Tag: Teaching

  • Quiet Moments Before Another Interview with James Lang – Teaching in Higher Ed

    Quiet Moments Before Another Interview with James Lang – Teaching in Higher Ed

    I’m sitting quietly this morning, reflecting in the final minutes before my interview with Jim Lang. Our conversation will focus on his latest book, Write Like You Teach. In the book, Jim suggests that we ought to be good company in our writing. He has embodied this guidance since I first met him more than a decade ago.

    Jim has been good company through his many books as I’ve yearned to be gentle with myself, resisting the urge to reinvent each class I teach with every new semester (Small Teaching). He’s helped me wrestle with what it might look like to ignite students’ imaginations rather than control their behaviors (Distracted). He transformed the way I think about academic integrity, encouraging me to focus on fostering intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy while cultivating the conditions in which mastery and deep learning can thrive (Cheating Lessons).

    The last time Jim was on Teaching in Higher Ed, he shared a piece he had written: Voltaire on Working the Gardens of Our Classrooms. He invites slowness and stresses:

    In the meantime, the gardens need tending. If you continue to believe in the value of the plants that have always flourished in your garden, keep growing them.

    In Jim’s eighth appearance on Teaching in Higher Ed, I have no doubt he will once again be good company. I’m thankful for all the ways he has shaped my teaching, my learning, and this podcast over the years.

    Source link

  • The identity crisis of teaching and learning innovation

    The identity crisis of teaching and learning innovation

    Universities love to talk about innovation. Pedagogical innovation is framed as a necessity in an era of rapid change, yet those expected to enact it – academics – are caught in an identity crisis.

    In our research on post-pandemic pedagogical innovation, we found that the decision to engage with or resist innovation is not just about workload, resources, or institutional strategy. It’s about identity – who academics see themselves as, how they are valued within their institutions, and what risks they perceive in stepping beyond the status quo.

    Academics are asked to be both risk-taking pedagogical entrepreneurs and compliant employees within increasingly bureaucratic, metric-driven institutions. This paradox creates what we call the moral wiggle room of innovation – a space where educators justify disengagement, not necessarily because they oppose change, but because their institutional environment does not meaningfully reward it.

    The paradox of pedagogical innovation

    During the pandemic, universities celebrated those who embraced new digital tools, hybrid learning, and flexible teaching formats. “Necessity breeds innovation” became the dominant narrative. Yet, as the crisis has subsided, many of these same institutions have reverted to rigid processes, managerial oversight, and bureaucratic hurdles, making innovation feel like an uphill battle.

    On paper, universities support innovation. Education strategies abound with commitments to “transformative learning experiences” and “sector-leading digital education.” However, in practice, academics face competing pressures – expectations to drive innovation while being weighed down by institutional inertia.

    The challenge is not just about introducing innovation but sustaining it in ways that foster long-term change. While institutions may advocate for pedagogical innovation, the reality for many educators is a system that does not provide the necessary time, support, or recognition to make such innovation a viable, sustained effort.

    The result? Many feel disillusioned. As one academic in our research put it:

    I definitely think there’s a drive to be more innovative, but it feels like a marketized approach. It’s not tangible – I can’t say, ‘Oh, they’re really supporting me to be more innovative.’ There’s no clear pathway, no structured process.
    Academic at a post-92 university

    For some, engaging in pedagogical innovation is a source of professional fulfilment. For others, it is a career gamble. Whether academics choose to innovate or resist depends largely on how their identity aligns with institutional structures, career incentives, and personal values.

    Three identity tensions shaping pedagogical innovation

    Regulated versus self-directed identity Institutions shape identity through expectations: teaching excellence frameworks, fellowship accreditations, and workload models dictate what “counts” in an academic career. Yet, many educators see their professional identity as self-driven – rooted in disciplinary expertise and a commitment to students. When institutional definitions of innovation clash with personal motivations, resistance emerges.

