 9, 2025
Johnson & Wales University to lay off 91 faculty and staff
Dive Brief:
- Johnson & Wales University plans to lay off 91 faculty and staff members — about 5% of its workforce — as it tries to rapidly evolve its operating model, officials said. The cuts will affect its two campuses in Providence, Rhode Island, and Charlotte, North Carolina.
- The private nonprofit faces an operating deficit of $34 million after more than a decade of enrollment declines. “We simply cannot afford to be the size that we once were, and we believe this reduction will allow us to close a financial deficit and to move forward with a balanced budget,” Chancellor Mim Runey said Monday in a community message.
- With its cash reserves almost depleted, the university is also delaying salary increases until later this year when officials can “evaluate what is possible,” Runey said.
Dive Insight:

To explain why Johnson & Wales is reducing its workforce, Runey pointed to a 54% decline in overall enrollment since fiscal 2012, with headcounts falling from a high of 17,294 to over 8,000 in recent years.

The chancellor attributed the shrinking student body to demographic declines, fewer international students and shifting public attitudes about higher education.

Staffing and budgets, meanwhile, have fallen at a slower pace than enrollment, Runey said, framing the layoffs as rightsizing the university’s operations.

“While there is some indication that we are on the right track with enrollment, we do not believe we will return to levels of enrollment that supported a much larger organization and operating budget,” she said.

The university has already downsized in the recent past. In 2021, Johnson & Wales shuttered its campuses in Florida and Colorado — both of which opened to expand the university during times of growth in the higher education market.

Along with reducing expenses, the sale of those former campus buildings added to university’s endowment and reserves. Those reserves, however, have been drained to plug recent budget gaps.

The university has also pared down the number of senior leaders by about half since 2012, Runey noted. Additionally, it has consolidated academic programs, closed others with low enrollment, reduced jobs through attrition and streamlined aspects of its operations.

At the same time, Johnson & Wales has invested in a wide array of new programs to try to attract students. Over the past decade, some of those new offerings have “yielded great results while others less so, and some were reduced or discontinued,” Runey said.

She also pointed to more recently launched health and wellness programs. Those come with start-up costs such as specialized facilities, faculty and marketing efforts.

“These new program investments, while showing great early outcomes, have not yet had time to yield returns that would significantly improve the operational budget,” Runey said.

That stands in contrast to more rapid enrollment growth other rounds of new programming brought the university in the past, when market conditions were better.

“Today we plan with the conservatism that the times demand,” the chancellor said.
Source link
May 8, 2025
After brazen attack on expressive rights, faculty at Sterling College aren’t in Kansas anymore

Professor Pete Kosek was a leading voice for the faculty at Sterling College — a small, private Christian college in central Kansas — when negotiating changes to the college’s employee handbook. Ken Troyer, another Sterling professor, spoke out as well, including statements to the media about concerns he had with Sterling administrators’ communication with faculty and about a vote of no confidence in the college’s president.

For these exercises of basic faculty expressive rights, Sterling has now punished them both for exhibiting “behavior that is fundamentally inconsistent” with Sterling’s mission. But it’s these punishments that are “fundamentally inconsistent” with Sterling’s promises that its faculty enjoy “free expression, on and off campus.”

FIRE wrote to Sterling on April 3, 2025, articulating our concerns. Its administration ignored us, so today we’re writing to the college again as well as its board of trustees, urging them to reverse the punishments of Kosek and Troyer.

College clashes with faculty over revisions to the employee handbook

In 2023, Sterling faculty received a new version of Sterling’s employee handbook. Faculty voiced concerns about whether faculty were obligated to sign the handbook’s acknowledgement, which appeared to require that faculty affirm Sterling’s institutional stance on marriage, life, gender identity, and human sexuality. For example, a provision in the handbook stated: “[m]arriage is designed to be the lifelong uniting of one man and one woman in a single, biblical, covenant union as delineated by Scripture.”

Concerned that this may adversely impact faculty who were divorced, Kosek led a group of faculty members in negotiating changes to the handbook. Over the course of a year, he went back and forth with Sterling administrators about making sure the handbook could be modified so that it didn’t single out divorced faculty for adverse action.

On Aug. 21, 2024, Kosek emailed a large group of faculty members informing them he believed he and anyone else would be fired if they did not sign the handbook acknowledgement. Kosek also told the administration that while he would abide by the terms of the handbook, he disagreed with how the administration went about communicating with faculty and instituting the new handbook. Two days later, the administration clarified that while faculty were expected to abide by the terms of the handbook, they would not be terminated for not signing it. Kosek subsequently clarified this to the rest of the faculty. The situation seemed resolved, right? Wrong.

Months later, on Feb. 25 of this year, administrators summoned Kosek to a meeting and gave him a disciplinary warning. They told him that it was because he allegedly misrepresented the college when he told other faculty that he believed he and others would be fired over not signing the handbook’s acknowledgement. Sterling provided Kosek no real opportunity to defend himself from the charge.

