Search results

As universities grapple with the question of how to prepare students for increasingly uncertain futures, the development of evidence-based frameworks to guide academic program¹ design is critical. Here, we propose a strategic framework with a high impact on program design, implementation, and evaluation as well as mentoring and support for academic program leaders. High impact can be achieved when program leaders are enabled to embed key future-focused capabilities and skills across the curriculum in a program. In order to ensure that these capabilities are systematically and cohesively embedded in students’ learning journeys, we suggest that academic program leaders (e.g., Directors of Studies, Subject Area Coordinators, etc.) require strategic approaches to program design, implementation, and evaluation, as well as mentoring and support. Such approaches would ensure that high impact practices are consistently employed, rather than being the exception in isolated courses.² At Queensland University of Technology, we have developed a holistic model to support “whole-of-program” design for award programs across faculties and disciplines, in a coherent and strategic way. The model we use is based on a framework for curriculum design called the Future Focused Curriculum Design Framework (FFCF), and is an iterative model that places learners at the center of their learning to enable meaningful change to the design of programs. The adoption of the framework is supported by curriculum design studios situated within each discipline-specific faculty,³ which are made up of curriculum and learning designers, working closely with academics in different faculties. A key element of the process is that curriculum design studios enable relationships and communities to develop (Wenger et al., 2002), which in turn allows for contextualized practice. This holistic model supports whole-of-program design for award programs, in a coherent and strategic way and enables communities of practice to emerge in an iterative manner. In this chapter, we share our experiences with using this model and the impacts it has achieved, and we reflect on ways it be adapted for future use and in other contexts.

A higher educational institution evaluates the concept of success in terms of student retention, equal access to education, graduation and at times with the grade point scored by the students. It also applies for accreditation and global ranking to showcase their success rate. It is rarely seen that universities evaluate student’s success in terms of their actual learning. Some universities lay emphasis on creating a collaborative campus climate, supportive mentoring by the faculty members and at times engaging students in a participative manner as a cohort. Rarely do universities monitor the cumulative educational achievements of the students. Retention and graduating batches of students is an essential feature of a higher educational institution but is not a sufficient measure. A college degree proves to be beneficial to the student and is considered useful only when it is valued by society and helps in empowering the students. Universities need to address this issue; they need to create metrics to capture the evidence of quality learning and should try to explore approaches as to how students can broaden their horizon and knowledge base and develop their concept of social responsibility to create a sense of all round wellbeing. With the rise of liberal education, there has been a gradual phasing out of conventional classroom delivered curriculum. The curriculum has become more robust bridging the conventional with applied form of education. This book narrates case studies where academics speaks about strategic frameworks that they have implemented in their classroom based on high impact program design, as well as approaches to mentor and support students as academic program leaders. Authors have demonstrated through their chapters that high impact practice (HIP) can become effective only when it is future focused and teaches skills to students that allow them to develop their social competence and enable them to examine knowledge management with the lens of social wellbeing.

Wheelchairs and mobility devices are important to enable mobility for students who are unable to functionally walk by themselves to fully participate in daily life. However, they can be enablers or barriers to inclusion and participation for students. Children and adolescents, like other wheelchair users, have a varying number of reasons to use chairs, but what type of chair, how it is used and what type of participation it encourages or discourages is as individual as the child themselves. This is an area of practice that has little evidence on which to base decisions, leading to inconsistencies of provision practice and inclusion in mainstream environments. This chapter will discuss why children use wheelchairs in the first place, then outline some of the typical types of wheelchair available and discuss matching the child to their wheelchair. Barriers to appropriate use of wheelchairs include policy, funding, attitudes and perceived skill set. Children who use wheelchairs often do not gain the motor experiences that their peers do yet are expected to perform skilled wheeled mobility, often without training. Finally, inclusion in school is about inclusion not only in the classroom but also in all activities to do with their school-based communities.

The choice of what type of mobility a child needs is down to their self-defined goals in the context of their school environment, family and general ecosystem. Other forms of wheeled mobility included adaptive bicycles for children who are unable to utilise nonadapted bikes. The basis for assessment for wheeled mobility is the student. The most important part of adaptive seating is to match the student, their self-defined goals and their developmental needs. Barriers to inclusion are discussed. The final section of this chapter includes a discussion of where wheeled mobility is going into the future.

Randy Hodson’s research on workplace inequalities and dignity at work asks vital questions about the capacity of employment to provide the resources needed to support a decent life. A decent life involves not merely the capacity to meet basic needs but also the possibility of investing in upward mobility, for example by pursuing a college degree. Rising employment inequalities and slow-growing wages in the United States over the past several decades have challenged the capacity of ordinary workers to make these investments. Yet worries about college affordability are more likely to be expressed as a concern over the price of schooling than as a concern over the returns to work. In this chapter, I conduct an historical analysis of trends in the costs of college compared to trends in wages from the 1970s to the 2000s in order to evaluate how stagnating wages affected the possibilities for paying for college, using several different data sources on college costs and wages. I focus on the question of how much money a student worker could earn toward the costs of college. I show that over time student work became a significantly less lucrative undertaking and would have covered less of the costs of college over time even if college costs had remained stable. I conclude that we must pay attention to how the jobs crisis affects a range of institutions and growing stratification in opportunity in America. As Randy Hodson argued in his voluminous research, dignity at work has far-reaching consequences for the chances of a decent life.

Sexual harassment and discrimination are continuing and chronic workplace problems (Quick & McFadyen, 2017) that affect the health, well-being and socio-economic future of victim/survivors (Blau & Winkler, 2018). Despite this, management and leadership education have been primarily addressing this workplace issue from a legal responsibility perspective and using preventative strategies such as promoting the value of equity, diversity, inclusion and belongingness and explaining the importance of safe, healthy and respectful workplaces. While the establishment of policies, human rights training and disciplinary procedures are undeniably important, rarely do business educators prepare future managers to engage with employees in trauma-informed, compassionate and respectful ways. The co-authors have used a collective restorying process to engage in co-designing a workshop for early career managers and students of management and leadership. The workshop includes iterative exploration of the language and authentic performativity of unbiased compassion while engaging in collective reflexivity. The basis of the workshop centres the research proposition that to support a claimant the manager must performatively lead with authentic compassion while using unbiased language in order to assure procedural justice while mitigating procedural trauma. Early career managers, and hence their organizations, are ill-equipped to deal with workplace investigations of sexual harassment and discrimination. By collectively exploring and practicing unbiased compassion, managers will not only be more prepared to respond to a claim of sexual harassment or discrimination, but they will also reduce employee's felt sense of procedural trauma and increase the organization's likelihood of due diligence.