    As one participant put it:

    When you’re (personally) at the forefront of classroom innovation…you’re constantly looking outwards for ideas. Within the institution, there isn’t really anyone I can go to and say, ‘What are you doing differently?’ It’s more about stumbling upon people rather than having a proactive approach to being innovative. I think there’s a drive for PI, but it feels like a marketised approach.
    Academic at a post-92 university

    For some, innovation is an extension of their identity as educators; for others, it is a compliance exercise – an expectation imposed from above rather than a meaningful pursuit.

    This tension is explored in Wonkhe’s discussion of institutional silos, which highlights how universities often create structures that inadvertently restrict collaboration and cross-disciplinary innovation, making it harder for educators to engage with meaningful change.

    Risk versus reward in academic careers Engaging in pedagogical innovation takes time and effort. For those on teaching and scholarship contracts, it is often an expectation. For research and scholarship colleagues, it is rarely a career priority.

    Despite strategic commitments to pedagogical innovation, career incentives in many institutions still favour traditional research outputs over pedagogical experimentation. The opportunity cost is real – why invest in something that holds little weight in promotions or workload models?

    As one academic reflected:

    I prioritise what has immediate impact. Another teaching award isn’t a priority. Another publication directly benefits my CV.

    Senior leader at a Russell Group university

    Until pedagogical I is properly recognised in career progression, it will remain a secondary priority for many. As explored on Wonkhe here, the question is not just whether innovation happens but whether institutions create environments that allow it to spread. Without clear incentives, pedagogical innovation remains the domain of the few rather than an embedded part of academic practice.

    Autonomy versus bureaucracy Academics value autonomy. It is one of the biggest predictors of job satisfaction in higher education. Yet pedagogical innovation is often entangled in institutional bureaucracy (perceived or real) through slow approval processes, administrative hurdles, and performance monitoring.

    The pandemic showed that universities can be agile. But many educators now feel that flexibility has been replaced by managerialism, stifling creativity.

    I’ve had people in my office almost crying at the amount of paperwork just to get an innovation through. People get the message: don’t bother.

    Senior leader at a Russell Group university

    To counteract this, as one educator put it:

    It’s better to ask forgiveness afterwards than ask permission beforehand.

    Senior leader at a Russell Group university

    This kind of strategic rule-bending highlights the frustration many educators feel – a desire to innovate constrained by institutional red tape.

    Mark Andrews, in a Wonkhe article here, argues that institutions need to focus on making education work rather than simply implementing digital tools for their own sake. The same logic applies to pedagogical innovation – if the focus is solely on regulation, innovation will always struggle to take root.

    Beyond the rhetoric: what needs to change

    If universities want sustained innovation, they must address these identity tensions. Pedagogical innovation needs to be rewarded in promotions, supported through streamlined processes, and recognised as legitimate academic work – not an optional extra.

    This issue of curriculum transformation was explored on Wonkhe here, raising the critical question of how universities can move beyond rhetoric and make change a reality.

    The post-pandemic university is at a crossroads. Will pedagogical innovation be institutionalised in meaningful ways, or will it remain a talking point rather than a transformation? Academics are already navigating an identity crisis – caught between structural constraints, career incentives, and their own motivations. Universities must decide whether to ease that tension or allow it to widen.

    Source link

  • How we designed a space where our students connect, collaborate, and flourish

    How we designed a space where our students connect, collaborate, and flourish

    Key points:

    Our charter school, Westbrook Academy, has been serving middle and high school students in the South Los Angeles area for the past six years and stands as a beacon of opportunity for our community. With a student body comprising nearly 99 percent Black and Latinx individuals hailing from historically under-resourced communities, we confront the realities of poverty and the accompanying insecurities head-on.

    Despite the odds, our 400 students consistently demonstrate remarkable resilience and a profound capacity for excellence. Our institution is supported by generous donors and funding sources. Operated and managed by the education nonprofit LA Promise Fund, which provides students with academic and enrichment opportunities that support our mission to spark passion, empower leadership, and prepare them for their chosen college and career paths.

    At one point, our high school students were learning in a church because we didn’t have a traditional classroom set-up. We also lacked the equipment that a traditional high school might have. This changed when we moved into our forever home in South Gate, where an on-campus Empowerment Center serves as a modern, welcoming “student hub.”