Troyer, meanwhile, received a nearly identical disciplinary warning on the same day as Kosek, purportedly because of his comments to the media criticizing Sterling’s poor communication with faculty. (This poor communication was a major reason why a group of faculty supported a no-confidence vote in Sterling’s leadership.) Troyer had also discussed the inclusion of non-Christian students at the college, and how that inclusion related to Sterling’s Christian mission.

Similar to Kosek, Troyer had no real opportunity to defend himself. He was just expected to take the disciplinary warning and keep his mouth shut.

If Sterling’s mission required absolute and unquestioning obedience to the administration, this might be understandable. But these punishments cannot be squared with the policies actually laid out in Sterling’s faculty handbook. That handbook does not demand unthinking fealty, but imposes on “students, faculty members, administrators and trustees” the obligation “to foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and free expression on and off campus.” As if anticipating the exact scenario facing both Kosek and Troyer, Sterling adds in the handbook, “administrators should respect the right of faculty members to criticize and seek revision of institutional regulations.”

FIRE’s first letter explained why the college could not square its punishment of Kosek with Sterling’s written commitments. Under First Amendment jurisprudence and at most private colleges (like Sterling) faculty members retain the right to comment on matters of public concern — and one of those concerns is how the college is being run. Indeed, faculty members are often among the most important voices regarding how colleges and universities operate since they witness firsthand the impacts of institutional policies.

Sterling blew FIRE off. So now we’re taking this up the chain and writing to the Board of Trustees as well as the college. When a private institution like Sterling makes promises in its handbooks to faculty, it must keep those promises. To violate them with impunity is to undermine trust and credibility.

Source link

May 8, 2025
The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Generate Case Studies for the Classroom – Faculty Focus

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a tool that is used in the classroom. The integration of technology in education has historically been gradual (Holmes, Bialik, and Fadel 2019). Some educators lack the training to effectively use AI in the classroom, which may limit the ability to design AI-based coursework (Amado-Salvatierra et al. 2024). In addition, the lack of understanding of how AI usage can be applied pedagogically can potentially deter AI integration (Afzaal et al. 2024). The focus of this article is to share examples of AI input prompts to generate case studies as a learning tool to help students learn course topics and learning outcomes.

Case studies provide opportunities for students to learn and/or reinforce what they have already learned. While using AI to create case studies, it is important to use correct prompts to obtain appropriate output. For example, a single prompt asking AI to give five cases on five different topics may not provide sufficient detail. However, prompting AI to generate a case study on one topic will potentially generate a more appropriate case. Using as much detail in the initial prompt helps provide better output. An AI prompt example might be: ‘Assume the role of a professor teaching an introductory accounting course. Generate a case study for students to use to learn the very basic format of a balance sheet. Make sure the case study is real-world relevant.’ The stated role, course, and topic can be tailored to fit an appropriate class. The case study generated should be reviewed to verify alignment with the specific topic(s) and learning outcome(s).

Cases should be generated in a format that allows for measurable assessment of the students’ learning. Specifying this detail in an AI prompt while generating a case study will help ensure the AI output is measurable. An additional AI prompt example to include with the previous example might be: ‘The case study is to include an assignment portion that allows faculty to measure the student’s performance.’ Careful evaluation of the output from this prompt needs to be performed to ensure topic alignment.

Once an appropriate case study has been developed, AI can provide a grading rubric for the AI-generated case study by prompting AI to generate a rubric. An AI prompt example for generating a grading rubric is: ‘Provide a grading rubric that aligns with this case study.’ A review of the grading rubric’s use to measure appropriate topics and learning is recommended.

At any point in this process, AI can be used to change the output. For example, an appropriate AI prompt to modify something in a case study might be: ‘Update the above-generated case study to include 5 assets, 3 liabilities, and 2 owners’ equity accounts.’ At any point of revision, assessment of the previously generated output (for instance, the rubric) may need to be regenerated. It is recommended to note the AI prompts that generate acceptable output so that those prompts may be reused for future AI-generated case studies.

Another output for the case study could be an answer sheet for faculty to use and to share with students afterward to enable self-evaluation of performance. An AI prompt example might be: ‘Provide the answer sheet for this case study. Make sure to include details of any calculations and definitions of key terms.’

To add additional depth to using AI in the classroom, faculty may want to create two case studies on the same topic: one to be performed by the student without the use of AI, and one with the use of AI. This two-case-study method could allow students to learn how to use AI appropriately. A list of appropriate AI input prompts for the students to use would assist in the students’ learning how to engineer appropriate AI prompts. This effort would help students because research indicates they have a diminished sense of preparedness when they have insufficient exposure to AI application (Hsiao and Han 2023).

An example of an AI prompt to produce a two-case study with and without the use of AI is: ‘Assume the role of an Accounting Professor teaching an introductory accounting course. Generate one case study for students to use to learn the very basic format of a balance sheet without the use of AI. In addition, generate a second case study with the same format as the first case study for students to use to learn the very basic format of a balance sheet with the use of AI. Make sure the case study is real-world relevant. The case study is to include an assignment portion that allows faculty to measure the student’s performance.’

