Search results

Decolonizing involves dismantling deeply entrenched colonial systems of knowledge and power by disrupting colonial patterns of thought, questioning how teaching and learning occurs, and critiquing the colonial practices that are merged into the fabric of higher and adult education. Within this process, scholars and practitioners engage in interrogating teaching and learning approaches and developing a critical consciousness regarding what knowledge is valued and how this value is acquired. Within higher and adult education, limited research has explicitly considered the ways in which conceptions of andragogy and its accompanying instructional approaches might be deconstructed within the context of decolonization. The purpose of this chapter is to deconstruct and decolonize foundational higher and adult learning conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are routinely embedded within courses and programs. The conceptual and theoretical frameworks selected and analyzed include self-directed learning, transformative learning, and action learning as conventional examples of individual and collective instructional approaches employed within higher and adult learning settings. Maōri scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith's (2012) nine characteristics of theory that contribute to colonizing discourses and 25 Indigenous projects/principles are employed as the lenses that frame this analysis. These lenses include social science and methodological approaches and strategies that decolonize populations and promote Indigenous epistemologies.

This chapter analyses the current situation and perceptions of quality assurance (QA) in adult education (AE) in Latvia. In the Latvian context, QA in AE is a challenge. According to recent studies, QA should have a formative character in order to facilitate targeted benefits for adult learners, whereas in practice AE in Latvia is more focussed on the institutional perspective rather than the individual’s needs and wishes. This is in contrast with the humanistic approach to adult learning and andragogy principles, which emphasise learner-centred education. The aim of the chapter is to research opportunities for improving the QA process in AE in Latvia in order to increase personal benefits for an individual. The systematic review of scholarly papers, monographs, scientific reports on QA in AE conducted in Latvia in the twenty-first century indicated a contradiction between the theoretical concepts applied to AE in Latvia and the implementation of the QA process in practice. This chapter contributes to the overall understanding of the terminology used in AE in the country, analyses the prevailing concepts and elaborates conclusions for QA improvements based on humanistic pedagogy principles.

This chapter outlines four specific challenges that graduates of higher education face as they transition from school to work in the new millennium: (1) The myth of a linear connection between studies and career options; (2) the purported gap between the skills and knowledge learned in school and the skills and knowledge needed in the workplace; (3) the challenge of preparing for multiple careers over a lifetime; (4) the need for lifelong learning. Learning how to transfer skills and knowledge across multiple contexts, and the ability for effective self-direction, are proposed as two important ways that job seekers themselves can effectively respond to these challenges. Higher education institutions are challenged to explicitly incorporate more reflection and other metacognitive practices into their curricula. They are also challenged to provide many (and varied) opportunities for students to transfer what they know and can do across multiple contexts, both in and outside of the classroom. Learners are encouraged to engage in greater self-direction of their academic and career trajectories and more fully understand how to create and find work by mobilizing their transferable skills in a variety of contexts, beyond those that are traditionally affiliated with their studies.

A holistic approach has been applied to teaching the whole student, yet rarely emphasized in faculty development in higher education. Similarly, learner-centered instruction has become more prevalent in higher education as a way of teaching students, but less so as a concept for faculty pedagogy. This chapter examines the psychological underpinnings of holistic, learner-centered instruction and describes strategies and materials for applying these principles to faculty development so that higher education environments are humanized for culturally diverse faculty and students. Conceptual frameworks underlying the approaches emphasize humanistic theories and the needs of adult learners. Topics addressed include: motivation, cooperative learning, culturally responsive teaching, active learning, metacognition, teaching for transfer, nonverbal communication and instructional technology. Faculty development efforts described include both interdisciplinary activities and a special project with the School of Engineering. While modeling holistic, learner-centered teaching in faculty development, university instructors are engaged in their own learning of effective pedagogy and their experiences and knowledge can be used subsequently to enhance student success in their courses.