    Designed and outfitted by MiEN and Meteor Education, the Empowerment Center is where kids go to hang out, collaborate, and/or participate in school club activities. The hub is also set up with two wellness rooms where students can go to debrief and disconnect from a long day or just the stresses of being a student. It’s there for the students’ use.

    Here are the steps we took to create a space that consistently makes jaws drop and impresses parents who never thought their children would have access to such a warm, welcoming communal space on campus:

    • Add some flexibility into the process. Our original goal was to open the Empowerment Center’s doors in time for the 2023-24 school year, but getting it done the right way would require a bit more time. Our partners were willing to listen to us in terms of what we wanted to create, but within the realistic timelines. That was really cool.
    • Acknowledge the financial limitations. We largely relied on fundraising for this project and knew that some things just weren’t going to be realistic. To other schools in similar situations, I’d recommend staying flexible enough to hit the timelines and get all of the bases covered while keeping student needs in mind. We can have all the bells and whistles, but at the end of the day, if the car runs, the car runs. We know we can always add a new paint job later.
    • Get the right partners onboard early. As we went through the steps of designing the Empowerment Center, we learned a lot about architecture, planning, and construction. Through it all, having the right partners in its corner helped the school achieve its goals within budget and on time. It was really great to have our design and furniture partners sharing their best practices and other insights with us. We knew what we wanted to do, and a lot of the ideas came from our families and students. We just needed them to show us how we could get those ideas as close to reality as possible.
    • Make it personal. Special features we wanted in our Empowerment Center included a huge, interactive flatscreen TV that students, teachers, and guest speakers use to interact and work together. There’s also a large selection of donated books, the latest technology tools, and artwork that was personally selected by an art curation team. They were able to secure artists from the LA community to create and share visuals that our students are really familiar with. For example, some of the artwork spotlights female empowerment (i.e., with photos of authors like Octavia Butler) and the importance of acknowledging indigenous people. Everything in the hub is meant to spark curiosity. 
    • Brace yourself for some jaw-dropping moments. At our ribbon-cutting ceremony last year, our parents’ jaws were on the floor. They just never thought these resources would be available to their kids. A lot of them grew with us being in the church and a co-located space, and then we asked them to trust us to deliver on our promise, and now we’re able to show that as the reward for supporting us. We feel really proud that our parents were just over the moon about it.

    Hitting it out of the park

    Reflecting on the process we put in place to get our modern student hub designed, built, and open for business, I can say that the end result is an engaging, collaborative space that can be used for hanging out, structured learning, or a little of both. I think we really hit the ball out of the park with this innovative space.

    Student, teacher, and family feedback on the Empowerment Center has been extremely positive. Everyone loves it, and students are always excited to come and spend time in the modern, comfortable space that’s equipped with the technology and tools they need to be able to learn and engage.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Teaching Students Practical Life Skills

    Teaching Students Practical Life Skills

    Higher education is designed to prepare students for their future lives and careers by imparting technical and soft skills, but what about practical, hands-on tasks, like managing a home or vehicle?

    A 2023 survey found that young adults lack practical life skills, with two-thirds (68 percent) of millennials and Gen Z unable to change their car oil, nearly half (48 percent) unable to change a tire and 46 percent unable to tie a tie. Eighty percent of Gen Z respondents said they do not feel like they have figured out adulting.

    A workshop series at George Mason University in Virginia, titled Now What?, helps build students’ practical knowledge and well-being by giving them life advice and skills, such as how to change a tire.

    In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Ethan Carter, associate director of programs, well-being and assessment, and graduate student assistant Dianna Philipps, to learn more about the program offerings and how it supports student success.

    An edited version of the podcast appears below.

    Inside Higher Ed: I wonder if we can just start by talking about the inspiration for this program. Where did the idea come from?

    Ethan Carter: I came up with the idea, because as a [student activities] programmer, it is difficult to replicate things. When I thought a lot about being a college student—which was several years ago—I was like, “Man, what were the things that I wish I had known back then?” And so I kind of tried to think about something catchy, and I said, “Well, there were lots of things— I would do something, and then I’d be like, ‘So now what?’’ And so I was like, “Oh, that would be a really good little catchy phrase.”