By using this two-case-study method, faculty can measure changes in student performance, allowing students and faculty to see how AI use can assist with case study topic comprehension. Providing the answer sheets to students will enable them to compare their performance and critically analyze the AI output.

A valuable measure to assess would be the amount of time the student spent on each case. A line item on the case study can be added by AI by including a prompt such as: ‘Provide an item at the end of the case to enable students to report the amount of time that they spent on each of the case studies.’

In addition to the non-AI case and the AI-usage case, students can also perform conceptual evaluations. Such evaluations can be qualitative, allowing the student to critically evaluate how AI assists in efficiency and accuracy on the topic. Another focus could be qualitative evaluations on how AI can be used in their future careers based on the specified topic in the case study. For example, a conceptual question might address how someone in their profession would benefit from AI to help them perform better in their future careers. If these cases are created to be used throughout a course term, students can gain a clearer picture of how AI might be applied to their classroom experience.

In conclusion, faculty can use AI to create tools, such as case studies which are focused on specific topics, to expose students to real-world scenarios and reinforce student learning. It is very important, as faculty and students use AI, to acknowledge that current AI outputs may not always be accurate. Faculty and students should evaluate the accuracy of AI-generated output and adjust as necessary. Experimenting with various AI inputs will allow faculty to become more comfortable with using AI. Recognizing AI’s role in the classroom does not replace faculty, but it can help provide excellent learning opportunities for students and demonstrate how AI can be used effectively.

Rhonda Gilreath is an associate professor of accounting at Tiffin University in Northwest Ohio. She enjoys exploring new opportunities to implement in the classroom to improve pedagogical approaches to prepare her students for career readiness.

References

Afzaal, M., Shanshan, X., Yan, D., and Younas, M. 2024. “Mapping Artificial Intelligence Integration in Education: A Decade of Innovation and Impact (2013–2023)—A Bibliometric Analysis.” IEEE Access 12: 113275–113299. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3443313.

Amado-Salvatierra, H. R., Morales-Chan, M., Hernandez-Rizzardini, R., and Rosales, M. 2024. “Exploring Educators’ Perceptions: Artificial Intelligence Integration in Higher Education.” In 2024 IEEE World Engineering Education Conference (EDUNINE), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUNINE60625.2024.10500578.

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., and Fadel, C. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign.

Hsiao, D., and Han, L. 2023. “The Impact of Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence on the Future Accounting Profession: Perspectives from Accounting Students.” Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research 19 (1): 70–100.

Source link

May 7, 2025
Harvard Faculty Pledge 10% of Salary to Defend Against Trump

Nearly 100 senior faculty members at Harvard have committed to taking a pay cut to support the institution’s legal defense against the federal government.

The Trump administration has frozen more than $2 billion in federal funding, threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and said it would end the institution’s ability to enroll international students.

Last month, Harvard filed a lawsuit to halt the federal freeze on $2.2 billion in grants after university officials refused to comply with a sweeping list of demands from the government.

On Friday, President Trump repeated his calls to revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status. “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” he said in a post on his social media platform, TruthSocial.

Harvard president Alan Garber said taking away the institution’s nonprofit tax exemption would be “highly illegal” and that its mission to educate and research would be “severely impaired” if the status were revoked.

In their pledge, 89 senior faculty signatories said they would take a 10 percent pay cut for up to a year to protect the institution, as well as faculty and students who are more exposed to efforts to shore up costs, including by limiting graduate student enrollment and implementing hiring and salary freezes.

“The financial costs will not be shared equally among our community. Staff and students in many programs, in particular, are under greater threat than those of us with tenured positions,” the pledge says.

Ryan Enos, a signatory and professor of government at Harvard, estimated that the donations could amount to more than $2 million.

The group said it intends to move quickly but has not decided how the salary cuts will be implemented.

“We envision that faculty who have made the pledge will hold a vote and if the majority agrees that the university is making a good faith effort to use its own resources in support of staff, student, and academic programs, faculty will proceed with their donation.”

Last week the institution announced changes to its admissions, curriculum and disciplinary procedures after two internal task forces launched last year investigating anti-Muslim bias and antisemitism on campus found the university’s response lacking.

In response to the efforts, a White House official told CNN, “Harvard’s steps so far to curb antisemitism are ‘positive,’” but “what we’re seeing is not enough, and there’s actually probably going to be additional funding being cut.”

Source link

May 6, 2025
Bridging the Gap: Active Learning Strategies for Traditional and Online Classrooms – Faculty Focus

There I was, standing in front of my face-to-face Introduction to Psychology class on a sunny Monday afternoon in spring 2024. I was watching as a few of my students took notes while the remaining students sat passively, perhaps hoping my animated gestures and pacing would somehow osmotically transfer my explanation of classical conditioning into their brains. Meanwhile, in my online section of the same course, students worked through carefully crafted modules at their own pace, their participation in discussion boards ebbing and flowing unpredictably. That’s when it hit me—despite years of teaching experience, I’m still searching for ways to spark the same level of engagement whether I’m interacting with students face-to-face or through carefully designed asynchronous activities. These parallel yet distinct teaching environments demand intentional strategies that can adapt while maintaining their power to actively engage students in the learning process.

