Search Results

The purpose of this paper is to identify the teaching innovations that have been implemented in higher education institutions in Asia and the perspectives of educators on them.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 educators who were affiliated with 23 higher education institutions in ten Asian countries/regions. The interviews covered information about the teaching innovations of the participants’ institutions, the characteristics of the innovative practices and the participants’ views on them. The relationships between the characteristics of institutions and their teaching innovations were also examined.

The results showed that the teaching innovations included two main categories, namely, those which involved the use of advanced technologies and those which did not. The innovations that involved the use of advanced technologies were mainly from larger institutions, while the other category was mainly from smaller ones and had been practised for less than 1.5 years. Differences were also identified between the two categories in terms of the aims and importance of innovations, innovative features, the evaluation of innovations and improvements needed for them.

The results highlighted that technology is only one of the many aspects of teaching innovations, which is different from the view prevailing in the literature. They also suggested that differences in the scale of institutions (in terms of number of students) possibly influences the kind of teaching innovations adopted.

Education institutions persist by transforming leadership skills to manage their knowledge resources efficiently as well as enhance the lecturer’s teaching and learning innovation capabilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate whether knowledge management plays a role of mediator between transformational leadership and teaching and learning innovation in teacher education.

A cross-sectional survey design was used to collect the primary data from 359 teacher educators across Malaysia. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to all the samples, and the collected data was analysed using structural equation modelling approach.

The data analysis indicated that knowledge management did not play the role of a mediator in this study because the direct effect of transformational leadership on teaching and learning innovation was stronger than the indirect effect of transformational leadership through knowledge management.

From the aspect of implications on the practice, it was suggested that all lecturers and head of departments attend clinical training and workshops on knowledge management to further understand the knowledge management processes that could enhance the quality of teaching in teacher education institutes.

This study is perhaps the first study to investigate the role of knowledge management as a mediator between transformational leadership and teaching and learning innovation in teacher education.

This chapter describes the transition of a nursery school to a laboratory school. Dissatisfaction on the part of populations involved with the nursery school led to an extensive self-study, the results of which indicated several forms of discontinuity. The program was restructured through initiating structural changes and articulating missions congruent with those of traditional laboratory schools. Actions specific to educating and training students, conducting scientific inquiry and research, and implementing best practice and educational innovation also were taken in order to address the new missions and achieve higher levels of continuity. Throughout the chapter the difficulty and necessity of linking theory and research with practice and innovation are highlighted.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss three case studies reflecting areas of innovation and creativity which CETL funding made possible through a work‐based learning CETL. CETL sponsored evaluations of funded projects and teaching initiatives informed further curriculum developments.

Using a case study approach the paper explores the experiences of three different projects and the impact upon staff and students in a CETL for work‐based learning. Three case studies are used, the first describing progression from a Performing Arts Diploma to a degree, facilitated by the use of learning technologies and social networking; the second considers the impact upon experienced professionals and stakeholders involved in a new Doctorate programme by Public Works. The third case study demonstrates the importance of rewarding investment in and evaluation of learning approaches, assisted by learning technology, with the resultant development of a model which facilitates reflective learning from work activities. Case studies were focused on teaching and learning practice.

These were all programme developments which arose from practitioners and impacted upon academic practice and curriculum development. They impacted upon future learning initiatives thus demonstrating that the CETL investment impacted a wide range of learning activities at different academic levels. Dissemination of impact beyond the original project was evident through qualitative feedback and practitioner practice.

This was more of an analytical exploration of funded innovations in teaching and learning than formal research and therefore is not presented as traditional research. However, a case for case study approach in included, but data methods not explored.

The CETL funding of teaching and learning innovations impacted upon work‐based learning and the student learning experience within several schools across the university. These innovations have become significant for future WBL curriculum developments within the University. It is also evidenced that additional funding for five years of the CETL project enabled projects to grow and develop over a period of time. Therefore the indications are that sustained funding and evaluations at development points contribute to embedding and enhancing academic curriculum innovations.

This paper highlights the importance of long‐term investment in teaching and learning initiatives and the impact that such investment can have over a period of time, particularly in relation to CETL funding, of which the long‐term effects on teaching and learning in HE are as yet unknown.