    Also, from a programming standpoint, it is very adaptable to what we want to do. I don’t have to replicate my programs, but we can have the theme of Now What?, and seeking what students would want to know more about in their lives. Not that what I wanted to learn was bad. It was just, things change.

    Inside Higher Ed: When you address that question of Now What?, what are some of the themes you all have talked about? What has programming looked like practically?

    Dianna Philipps: One of our main ones would be the “how to change a tire” one. I feel like most people on campus have a car, [but] they don’t really think of the things that come with having a car.

    So when you see the tire-changing [workshop], you’re like, “Oh, what if I do get a flat tire? Like, maybe I should learn how to handle that if I’m on my own on the road or something.” I feel like things like that really stand out to students when they see it.

    Inside Higher Ed: Something I thought was cool is that your roles focus on well-being and recreation and this program is an interesting intersection of those two ideas. I wonder if you can talk about how this contributes to students’ well-being and thriving on campus.

    Carter: When you work on a college campus, and the big theme behind the campus is about well-being, you try and find out, where do you fit? And for us, it wasn’t just in the fitness realm. We wanted to think about something that was what we would consider our niche.

    I settled on practical well-being because it is adaptable and relatable. Recreation is usually seen as something that does provide movement, but I wanted to capitalize on that and build off of the aspect of, just, living in general can be tough. It also opens the door for us to be able to partner, because a lot of our programs within themselves are not things that we run, and it’s not our expertise, but it is a place where we can be a hub and connect individuals, which kind of ties in with the well-being aspect, like, you need to find your own well-being.

    Inside Higher Ed: Who are those partners across campus, and how do they participate in this?

    Carter: Anyone and everyone is actually who we get to partner with. The [change a] tire one is done with our facilities group and specifically the auto shop—they help us with any vehicle-based activities that we have going on.

    We’ve also connected with Student Health Services for ones that are related to health insurance, with anything about self-care. And then we did another [event] with academics for a little bit, talking about preparing for exams and test-taking and things like that.

    One of my other favorite [events] is intercollaboration within a department. So like, how to do a hike, how to change a flat tire on a bike.

    I think we had one more connection, oh, with dining. Dining teaches us how to cook, and so we’ve done a Super Bowl one where we made a special dip and some other little fun delicacies.

    Inside Higher Ed: What have you learned from students and their feedback as you’ve done the events over the past year or so? What did they enjoy about it?

    Philipps: I would say the main feedback is that it was very helpful for them. I think most of the people who have come to one event, they’re the ones who continue going to each of the events. I think it just helps them learn the things that they don’t know, because they’re like, you don’t know what you don’t know until you, I guess, go to the event. So that kind of helps them a lot.

    Inside Higher Ed: There are knowledge gaps for all students as they come on college campuses—whether that’s academic preparedness or just life skills that you might not know. If you’ve never owned a car before, you might not know how to jump your car or change a tire, or if you’ve never had a full-size kitchen before, you might not know how to cook a Super Bowl dish. So I think it’s really cool that you all give them the opportunity to identify what they don’t know, but then also just close those gaps and help them feel like they’re not left behind or unsure of what they do next.

    Carter: I would also add that they’ve enjoyed putting their hands on the tools that help them.

    We do one [workshop] on how to use hand tools, and sometimes the power drill is the [tool] that we get to play around with. Other times it’s a hammer and nail. Sometimes we play around with a tape measure. And I’ve appreciated the vulnerability of the students and admitting like, “Hey, this is what I don’t know,” and it provides an opportunity for me to talk more about like, “Hey, this is what I was feeling when I was a college student.”

    When you are thinking about all the resources that are available to you on campus, it’s important that you’re able to admit that you don’t know how to do something, and then go out and ask someone, because most of the time, most of those tools are readily available for you on campus. You just have to be pointed in the right direction, and people can’t give you what they don’t know you need. So that would be something else that I would say has been a great benefit for me in connecting with other campus partners and connecting with those students.