Rethinking Active Learning for Asynchronous Spaces

Traditional active learning techniques that work beautifully in my face-to-face classes often fall flat in the asynchronous online environment. Take the classic “turn to your neighbor and discuss” prompt that energizes my traditional classes—there’s no direct equivalent when students are logging in at different times throughout the week. Yet simply abandoning these proven engagement strategies isn’t the answer. Instead, we need to reimagine active learning for both spaces, maintaining the core principles while adapting the execution. The key is finding techniques that preserve what makes active learning so powerful—student engagement, peer interaction, and immediate application of concepts—while acknowledging the unique constraints and opportunities of each learning environment.

One of the most powerful techniques in my traditional classroom is the think-pair-share discussion format. Students have those precious moments to gather their thoughts before turning to a classmate to discuss concepts like confirmation bias or the impact of classical conditioning on everyday behavior. The students are energized as pairs merge into small groups, building on each other’s insights before sharing with the whole class. But how do we capture that same collaborative energy in an asynchronous environment?

I’ve found success by structuring online discussions in three distinct phases that mirror the in-person experience. First, students post their initial response to a thought-provoking prompt (the “think” phase). Then, they must meaningfully respond to two classmates’ posts, building on their ideas rather than simply agreeing (the “pair” phase). Finally, students return to their original post and reflect on how their understanding has evolved after engaging with their peers’ perspectives (the “share” phase). The key is crafting prompts that demand critical thinking—instead of asking “What is classical conditioning?” I might ask “How would you use classical conditioning principles to help someone overcome their fear of public speaking?”

Timing matters, too. In my face-to-face class, I allow two to three minutes for individual reflection, five minutes for pair discussions, and 10 minutes for group sharing. Online, I’ve found success with a similar proportional structure: two days for initial posts, three days for peer responses, and two days for final reflections. This creates a rhythm that keeps the discussion moving while accommodating varied schedules.

Designing Collaborative Learning Experiences

Interactive content creation transforms how students engage with course material in both environments. In my traditional classes, I divide students into small groups to create concept maps exploring the relationships between different psychological disorders. Armed with markers and paper, they work collaboratively to connect concepts like anxiety, depression, and trauma responses, discovering links they might have missed studying alone. The energy is palpable as groups share their maps, debating connections and building on each other’s insights.

For my online students, I’ve adapted this activity using collaborative digital tools. Students work in small groups throughout the week to build their concept maps using shared online workspaces. Each student must add at least three concepts and make meaningful connections to their groupmates’ contributions. The asynchronous format actually offers an advantage here – students have time to think deeply about their contributions and can watch their group’s map evolve over several days. I provide specific deadlines for initial contributions and peer feedback to maintain momentum.

I have found that the key to success in either environment lies in providing clear examples of strong concept maps at the outset, establishing specific criteria for meaningful connections, and requiring students to explain their reasoning for each link they create. Deadlines for each phase keep the momentum going, while incorporating peer evaluation into the final grade ensures consistent participation. The resulting maps often reveal insights that surprise both me and my students, demonstrating how collaborative learning can deepen understanding regardless of the teaching modality.

Measuring Engagement and Refining Strategy

One-minute papers serve as powerful self-assessment tools in my traditional classes. For example, at the end of our discussion on memory formation, I ask students to quickly write down the most important concept they learned and one question they still have. This simple exercise reveals gaps in understanding and helps students consolidate their learning. In our next class, I address the most common questions, creating a feedback loop that keeps everyone engaged.

For my online students, I’ve transformed this into structured reflection journals. After completing each module, students must identify their key takeaway and pose one substantive question about the material. The asynchronous format allows for deeper reflection, and I’ve noticed online students often make fascinating connections to their personal experiences. Each week, I compile the most thought-provoking questions into a FAQ document, creating a collaborative resource that benefits the entire class.

Success in both formats require clear guidelines about what constitutes a meaningful reflection versus surface-level observations. Students stating that “the limbic system processes emotions” won’t suffice—they need to explain how this knowledge changes their understanding of human behavior. This approach not only reinforces learning but also develops critical thinking skills that serve students well beyond our course.

Measuring engagement across different learning environments requires that I use a systematic approach. In my traditional classroom, I track participation through observation and collect quick feedback via index cards. For my online students, I monitor not just the frequency but the quality of their discussion posts and collaborative work. The key metrics that I use remain consistent across both spaces: depth of analysis, peer interaction quality, and concept application.

I use a simple framework that examines three elements: initial engagement (participation in discussions or activities), sustained interaction (meaningful responses to peers), and learning application (connecting concepts to real-world scenarios). For each component, I look for evidence of critical thinking rather than mere completion. This approach helps identify which strategies are working and which need adjustment.

Beyond quantitative measures, I pay attention to qualitative indicators like the sophistication of student questions and the complexity of peer-to-peer discussions. These insights guide my refinement of teaching strategies in both environments, ensuring that active learning remains effective regardless of delivery method.