A holistic, learner-centered approach enables higher education faculty to create stimulating, nurturing, safe and respectful classroom environments which promote student engagement, content mastery, cognitive skill development, intrinsic motivation and attitudes which foster thinking and learning. Consequently, this chapter provides faculty, administrators and policymakers with tools that can be used to help students, especially at graduate and post-graduate levels, learn academic material and become enlightened global citizens with enhanced thinking abilities and affect to meet current and future personal, professional and societal needs.

This chapter provides an introduction to how the inquiry-based learning (IBL) approach is being used by colleges and universities around the world to improve faculty and institutional development and to strengthen the interconnections between teaching, learning, and research. This chapter provides a synthesis and analysis of all the chapters in the volume, which present a range of perspectives, case studies, and empirical research on how IBL is being used across a range of courses across a range of institutions to enhance faculty and institutional development. This chapter argues that the IBL approach has great potential to enhance and transform teaching and learning. Given the growing demands placed on education to meet a diverse range of complex political, economic, and social problems and personal needs, this chapter argues that education should be a place where lifelong and lifewide learning is cultivated and where self-directed learning is nurtured. To that end, this chapter argues that IBL helps cultivate a learning environment that is more meaningful, responsive, integrated, and purposeful.

As educational institutions continue to call for greater accountability and learning outcomes take center stage, faculty, administrators, and institutions alike must assume a broader, more holistic approach to teaching and learning. As outlined in this chapter, technology and virtual spaces, when utilized well, can radically shift how graduate faculty can help doctoral students become critical and reflective thinkers, to develop or refine a professional identity, and help them to transform their assumptions about their knowledge and about themselves, a process that Kegan (1994) and Baxter Magolda (1999) call self-authorship. Using digital narratives as part of a technology-mediated classroom that is built around learning partnerships and principles of self-authorship is one way to accomplish this. Such an approach can lead to innovative practices in the classroom, deeper, more reflective learning for students, and greater overall success for our institutions. By combining multimedia tools and technology with an adult learning-centered pedagogy built around self-authoring practices of student development, faculty can more effectively organize doctoral education to engage and involve students in the process and to truly cultivate a new generation of doctoral students as scholars, researchers, and practitioners.

March 30, 2020 is a day of qualitative changes in the Lithuanian education system. This day in history – at least in the history of education – will record the day when mass distance learning began in the entire Lithuanian education system. All educational activities from kindergarten to higher and adult education were organized at a distance. In fact, the idea of distance learning was not so new in Lithuania. The first steps in developing a distance learning system in Lithuania were taken 25 years ago, but before the pandemic, it was more the exception than the norm and, of course, it had never been global. But in Spring 2020, all educational institutions (in general education during 2 weeks, in higher – even only during 2–3 days) were transformed from contact to distance learning. From a few-month perspective, it can be said that, despite all the circumstances, this transformation has been quite successful. In order to better understand the reasons for this quite sufficiently successful transition, it would be worthwhile to briefly review the organization of distance learning in Lithuania until the 2020 pandemic.

Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario, Canada, working in partnership with leading health science centers in Toronto, Ontario, has developed a unique second-degree entry Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) program called the Scholar Practitioner Program. This program is a response to the increasing demand for nursing programs which builds on prior university learning.

The program uses an educational model based on narrative inquiry and cognitive apprentice pedagogies. Narrative inquiry pedagogy is the overarching philosophical framework of the program, which embraces values that connect teachers and learners. A spirit of inquiry is cultivated in every student and a research culture embedded in the student’s practice.

The six-semester two-year full-time program occurs in a learner-driven environment which shapes how specific semester program objectives are met. A strong emphasis is placed on experiential learning within the Toronto-based academic health sciences centers.

A continuous interactive process involving teachers and learners encourages self-directed learning and participant accountability. Application of knowledge and skills in a professional, caring, and holistic manner is expected. This type of undergraduate learning environment which includes immersion in the employment milieu enables the future scholar practitioner to be relevant in the evolving profession of nursing.