    Inside Higher Ed: I remember when I was a college student, I was really afraid of the makers’ studio, where the VR lab and the 3-D printing are. It just felt so intimidating to go in and actually try things out. But once you have an experience like this, where it’s a little more hands-on and assisted, you feel like you have the skills to do it.

    I bet there’s also an element of introduction to staff on campus. Maybe students have never met a facilities manager before, and now, after changing a tire with them, they can ask for help in other ways. Or if you’ve never talked to the Student Health Center, now you feel more comfortable talking about health insurance or other things like that.

    If you had to give advice or insight to another college or university that was looking to replicate your idea, what would you say you’ve learned? Or what are some best practices for people to know?

    Carter: First one is, what I actually tell the students all the time, is to be yourself within your organization. You maybe have a limited budget, and you only have certain resources available to you, so it’s important for you to not try and go and do what everybody else is doing. It’s important for you to do what you’re able to do, and then to connect with your students and allow them to be part of the construction of what your program is going to be.

    It may start out as just being something where you’re looking at budgets, and then another student comes in—because you are making this for the students. So if you don’t have the student audience that is available for what you’re providing, like, it isn’t super helpful.

    So do that, and then the adaptability aspect: Be OK with something not working. Because when you hear “no” or no one comes, that is good information; you know not to do that anymore. A lot of people get offended by that and are like, “Oh, I’m a horrible programmer” or whatnot.

    It could be that you’re doing it at the wrong time, or it’s just that students are not available for that. Why would we do something that’s related to budget and all the students that need to do the budget stuff are in class in the a.m., so maybe I should try it in the evening. Things of that nature. So be OK not always having everything get hit out of the ballpark. And then if you do find something, you try and make it better as you go.

    Inside Higher Ed: You mentioned that this is a different sort of programming and something that you all can adapt to reflect student needs. I’ve heard a lot from people who work on college campuses that post-COVID, it’s just been harder to get students to show up for things or feel like you’re being responsive to their needs. Have you felt like this has accomplished that goal in being adaptable, but also engaging students?

    Carter: I would say it depends, and it really depends on what’s going on and what the particular group you’re working with is all about. So, Dianna, if you don’t mind sharing some of your ideas to try and help us get some people coming.

    Philipps: One of the main ones would be changing locations. Especially if you’re on a bigger campus, trying to make it more central so it can target different types of people, either coming from class or coming from the dining hall or things like that.

    Just back to what Ethan had said about being creative with it, and if something doesn’t work, look at what did work, keep that and then change what didn’t work. You can learn from that. See what things people are actually going to, what they actually need help with. So, again, being adaptable to things.

    Inside Higher Ed: You mentioned earlier that students who come to one event might come to multiple—like, they really appreciate the skills that they’re building. Have you seen that that’s true of a handful of students or more?

    Carter: It makes you feel good when you see somebody that you’ve seen before; it kind of increases your self-esteem. You’re like, “Oh, I did something, right?”

    I think the bonus is that they invite their friends and they make them aware. I think that a lot of times, even as an adjunct professor, I’ve had to change my perspective of it isn’t what the student looks like, because most of the time when I’ve talked to my students, they look like they don’t care about my class. But then I mentioned that to them, and they’re like, “No, you’re one of the coolest professors that I’ve ever had.” I’m like, “I can’t tell from looking at your face.”

    So when we’re doing our programming, it may not be that the students don’t like it, they just may not be aware, which is why we’ve tried really, really hard to go to the students to make the things available—not just putting a flier in front of their face, but providing them an opportunity where they can go and do something.

    I would say we’ve gotten the greatest number of students coming to things when we went to another class with content that was in line with what we were doing; we were complimenting what an instructor was teaching. And then the students are like, “We had no idea that this was going on; what other programming do you have available?”

    So I would say that that has been super, super helpful, going to the students and just becoming more and more visible, shaking hands and getting to know people, which, again, it seems like it’s common sense, but you do have to become visible in a way that is helpful and not harmful.

    Inside Higher Ed: You mentioned working with other staff on campus; have faculty been a partner in this work as well?