As the spring semester progressed, I saw the impact of the adapted strategies in both my traditional and online psychology classes. Those initially passive students in my traditional class began to engage in our active learning exercises, while my online students built an active learning community through their thoughtful asynchronous interactions. In my experience, the key isn’t choosing between traditional and online teaching methods—it’s understanding how to preserve active learning while adapting strategies to fit each unique environment. By reimagining rather than simply transplanting these strategies, we can create engaging learning experiences that work effectively across both spaces.

Dr. Dunja “Dee” Trunk, a professor of psychology at Bloomfield College of Montclair State University, has a passion for teaching and a genuine belief in the transformative power of education.

Source link

May 5, 2025
Bridging the Gap: Active Learning Strategies for Traditional and Online Classrooms – Faculty Focus

There I was, standing in front of my face-to-face Introduction to Psychology class on a sunny Monday afternoon in spring 2024. I was watching as a few of my students took notes while the remaining students sat passively, perhaps hoping my animated gestures and pacing would somehow osmotically transfer my explanation of classical conditioning into their brains. Meanwhile, in my online section of the same course, students worked through carefully crafted modules at their own pace, their participation in discussion boards ebbing and flowing unpredictably. That’s when it hit me—despite years of teaching experience, I’m still searching for ways to spark the same level of engagement whether I’m interacting with students face-to-face or through carefully designed asynchronous activities. These parallel yet distinct teaching environments demand intentional strategies that can adapt while maintaining their power to actively engage students in the learning process.

Rethinking Active Learning for Asynchronous Spaces

Traditional active learning techniques that work beautifully in my face-to-face classes often fall flat in the asynchronous online environment. Take the classic “turn to your neighbor and discuss” prompt that energizes my traditional classes—there’s no direct equivalent when students are logging in at different times throughout the week. Yet simply abandoning these proven engagement strategies isn’t the answer. Instead, we need to reimagine active learning for both spaces, maintaining the core principles while adapting the execution. The key is finding techniques that preserve what makes active learning so powerful—student engagement, peer interaction, and immediate application of concepts—while acknowledging the unique constraints and opportunities of each learning environment.

One of the most powerful techniques in my traditional classroom is the think-pair-share discussion format. Students have those precious moments to gather their thoughts before turning to a classmate to discuss concepts like confirmation bias or the impact of classical conditioning on everyday behavior. The students are energized as pairs merge into small groups, building on each other’s insights before sharing with the whole class. But how do we capture that same collaborative energy in an asynchronous environment?

I’ve found success by structuring online discussions in three distinct phases that mirror the in-person experience. First, students post their initial response to a thought-provoking prompt (the “think” phase). Then, they must meaningfully respond to two classmates’ posts, building on their ideas rather than simply agreeing (the “pair” phase). Finally, students return to their original post and reflect on how their understanding has evolved after engaging with their peers’ perspectives (the “share” phase). The key is crafting prompts that demand critical thinking—instead of asking “What is classical conditioning?” I might ask “How would you use classical conditioning principles to help someone overcome their fear of public speaking?”

Timing matters, too. In my face-to-face class, I allow two to three minutes for individual reflection, five minutes for pair discussions, and 10 minutes for group sharing. Online, I’ve found success with a similar proportional structure: two days for initial posts, three days for peer responses, and two days for final reflections. This creates a rhythm that keeps the discussion moving while accommodating varied schedules.

Designing Collaborative Learning Experiences

Interactive content creation transforms how students engage with course material in both environments. In my traditional classes, I divide students into small groups to create concept maps exploring the relationships between different psychological disorders. Armed with markers and paper, they work collaboratively to connect concepts like anxiety, depression, and trauma responses, discovering links they might have missed studying alone. The energy is palpable as groups share their maps, debating connections and building on each other’s insights.

For my online students, I’ve adapted this activity using collaborative digital tools. Students work in small groups throughout the week to build their concept maps using shared online workspaces. Each student must add at least three concepts and make meaningful connections to their groupmates’ contributions. The asynchronous format actually offers an advantage here – students have time to think deeply about their contributions and can watch their group’s map evolve over several days. I provide specific deadlines for initial contributions and peer feedback to maintain momentum.

I have found that the key to success in either environment lies in providing clear examples of strong concept maps at the outset, establishing specific criteria for meaningful connections, and requiring students to explain their reasoning for each link they create. Deadlines for each phase keep the momentum going, while incorporating peer evaluation into the final grade ensures consistent participation. The resulting maps often reveal insights that surprise both me and my students, demonstrating how collaborative learning can deepen understanding regardless of the teaching modality.

Measuring Engagement and Refining Strategy

One-minute papers serve as powerful self-assessment tools in my traditional classes. For example, at the end of our discussion on memory formation, I ask students to quickly write down the most important concept they learned and one question they still have. This simple exercise reveals gaps in understanding and helps students consolidate their learning. In our next class, I address the most common questions, creating a feedback loop that keeps everyone engaged.

For my online students, I’ve transformed this into structured reflection journals. After completing each module, students must identify their key takeaway and pose one substantive question about the material. The asynchronous format allows for deeper reflection, and I’ve noticed online students often make fascinating connections to their personal experiences. Each week, I compile the most thought-provoking questions into a FAQ document, creating a collaborative resource that benefits the entire class.

