Tag: Faculty

  • Design Smarter, Teach Better: How Thoughtful Course Webpages Can Improve Online Learning – Faculty Focus

    Design Smarter, Teach Better: How Thoughtful Course Webpages Can Improve Online Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Getting it ‘right’ – a reflection on integrating Service Learning at scale into a large Faculty of Science and Engineering

    Getting it ‘right’ – a reflection on integrating Service Learning at scale into a large Faculty of Science and Engineering

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Lynne Bianchi, Vice Dean for Social Responsibility & Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility, at the University of Manchester

    I recently had the fortune to be part of a panel discussing the place of Service Learning in higher education, chaired by HEPI. My reflections before and since may inspire you to take time to think about your perspective on the nature and role of Service Learning in fast-changing university and civic landscapes. In its simplest sense, Service Learning is an educational approach that combines academic study with community service.

    In my role within a large science and engineering faculty, I have rallied our staff and students to think seriously about the features, advantages and benefits of Service Learning in science and engineering contexts. For our university, this teaching and learning approach isn’t new, with expertise in the biomedical sciences and humanities teaching us much about the way in which undergraduate students can create benefit for our local communities whilst enriching their own academic experiences.

    In this blog, I build on my own background as a teacher and higher education academic and draw on my experience in curriculum design when focusing on how we can provide authentic and impactful Service Learning experiences for our undergraduates.

    What do we mean by the ‘right’ learning experiences?

    It doesn’t take long working in this area to unearth a wide range of terms that are used interchangeably – from place-based learning, real-world learning, community-engaged learning, practice-based learning, critical urban pedagogy, industry-inspired learning and more. A gelling feature is that to get Service Learning working well there must be an authentic benefit to each party involved. The students should develop skills and understanding directly required within their degree, and the partner should have a problem explored, solved, or informed. In essence, the experience must lead to a ‘win-win’ outcome(s) to be genuine.

    In our context in science and engineering, we have envisioned Service Learning working well, and considered this to include when:

    For students:

    • Learning has relevance: work on a project, individually or in groups, is contextualised by a problem, issue or challenge that is authentic (as opposed to hypothetical).
    • Learning has resonance: developing and applying skills and knowledge to inform the problem, issue or project that dovetails with existing course specifications and requirements.

    For partners:

    • They are engaged: partners are involved in the design and delivery of the project to some extent. This may vary in the depth or level of engagement and requires both sides to appreciate the needs of each other.
    • They are enriching: partners identify real issues that matter and expose elements of the work environment that enrich students’ awareness of the workplace and career pathways.

    When is the right time for students to engage in service learning?

    I am still pondering this question as there are so many variables and options that influence the choice. Which year group should service learning drop into? Or, does a developmental over time approach suit better? Is Service Learning more impactful in the later undergraduate years, or should it be an integral part of each year of their experience with us? Realistically, there won’t be a one-size-fits-all all model, and there are benefits and challenges to each. What will need to underpin whichever approach we take, will be the focused need to elicit the starting points of our students, our staff and our partners in whichever context.

    Going from ‘zero to hero’ in Service Learning will require training and support for all parties. My experience working across the STEM sector for nearly three decades has taught me that no one partner is the same as another – what is a big deal to one can mean nothing to another. My thinking is that we need to see each person involved in the Service Learning experience as a core ‘partner’ and each has learning starting points, aspirations and apprehensions. Our role as programme leaders is to identify a progression model that appreciates that this is ‘learning’ and that scaffolds and key training will be required at different times – even within the process itself.

    What support will be required to mobilise this model at scale?

    In my early career at this university, I spent time within the Teaching & Learning Student Experience Professional Support teams, where I saw firsthand the integral way that any university programme relies on expertise in taking theoretical ideas into practice. The interplay between project management, planning, timetabling, eLearning, marketing and communications and student experience support teams, to name some, will have play such critical roles in achieving excellence in Service Learning. Working at scale in our faculty across 10 different discipline areas, will require integrated work with other faculties to harness the power of interdisciplinary projects and digital support for course delivery and assessment that can embrace an internal-external interface.

    Support for scaling up will also require a culture of risk-taking to be valued and championed. Over the introductory years, we need to provide a sense of supported exploration, a culture of learning and reflection, and an ethos where failure is rarely a negative, but an opportunity. Of course, science and engineering disciplines bring with them our obligations to accrediting bodies, and a close dialogue with them about ambition, relevance and need for this enriching approach needs to be clearly articulated and agreed so that any course alteration becomes a course invigoration rather than a compromise.

    Faculty culture and the way the university and the sector views and reviews SL will have a significant implication on practice and people feeling safe to innovate. As the university forges and launches its 2035 strategy the spaces for innovation and development are increasingly championed, and the months and years ahead will be ones to watch in terms of establishing a refreshed version of teaching and learning for our students.