    Carter: We have gotten to work with them. And like I said, when we invite ourselves to their class, it doesn’t work out so well. When we are paying attention to what it is that they’re teaching and ask them, “Hey, this is something that we’re offering. Is there, maybe, 15 or 20 minutes that we can come and complement some of the stuff that you’re teaching?” That actually ends up being a two-way thing, because usually that instructor is willing to come over to our workshops and provide some informational knowledge, and so that has been super, super helpful with that. So having a crossover is good.

    Inside Higher Ed: This series is all about helping Gen Z prepare for unknown futures and navigate their world after college. When we talk about the role of higher education, I think we talk a lot about careers, about students building life skills like critical thinking and things like that. But there’s also this idea of helping students just be people, having that practical wellness. I wonder if you can tie this all together—why this is important for colleges and universities to do, and how this is foundational to not only the students’ success, but also just being responsive to their needs?

    Carter: We have a saying in our well-being practices—our goal is to help students to live just as they breathe.

    When you think about well-being and the holistic aspect of it, it’s important that people realize that eating well can be tied into you, just coming and sitting in a facility, being around people. It can also be exercise. It can also be yoga. It can also be about you being able to get the job done, or even going through a bout of anxiety and finding out you know how to be resilient in that space, or how to ask for help.

    When it comes to our programming, we want to do what’s going to help people to be the best version of themselves. And that’s a journey that students have to take, and we’re on that journey with them.

    We want to walk alongside the student and provide the things that they need, to help them to feel like, “Hey, you know, I feel like I’m a better adult,” and at the end of the day, want to come back and give to other students. So being a human being is what we’re all about, and we want to support that in the best way possible, through our programming. And if we don’t have the programming, we can point them to other services and other individuals on a college campus, because that’s what universities are here for.

    In higher education, the more that we acknowledge the humanity of others, I think the better off that we’ll be, as opposed to trying to figure out things in a box. We’re not people built in boxes; we’re people with unique qualities and differences.

    Philipps: I would add that these events also teach us how to ask for help. Because I feel like that’s a big thing, especially when we’ll have actual careers and stuff, you don’t know everything as much as you may think you do. So just having that skill of asking for help, or just even getting assistance collaborating with others, is really important, and I think we get that from these events.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • AI compels us to re-evaluate the purpose of teaching – Episode 169 – Campus Review

    AI compels us to re-evaluate the purpose of teaching – Episode 169 – Campus Review

    Danny Liu from the University of Sydney posited that artificial intelligence compelled us to re-evaluate not just the methodology, but the very purpose of our teaching practices.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • New (old) models of teaching and assessment

    New (old) models of teaching and assessment

    On the face of it, saying that if we stopped teaching we would not need examinations sounds crazy.

    But it is not so hard to think of examples of rigorous assessment that do not entail examinations in the sense of written responses to a set of predetermined questions.

    For example, institutions regularly award PhDs to candidates who successfully demonstrate their grasp of a subject and associated skills, without requiring them to sit a written examination paper. The difference of course is that PhD students are not taught a fixed syllabus.

    The point of a PhD thesis is to demonstrate a unique contribution to knowledge of some kind. And as it is unique then it is not possible to set examination questions in advance to test it.

    What are we trying to assess?

    If written examinations are inappropriate for PhDs, then why are they the default mode of assessment for undergraduate and taught postgraduate students? The clue, of course, is in the word “taught”. If the primary intended learning outcomes of a course of study require all students to acquire the same body of knowledge and skills, as taught in the course, to the same level, then written examinations are a logical and efficient institutional response.

    But surely what we want as students, teachers, employers, professional bodies and funding bodies is graduates who are not just able to reproduce old knowledge and select solutions to a problem from a repertoire of previously learned responses? So why does so much undergraduate and postgraduate education emphasise teaching examinable knowledge and skills rather than developing more autonomous learners capable of constructing their own knowledge?

    It is not true that learners lack the motivation and ability to be autodidacts – the evidence of my young grandchildren acquiring complex cognitive skills (spoken language) and of motor abilities (walking and running) suggests we have all done it in the past. And the comprehensive knowledge of team players and team histories exhibited by football fans, and the ease and confidence with which some teenagers can strip down and reassemble a motorcycle engine suggest that autodidacticism is not confined to our early years.