Success in both formats require clear guidelines about what constitutes a meaningful reflection versus surface-level observations. Students stating that “the limbic system processes emotions” won’t suffice—they need to explain how this knowledge changes their understanding of human behavior. This approach not only reinforces learning but also develops critical thinking skills that serve students well beyond our course.

Measuring engagement across different learning environments requires that I use a systematic approach. In my traditional classroom, I track participation through observation and collect quick feedback via index cards. For my online students, I monitor not just the frequency but the quality of their discussion posts and collaborative work. The key metrics that I use remain consistent across both spaces: depth of analysis, peer interaction quality, and concept application.

I use a simple framework that examines three elements: initial engagement (participation in discussions or activities), sustained interaction (meaningful responses to peers), and learning application (connecting concepts to real-world scenarios). For each component, I look for evidence of critical thinking rather than mere completion. This approach helps identify which strategies are working and which need adjustment.

Beyond quantitative measures, I pay attention to qualitative indicators like the sophistication of student questions and the complexity of peer-to-peer discussions. These insights guide my refinement of teaching strategies in both environments, ensuring that active learning remains effective regardless of delivery method.

As the spring semester progressed, I saw the impact of the adapted strategies in both my traditional and online psychology classes. Those initially passive students in my traditional class began to engage in our active learning exercises, while my online students built an active learning community through their thoughtful asynchronous interactions. In my experience, the key isn’t choosing between traditional and online teaching methods—it’s understanding how to preserve active learning while adapting strategies to fit each unique environment. By reimagining rather than simply transplanting these strategies, we can create engaging learning experiences that work effectively across both spaces.

Dr. Dunja “Dee” Trunk, a professor of psychology at Bloomfield College of Montclair State University, has a passion for teaching and a genuine belief in the transformative power of education.

Source link

May 5, 2025
Harvard faculty group pledges 10% of salary to help university fight Trump
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Dozens of faculty members at Harvard University have signed on to contribute 10% of their salaries, for up to a year, to the institution’s legal fight against the Trump administration.
- As of Friday afternoon, 88 senior faculty had signed the agreement, according to organizers. Of those, 43 have done so publicly.
- The faculty pledge came just before President Donald Trump said his administration will pull Harvard’s tax-exempt status, adding “It’s what they deserve!” in a Friday social media post.
Dive Insight:

This week’s developments are only the latest in the ongoing battle between Harvard and Trump.

In the president’s numerous attacks on higher education, Harvard in particular has borne intense scrutiny from the Trump administration. That aggression escalated significantly in mid-April when the Ivy League institution rebuked demands from federal agencies to interfere in academic matters, becoming the first well-known college to respond so forcefully.

Since then, the administration has slashed Harvard’s federal funding by almost $2.3 billion, threatened billions of dollars more, opened Title VI investigations into it and its law review, and threatened its ability to enroll international students.

Harvard is now suing the Trump administration over what it calls the government’s efforts to withhold federal funding “as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking.”

Though Harvard is one of the best-resourced institutions in the country, the legal battle is likely to be arduous and expensive. This week’s faculty salary pledge described the university as facing “severe financial damage for its defense of academic freedom.”

That damage could come in the form of an unprecedented tax bill.

In previous social media posts, Trump said Harvard “is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds” and should “be Taxed as a Political Entity.”

Trump, as president, does not have unilateral legal authority to pull Harvard’s tax exemption, a status bestowed by the Internal Revenue Service. And neither the president nor employees of the executive office can legally direct the IRS to audit or investigate an institution. Federal law requires IRS employees who receive such directions to report them to the agency’s oversight office.

Despite this, CNN reported in April that the IRS was making arrangements to revoke Harvard’s status, just after Trump posted on the matter.

Such a change would significantly escalate Trump’s financial battle against Harvard that prompted the faculty pledge. The 11 faculty members leading the salary pledge said they intend for the signatories to hold a vote.

“If the majority agrees that the university is making a good faith effort to use its own resources in support of staff, student, and academic programs, faculty will proceed with their donation,” their letter said.

The pledge also acknowledged that not all faculty at Harvard are in a position to pledge 10% — or any — of their income and said the salary contribution plan is “only one of the various ways in which we can express solidarity around the university.”

“We also know that many faculty are making important contributions to the Harvard community during this difficult time in other ways, by helping students and staff directly,” it said.
Source link
May 2, 2025
Engaging Students in Meaningful Learning Experiences – Faculty Focus
Two years ago, I was invited to deliver a course at a prestigious management school abroad. Though hesitant at first, I accepted the opportunity to do what turned out to be one of my most rewarding teaching experiences. I taught a group of students unlike any I had taught over the span of my long teaching experience in diverse settings and institutions.

The students portrayed an exceptional level of behavioral engagement. This surprised me since I had never seen them before, and I was new to them. I had not had the chance to establish any social or emotional bonds with them. I could see them taking their own notes during the lessons, never asking me for my slides, a common practice among other students I have taught. They would work on the assigned tasks in class and use their time efficiently. Assigned homework was always completed without me having to send them reminders. When I gave a break during a session, many would open books and read until the class resumed.

