Search results

Faculty participation in the assurance of learning (AoL) is requisite both for the effective operation of the system and for accreditation compliance, but faculty often resist engaging in AoL tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide specific recommendations to address faculty concerns and to guide AoL systems toward maturity.

This paper provides a comprehensive model of faculty resistance perspectives aligned to AoL maturity, provides specific responses to faculty resistance and introduces success markers of progress toward maturity.

Specifically, a three-stage model of AoL system maturity is presented and aligned with five faculty perspectives. For each faculty perspective, responses targeting causal factors are proposed and signs of progress toward the next level of faculty engagement are highlighted.

Faculty and AoL leaders will be able to identify their current stage of AoL system maturity and implement practical solutions to move to the next stage of system maturity.

Understanding the motivations for faculty resistance will facilitate more meaningful and effective internal interactions as a school seeks to improve its AoL system. In turn, a more effective AoL system will promote better learning experiences for students; and better learning allows students to become productive in their chosen careers more quickly, thus improving society as a whole.

To the knowledge, no prior paper has organized faculty resistance along a maturity continuum, provided targeted responses based on the level of maturity or included signs that indicate growth toward the next level of maturity.

Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments, and students’ demand for an education that prepares them for a career, most hospitality programs are now required to have an effective assessment of learning outcomes process. The increasing popularity of the assessment of learning outcomes process is viewed as highly positive because it can be considered as best practices in higher education. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is Part 1 of a two-part article that provides an overview of the justifications for implementing an assessment of learning outcomes process, the steps that were developed by two hospitality programs and the experiences of the two programs during implementation of the seven steps. Part 1 includes foundational principles of the process and the first three of the seven steps.

The steps in a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process are relatively detailed; however, because of changes in expectations of stakeholders and the requirements of accreditors, they are now mandatory for most hospitality programs. Therefore, the choice is not whether to implement them, but when to implement them. From a competitive standpoint, it is to the program’s advantage to begin as soon as possible. Another factor to consider is that the implementation of an effective closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process will take several years to complete.

This paper is presenting a critical view of one of, if not the most important concepts in higher education, the closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process. Hopefully, the information on the process that is provided and the experiences of the two programs can shorten the learning curve for other hospitality programs.

The theme of collegiality and more broadly of changes in the governance of universities has attracted growing interest within the sociology of higher education. As institutions, contemporary universities are inhabited by competing logics often defined in terms of market pressures and are shaped by the higher education policies of governments. Collegiality is an ideal-type form of university governance based on expertise and scientific excellence. Our study looks at manifestations of collegiality in two publicly funded universities in Canada. Collegiality is explored through the structural attributes of governance arrangements and academic culture in action as a form of self-governance. Case studies rely on two data sources: (1) policy documents and secondary data on various aspects of university development, and (2) semi-structured interviews with key players in the governance of these organisations, including unions. Two main findings with implications for the enactment of collegiality as a governance mode in universities are discussed. The first is that governance structures are slowly transitioning into more hybrid and corporate forms, where academics remain influential but share and negotiate influence with a broader set of stakeholders. The second is the appearance of forces that promote a delocalisation of collegiality, where academics invest in external scientific networks to assert collegiality and self-governance and may disinvest in their own institution, thus contributing to the redefinition of academic citizenship. Status differentiation among academic colleagues is associated with the externalisation of collegiality. Mechanisms to associate collegiality with changes in universities and their environment need to be further explored.

Universities are large, complex and highly hierarchical organisations with deeply engrained gendered values, norms and practices. This chapter reflects on the experiences of two universities in initiating structural change towards gender equality as supported by the TARGET project. A common aspect thereby is the lack of a national policy in higher education and research providing specific support for implementing gender equality policies. The process of audit, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the first gender equality plan (GEP) in each of these universities was conceived as a first step in a long journey, providing a framework for engaging different institutional actors and fostering reflexive, evidence-based policy making. The analysis deals with reflexivity and resistance and seeks to draw lessons from bottom-up and top-down experiences of GEP implementation. It is the result of shared reflection between the GEP ‘implementers’ in the two universities and the team who provided support and acted as ‘critical friends’.