    An example from design

    Is it feasible, practical or economic to run courses that offer undergraduates an educational framework within which to pursue and develop personal learning goals, akin to a PhD, but at a less advanced level? In this case, my own experience suggests we can. I studied at undergraduate level for four years, at the end of which I was awarded an honours degree. During the entire four years there were no written examinations.

    I was just one of many art and design students following programmes of study regulated and approved at a national level in the UK by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA).

    According to the QAA Art and Design subject benchmark statement:

    Learning in art and design stimulates the development of an enquiring, analytical and creative approach, and develops entrepreneurial capabilities. It also encourages the acquisition of independent judgement and critical self-awareness. Commencing with the acquisition of an understanding of underlying principles and appropriate knowledge and skills, students normally pursue a course of staged development progressing to increasingly independent learning.

    Of course some of the “appropriate knowledge and skills” referred to are subject specific, for example sewing techniques, material properties and history of fashion for creating fashion designs; properties of materials, industrial design history and machining techniques for product design; digital image production and historic stylistic trends in illustration and advertising for graphic design, and so on.

    Each subject has its own set of techniques and knowledge, but a lot of what students learn is determined by lines of enquiry selected by students themselves in response to design briefs set by course tutors. To be successful in their study they must learn to operate with a high degree of independence and self-direction, in many ways similar to PhD students.

    Lessons without teaching

    This high degree of independence and self-direction as learners has traditionally been fostered through an approach that differs crucially from the way most other undergraduate courses are taught.

    Art and design courses are organised around a series of questions or provocations called design briefs that must be answered, rather than around a series of answers or topics that must be learned. The learning that takes place is a consequence of activities undertaken by students to answer the design brief. Answers to briefs generated by art and design students still have to be assessed of course, but because the formal taught components (machining techniques, material properties, design history, etc.) are only incidental to the core intended learning outcomes (creativity, exploration, problem solving) then written examinations on these topics would be only marginally relevant.

    What is more important on these courses is what students have learned rather than what they have been taught, and a lot of what they have learned has been self-taught, albeit through carefully contrived learning activities and responsive guidance from tutors to scaffold the learning. Art and design students learn how to present their work for assessment through presentation of the designed artefact (ie. “the answer”), supported by verbal, written and illustrated explanations of the rationale for the final design and the development process that produced it, often shared with their peers in a discussion known as a “crit” (critique). Unlike written examinations, this assessment process is an authentic model of how students’ work will be judged in their future professional practice. It thus helps to develop important workplace skills.

    Could it work for other subjects?

    The approach to art and design education described here has been employed globally since the mid-twentieth century. However, aspects of the approach are evident in other subject domains, variously called “problem based learning”, “project based learning” and “guided discovery learning”. It has been successfully deployed in medical education but also in veterinary sciences, engineering, nursing , mathematics, geography and others. So why are traditional examinations still the de facto approach to assessment across most higher education disciplines and institutions?

    One significant barrier to adoption is the high cost of studio-based teaching at a time when institutions are under pressure to increase numbers while reducing costs. The diversity of enquiries initiated by art and design students responding to the same design brief requires high levels of personalised learning support, varied resources and diversity of staff expertise.

    Is now the time?

    As with other subjects, art and design education has been under attack from the combined forces of politics and market economics . In the face of such trends it might be considered naive to suggest that such an approach should be adopted more widely rather than less. But although these pressures to reduce costs and increase conformity will likely continue and accelerate in the future, there is another significant force at play now in the form of generative AI tools.

    These have the ability to write essays, but they can also suggest template ideas, solve maths problems, and generate original images from a text prompt, all in a matter of seconds. It is possible now to enter an examination question into one of several widely available online generative AIs and to receive a rapid response that is detailed, knowledgeable and plausible (if not always entirely accurate). If anyone is in any doubt about the ability of the current generation of AIs to generate successful examination question answers then the record of examinations passed by ChatGPT will be sobering reading.