    In closing this short exploration of Service Learning, I can feel a positive tension in the air – the excitement to work together to further invigorate our student experience whilst supporting our staff and partners to embrace varied new opportunities. The ‘getting it right’ story will have many chapters, many endings as the genres, characters and plots are there for us all to create – or more pertinently ‘co-create’! What drives me most to remain in this space of uncertainty for a while longer is the anticipation of creating experiences that truly make a difference for good. As our universities transform themselves over the coming years, I invite you to join us in the dialogue and development as we have so much to learn through collaboration.

    Source link

  • Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Math is Out, Cake is In: Introducing Students to Rubrics – Faculty Focus

    Math is Out, Cake is In: Introducing Students to Rubrics – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Bringing C.H.A.O.S to Chaos: Syllabi with an AI Usage Policy – Faculty Focus

    Bringing C.H.A.O.S to Chaos: Syllabi with an AI Usage Policy – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Bringing C.H.A.O.S to Chaos: Syllabi with an AI Usage Policy – Faculty Focus

    Bringing C.H.A.O.S to Chaos: Syllabi with an AI Usage Policy – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Tex. Boards Abolish Faculty Senates, Create Toothless Councils

    Tex. Boards Abolish Faculty Senates, Create Toothless Councils

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | BraunS, malerapaso and vi73777/iStock/Getty Images

    The University of Texas System Board of Regents voted Thursday to disband the system’s long-standing faculty senates in compliance with Senate Bill 37, the sweeping Texas higher education law that gives university boards and presidents control over faculty governing bodies.

    The UT board also voted Thursday to create faculty advisory groups, which will “perform the work of faculty governance bodies”—such as reviewing degree requirements, suggesting curricular changes, coordinating campus events and revising the faculty handbook—while keeping all decision-making power in the hands of the administration.

    The University of Houston system Board of Regents did the same Thursday, voting to create faculty councils that will “provide structured, meaningful avenues for faculty to help shape academic priorities, strengthen excellence and contribute to decisions that guide our future,” a university spokesperson said in a statement.

    But the groups won’t give the faculty independent representation or any real power. In accordance with SB 37, the board bylaws now state, “a faculty council is advisory only and may not be delegated the final decision-making authority on any matter.”

    As of June 20, any faculty governing body in Texas—whether it’s a senate, council or advisory group—may not exceed 60 members unless otherwise decided by the board, and every college or school within the university must be represented by at least two members, SB 37 dictates. The university president will appoint at least one of the representatives from each college or school within the institution, while the faculty elects the others, meaning that as many as 30 members could be chosen by the president.

    The president will also choose the presiding officer, associate presiding officer and secretary for each group. Appointees may serve for six years before taking a mandatory two-year break from the group, while faculty-elected representatives may only serve for two years before the two-year break.

    While the new groups are still faculty bodies, they won’t “authentically speak with the faculty voice,” said Mark Criley, a senior program officer in the department of academic freedom, tenure and governance at the American Association of University Professors. “No matter who is selected, the process by which they’re selected matters. We learned when we’re in elementary school—the teacher didn’t appoint the class president, the principal didn’t appoint them, this was one of our first exercises in representation. You choose the people who will speak for you in an institutional body.”

    Across the state, college and university system boards are taking different approaches to scrapping and reshaping their faculty senates. The Alamo Colleges District Board of Trustees voted earlier this month to consolidate the faculty senates at each of the five campuses into one group of up to 35 members. Previously, the five senates comprised 114 voting members.

    While the Texas State University system board gave presidents the ability to create new faculty groups, it did not approve a new faculty governing body at its Aug. 14 meeting and will let the existing senate lapse on Sept. 1, the deadline set by SB 37. Texas A&M University regents are expected to vote on their approach to the new law at their Aug. 27 board meeting, The Austin American-Statesman reported.

    Even as university governing boards design their toothless, SB 37–compliant groups, two professors at the University of Houston on Monday unveiled what they’re calling the Faux Faculty Senate. “I know that people feel that faculty senates are kind of arcane … but it’s a part of civil society,” said David Mazella, an associate professor in the English Department at the University of Houston and president-elect of the faux senate. “[SB 37] is an antidemocratic bill that essentially eliminates the faculty voice in order for the state to directly control what we do.”

    The faux senate is largely symbolic; it won’t replicate any of the governing functions of the now-defunct 100-member senate, Mazella said. Instead, it will serve as an off-campus meet-up for faculty to socialize and talk about ongoing issues in Texas higher education. “Even getting to a faculty cafe is really difficult, so giving people an opportunity [to talk] that is not in a university space feels really important to us,” Mazella said.

    He and his co-creator, María González, also an associate professor of English at Houston, plan to start hosting events in October, though nothing concrete has been scheduled. Without support from the university, the money to host these events will come from Mazella’s and González’s own pockets. They’re looking for a space in the Houston area that’s “not too gross, but not too expensive,” said Mazella, for their first faux senate convening.

    Source link

  • Transforming Classroom Discussions with Communication Practices from Health Coaching – Faculty Focus

    Transforming Classroom Discussions with Communication Practices from Health Coaching – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Transforming Classroom Discussions with Communication Practices from Health Coaching – Faculty Focus

    Transforming Classroom Discussions with Communication Practices from Health Coaching – Faculty Focus

    Source link