It happened that my class was interrupted by the New Year’s one-day holiday. I asked the class after the holiday to think of a new year’s resolution, and to my surprise, a handful of students said that they intended to increase the number of books they would read in the coming year.

At the end of my visit, I left those students and went back home to my regular educational setting. I found myself reflecting on my own recent experience. In my setting, most teachers I work with grapple with the challenge of engaging their students in their learning; thus, they work hard on providing students with incentives and support to stay on tasks, contribute to their groups, and complete their assigned work. I know that many of those teachers designed very good learning experiences and tried to accommodate their students’ needs, yet they did not observe the engagement they hoped for.

This contrast raised several questions:
- What are we missing as educators when it comes to student engagement?
- Are the challenges related to the curriculum, the school, or the larger context extending beyond the school to the home and society?
- Is it the collective perception toward education a factor in fostering student engagement? Have educators and parents been able to help students understand the bigger meaning behind their school experiences and tasks?
- Have we been able to help them make the connection between these tasks and their reality?
- Has the system taken these into considerations when designing the educational curricula?
Talking about relating learning experiences to real life brings to my attention how this group of young management students integrated their academic knowledge with their online profiles. Many connected with me on LinkedIn, where I have been seeing them share deep reflections and insights from their studies. Although they are still in their early years of their university studies, they express their opinions and stand as though they are experts in their field. They report on activities they engage in related to what they study and reflect on what they encounter and experience. They provide bulleted lists of advice and practice. Reading their posts, I see these students already can foretell their placement in life after they graduate and are acting accordingly. This could be a reason why they embrace schoolwork and engage with it willingly.

I end with two incidents from my visit that resonate with me. For one of the assessments, I conducted an online, objective-type quiz, consisting mainly of multiple-choice questions. The class speed in which the students submitted their responses led me to think they had worked collectively on a WhatsApp group. When I raised this concern, one student who seemed offended assured me that they would not do such a thing. This claim was validated when I graded the final exam, a rigorous three-hour subjective type of exam. The class average was an impressive A.

The second incident was when I asked the class for feedback on my teaching, as I usually do towards the end of a semester. One student advised me: “Next time you teach here, be tougher on students. We are used to working hard, and we can handle it.” I had never heard of anything similar from a student; on the contrary I have students who often request reduced workload and extended deadlines.

Reflecting on this experience, I believe the following can be considered as main takeaways for educators:
- Design meaningful learning experiences: The type of learning experiences we design for our students should relate to their realities and be meaningful and to where the students see themselves later in life
- Recognize the multifaceted nature of engagement: Student engagement is not necessarily the product of the teacher’s efforts but a myriad of aspects including the curriculum, perceptions, school and culture.
- Allow students’ voices: Listening to the students’ voices provides us with a lot of tips on how we can improve the learning experiences for them and attend to what they think they need help with.
- Foster student accountability: There are ways to help students be accountable to their own actions and to behave responsibly towards their learning
- Cultivate academic integrity: academic integrity can be achieved effortlessly when students are interested in what they do and understand the positive impact of their learning on their lives.
Amal Farhat has experience in teaching and instructional coaching at K-12 schools and higher education. She has worked in the private and public sectors. Her interests mainly pertain to the development of professional learning communities through positive, constructive interactions among stakeholders of an institution. In higher education, she taught in the Faculty of Letters and Humanities and Faculty of Education. Additionally, she works as a teaching and learning specialist supporting faculty members with their teaching practices. Amal holds a PhD in education from the Doctoral Institute at Lebanese University, a counseling in pedagogy diploma from St. Joseph University, and is CAEL (Certificate in Advanced Education Leadership) certified from Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Source link
May 2, 2025
The Silent Crisis: Bullying Among Nurse Educators in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

Bullying in nursing is a well-documented issue, but less attention has been given to the experiences of nurse educators who face hostility within academic institutions. While nursing education should promote professional growth, collaboration, and mentorship, many nurse educators—especially those in tenure-track positions—experience bullying from colleagues, senior faculty, or administrators. These hostile work environments have profound consequences, leading many talented educators to leave academia entirely or return to clinical practice. The prevalence of academic bullying, its impact on both individuals and institutions and strategies for addressing it must be explored to create healthier academic environments.

The Scope of Bullying in Nursing Academia

Bullying in higher education is a widespread and systemic issue. Keashly and Neuman (2010) found that faculty members in academia frequently experience bullying behaviors, including persistent criticism, professional exclusion, and attempts to damage their reputation. These behaviors often go unaddressed due to power imbalances, hierarchical structures, and institutional tolerance for incivility. Within nursing education, bullying often manifests in ways that undermine an educator’s credibility and professional standing, such as excessive scrutiny of work, withholding of resources, and exclusion from key academic opportunities.

The hierarchical structure of academia places tenure-track faculty at particular risk, as they are vulnerable to unfair evaluation practices, disproportionate workloads, and a lack of mentorship from senior faculty. Levecque et al. (2017) found that faculty in highly demanding positions—such as those pursuing tenure—are at greater risk for mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and burnout. When bullying is added to these pressures, the result is often faculty disengagement or attrition.