The purpose of this study is to look at the challenges and successes that the case institution has had in implementing and maintaining quality assurance (QA) processes. The study also looks into the role of QA techniques in improving an institution's performance in a developing country.

The research is qualitative. Nine significant persons were interviewed, including the institution's top administration, faculty members and related staff. Data were gathered to learn more about the background, incremental changes and numerous internal and external elements that influenced how QA was approached over time.

The findings revealed the challenges and experiences of the evolution of QA practices in the case institution. The results show the changes in QA practices regarding three aspects, including people, place and program of case institutions under three phases. During phases I and II, the adoption and upgradation of QA practices were very slow; phase III showed significant improvement in all three aspects. In addition, the positive impact of QA practices is evident in improving the performance of students and teaching and nonteaching staff of the case institution.

The findings of this research could aid open and distance learning (ODL) providers in other developing nations in understanding the challenges of such a system. It may also make it easier for other ODL providers to comprehend the QA-led success in stakeholder confidence, employability and reputation.

The research will give insights into how QA procedures are used and valued in ODL in developing nations.

Faculties have a vital role to play in ensuring that their graduates are trained with relevant skills. Formally arranged capacity building programs (CBPs) can aid in training and retraining the faculties with relevant contemporary skills so that they in turn can do justice to their students. The purpose of this study is to analyze the efficacy of such public-funded online CBPs in enhancing faculties’ research and teaching capabilities.

Ascientifically designed questionnaire was sent to faculties who attended 12-day public-funded online capacity building workshop. Binomial logistic regression models were constructed to analyze as to how effective the online workshop was in enhancing teaching and research skills of the faculties involved.

From the research study, the authors were able to infer that although faculties were able to understand theoretical concepts of qualitative nature relatively easily, the authors felt that its value addition in enhancing the research output was rather limited. The study also found that the faculties felt teaching concepts outside their “syllabus” to be counterintuitive. A significant finding of the study was that research had an important role in enhancing their teaching efficacy.

Studies which are undertaken to test the efficacy of online capacity building workshops are scarce. This domain is going to gain importance in near future as technology is evolving at a rapid rate and online training of faculties helps in optimizing scarce resources.

The purpose of this study is to identify signs of unnecessary assurance of learning (AoL) complexity and to provide suggestions for simplifying the AoL processes.

While this paper is grounded in the existent AoL literature, the paper also presents several anecdotal observations from the authors’ practical knowledge in designing, leading, maintaining and consulting on AoL systems and processes.

Based on both a conceptual review of AoL literature and the authors’ own experiences, the authors outline 13 specific symptoms of unnecessary AoL complexity, identify potential underlying causes for each symptom and propose practical solutions that can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of dysfunctional AoL systems and processes.

Although this work is grounded in the existent AoL literature, the present paper presents several anecdotal observations from the authors’ experiences. While the intent is to provide guidance that is actionable, it is understood that variability exists within and across schools and programs. Future research is needed to provide a more formal structure for reviewing AoL complexity, efficiency and effectiveness.

While future research is needed to provide a more formal structure for reviewing AoL complexity, efficiency and effectiveness, the intent of this paper is to provide guidance that is actionable with the understanding that variability exists within and across schools and programs.

Society increasingly is demanding accountability from institutions of higher learning, and properly structured AoL programs can provide evidence of institutional effectiveness in preparing students to be productive members of society in their chosen fields of study. Stated succinctly, “although accountability matters, learning still matters most” (Angelo, 1999, n.p.).

Consideration of the 13 symptoms presented here along with other drivers that are unique to each school and program should result in the identification and development of practicable remedies to simplify AoL processes and systems, increase efficiency and effectiveness and improve the documentation of improvements to student learning.