    It is possible that a shift from asking questions, (answers to which the questioner already knows), to presenting learners with authentic problems that assess ability to present, explain, and justify their responses – is a way through the concerns that AI generated responses to other assessment forms present.

    Source link

  • Quality Teaching in Practice is returning in 2025 – Campus Review

    Quality Teaching in Practice is returning in 2025 – Campus Review

    Quality Teaching in Practice returns for its fourth consecutive year, as one of the leading educational research and practice conference for teachers, school leaders and policymakers.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Launch of the Commission on Students in Higher Education: Unpicking the connections between teaching, funding and student outcomes

    Launch of the Commission on Students in Higher Education: Unpicking the connections between teaching, funding and student outcomes

    • The APPG for Students has launched the Commission on Students in Higher Education as a means of feeding into the Department for Education’s HE Review through a student-centred lens. A call for evidence has now opened, until May 1st, where colleagues from across the sector are encouraged to input.
    • Alex Stanley is Vice President Higher Education of the National Union of Students (NUS).
    • Saranya Thambirajah is Vice President Liberation and Equality of the NUS.

    The debates over the financial sustainability of the higher education sector, effective interventions in access and participation, and the quality of teaching will not be new to HEPI readers. Amongst the column inches and radio waves, however, students and the academic community are living these tensions every single day.

    It’s no secret that students are working long hours during term time, living pay cheque to pay cheque to cover their rent and bills – plugging the gap created by real-terms cuts to maintenance support. The NUS’s own research shows that of those who work during their studies, over 60% are working over 20 hours per week. While we feel from the stories that students tell us that there must be a link between inadequate maintenance funding, working long hours and students’ eventual attainment and outcomes, we lack an evidence base on the impact of working hours or lack of financial support on students’ attainment.

    Similarly, we are all aware that teaching standards and the concept of good degrees have spent the past fourteen years under the microscope, with innovative practice sometimes denounced as dumbing down in the press – and students told their course choice is leaving them with ‘low value degrees’, or that their hard work leading to higher grades is down to grade inflation.

    At NUS, we firmly believe the way to cut through the noise is by focusing on the real-life, current experience of students – and that the best way to do that is to bring them into the rooms where decisions are made. We are proud to hold the APPG on Students, for which NUS UK serves as Secretariat, as a space which connects student leaders to Westminster decision makers. We’ve been using this to bring student voice to the Houses of Parliament for over a decade, from launching the landmark research on the Black Attainment Gap, providing space for students to grill Sir Philip Augar immediately after his report launched, to most recently shaping the Renters’ Reform and then Renters’ Rights Bills, with interventions from current students the genesis of now-passed amendments on limiting rent up front and controlling the student lettings cycle. There is no question that bringing students and young people into the room on issues that impact them makes policy decisions better and enriches the debate.

    In this vein, we are proud to launch the Commission on Students in Higher Education, designed to place students at the heart of the current debates on funding, teaching and attainment.

    The Commission will tackle the big issues of the current funding debate: teaching standards, maintenance funding and student outcomes, drawing on the expertise of a cross-party group of Commissioners and higher education specialists, all working to provide meaningful recommendations which should influence and complement the Department for Education’s HE Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review.

    We will begin with an in-person event on Maintenance Funding tomorrow, Wednesday 23 April, when we will hear from proposers of four different ways of funding a more generous student maintenance offer, who will then be questioned by students and Parliamentarians.

    We will take in written evidence on the core areas of the Commission: maintenance funding, students and work, widening participation & student outcomes and teaching quality.

    We welcome submissions from colleagues across students’ unions, the academic community and sector practitioners who, like us, are keen to see the HE Review and Spending Review succeed in solving some of the existential problems we are facing across the sector.

    If you have any questions, please email [email protected]

    Source link

  • 5 High-Presence Teaching Tactics for Active Online Learning – Faculty Focus

    5 High-Presence Teaching Tactics for Active Online Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • 5 High-Presence Teaching Tactics for Active Online Learning – Faculty Focus

    5 High-Presence Teaching Tactics for Active Online Learning – Faculty Focus

    Source link