The Impact on Nurse Educators and Institutions

The consequences of academic bullying extend beyond the individuals directly affected. Nurse educators who experience bullying report increased stress, reduced job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion (Clark, Olender, Cardoni, & Kenski, 2011). When educators feel unsupported, their ability to mentor students and contribute to nursing scholarship declines, diminishing the overall quality of nursing education.

This loss of faculty members is particularly concerning, given the ongoing nursing faculty shortage. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) reports that thousands of qualified nursing applicants are turned away each year due to a lack of faculty. Bullying-induced faculty turnover exacerbates this crisis, forcing institutions to rely on fewer educators to meet growing educational demands. Furthermore, a toxic workplace culture may discourage younger nurse educators from entering academia, perpetuating the shortage and reducing the profession’s ability to educate future nurses.

Addressing Bullying in Nursing Academia

Given the significant impact of academic bullying, institutions must take proactive steps to identify, manage, and prevent these behaviors.

1. Recognizing and Reporting Bullying

Bullying in academia can be subtle, making it difficult to document and report. However, keeping a record of incidents, including dates, interactions, and effects, can provide necessary evidence when seeking support. Educators should familiarize themselves with their institution’s policies and report bullying through appropriate channels, such as human resources or faculty grievance committees.

2. Fostering a Culture of Civility

Clark et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of fostering a culture of civility within nursing education. Institutions should actively promote respect, professionalism, and mentorship while discouraging competitive or exclusionary behaviors. Faculty development programs that focus on conflict resolution, communication skills, and leadership training can help create a more supportive work environment.

3. Strengthening Institutional Policies

Many academic institutions have workplace violence and anti-bullying policies, but these often go unenforced. Keashly and Neuman (2010) highlight that stronger institutional accountability measures—such as anonymous reporting systems, independent faculty ombudsman offices, and clear disciplinary actions—are needed to address bullying effectively. Institutions must not only implement policies but also actively enforce them.

4. Providing Support and Advocacy

Support networks can be a powerful tool in mitigating the effects of bullying. Connecting with trusted colleagues, mentors, or professional organizations, such as the National League for Nursing (NLN) or AACN, can provide emotional and professional support. Faculty experiencing bullying should seek guidance from legal professionals or faculty unions if institutional responses are inadequate.

5. Prioritizing Self-Care and Career Flexibility

For nurse educators facing persistent bullying, self-care and professional reassessment are critical. Seeking therapy or counseling, practicing mindfulness, and engaging in professional development outside of a toxic work environment can help educators protect their mental well-being. If the workplace culture remains unsupportive, transitioning to a different institution or returning to clinical practice may be a viable option.

Conclusion

Bullying among nurse educators in higher education is a serious yet underrecognized issue that negatively impacts both faculty and students. The hierarchical nature of academia and institutional tolerance for incivility often allow bullying to persist unchecked, leading to faculty burnout, decreased student engagement, and an exacerbation of the nursing faculty shortage. Addressing this issue requires individual advocacy, institutional policy changes, and a cultural shift toward civility and mentorship. By recognizing and addressing bullying in nursing academia, institutions can retain skilled educators, improve faculty well-being, and ultimately strengthen the future of nursing education.

Dr. Robert Lucia is a three-time Bradley University graduate, receiving his undergraduate degree in 2008, his master’s in 2011, and his doctorate in 2019. All three of his degrees were from the College of Education and Health Sciences. Dr. Lucia started his career at the Children’s Hospital of Illinois in 2010 as a mental health provider in Pediatric Palliative Care. He worked closely with patients with devastating diagnoses, companioning them through their end-of-life journey. In 2015, he joined the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic at OSF Healthcare as inpatient clinical coordinator. This innovative role was created to help manage the inpatient consult service for cystic fibrosis patients in both the pediatric and adult setting. This unique RN role utilized the full nursing scope of practice, and the work Dr. Lucia did to reduce 30-day readmission rates was published nationally. In 2019, Dr. Lucia moved into clinical practice in OSF OnCall Urgent Care and eventually was the Lead Provider for the region. He has been teaching in higher education in some capacity since 2010. Dr. Lucia continues to maintain clinical practice in a federal qualified primary care clinic, in addition to a pediatric sleep medicine clinic. Dr. Lucia is passionate about health care leadership and has received training at Harvard University in both Foundational Leadership and Remote Leadership. Additionally, he received training from the University of South Florida in Inclusive and Ethical Leadership.

References

Clark, C. M., Olender, L., Cardoni, C., & Kenski, D. (2011). Fostering civility in nursing education and practice: Nurse leader perspectives. Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(7-8), 324-330. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21799364/

Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education: Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 48–70.

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868-879.

Roberts, S. J., DeMarco, R., & Griffin, M. (2009). The effect of oppressed group behaviors on the culture of the nursing workplace: A review of the evidence and interventions for change. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3), 288-293. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00959.x

Source link

April 30, 2025