Interdisciplinary approaches to climate change teaching are well justified and arise from the complexity of climate change challenges and the integrated problem-solving responses they demand. These approaches require academic teachers to collaborate across disciplines. Yet, the fragmentation typical of universities impedes collaborative teaching practice. This paper aims to report on the outcomes of a distributed leadership project in four Australian universities aimed at enhancing interdisciplinary climate change teaching.

Communities of teaching practice were established at four Australian universities with participants drawn from a wide range of disciplines. The establishment and operation of these communities relied on a distributed leadership methodology which facilitates acts of initiative, innovation, vision and courage through group interaction rather than through designated hierarchical roles.

Each community of practice found the distributed leadership approach overcame barriers to interdisciplinary climate change teaching. Cultivating distributed leadership enabled community members to engage in peer-led professional learning, collaborative curriculum and pedagogical development, and to facilitate wider institutional change. The detailed outcomes achieved by each community were tailored to their specific institutional context. They included the transformation of climate change curriculum, professional development in interdisciplinary pedagogy, innovation in student-led learning activities, and participation in institutional decision-making related to curriculum reform.

Collaborative, non-traditional leadership practices have attracted little attention in research about sustainability education in university curricula. This paper demonstrates that the distributed leadership model for sustainability education reported here is effective in building capacity for interdisciplinary climate change teaching within disciplines. The model is flexible enough for a variety of institutional settings.

Teaching excellence remains a contested term in English higher education (HE). This paper begins by reflecting on its complex and sometimes blurred meaning, charting the divergence between academic interests in the complexity and contextual questions relating to practice development and organisational and sectoral shifts which have been driven by managerialism, accountability and “top-down” ideas of change. The authors argue that this divergence, epitomised in the development of the teaching excellence framework, has led to a confused, if ubiquitous, use of excellence to identify organisational and sector-led ideas of what it means to deliver quality teaching. However, these frameworks have become progressively detached from the complexity of practice investigated by those interested in pedagogy. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is a conceptual paper which brings together literature from teaching excellence, organisational science, time and HE to develop an alternative approach to pedagogic development.

Based on a critique of the current, confused conceptualisation of teaching excellence, the authors offer a different narrative which demonstrates how a reconsideration of the factors is important in developing critical and challenging teaching opportunities. Based on a “bottom-up” system focusing on dialogue, sustainability and “unhasty” time, the authors argue for a re-establishing of a holistic approach in HE providers based on emergent pedagogies as opposed to teaching excellence.

This paper demonstrates why teaching excellence has become conceptually fractured in an English context, and why a new approach to pedagogic development needs to be considered to establish a more positive and critical approach at both the institutional and sectoral levels. This paper outlines a possible approach to developing such renewal.

Much of the literature on innovation and entrepreneurship in education focuses on how external ideas, processes, and techniques can be applied to education systems, schools, and classrooms to improve educational performance. Little research, however, addresses the ways that internal ideas, processes, and techniques within educational systems, schools, and classrooms impart innovation and entrepreneurial skills to youth worldwide. This chapter identifies ways that these skills can be developed in youth through mass education systems. Particular attention is given to the ways that youth are prepared to participate in the knowledge economy by becoming information innovators and knowledge entrepreneurs.

Active learning is not a simple practice. It is a new paradigm for the provision of high-quality, collaborative, engaging, and motivating education. Active learning has the capacity to respond to most of the challenges that institutions of higher education are facing in our time. In this chapter, we present active learning strategies used in STEM disciplines and we analyze the potential of active learning to redefine the value proposition in academic institutions. After providing the theoretical underpinnings of active learning as an evolving practice, an attempt is made to connect it with different learning theories and present an integrative model in which institutional strategies, learning strategy and information, and communication technologies work synergistically toward the development of knowledge and skills. We then present the results of a survey examining “stories” of active learning from the STEM disciplines, identifying good teaching practices, and discussing challenges and lessons learned. The key idea is that active engagement and participation of students is based on faculty commitments and inspiration and mentoring by faculty. We finally present a stage model for the implementation of active learning practices in higher education. Emphasis is put on a new vision for higher education, based on systematic planning, implementation, and evaluation of active learning methods, collaboration, engagement with society and industry, innovation, and sustainability, for a better world for all.

The Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund was established by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, UK, with the declared aims of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning and raising the status of teaching among higher education institutions. This paper considers the three strands of the initiative – subject, institutional, and individual – and uses findings from a variety of evaluation studies to assess the impact of this state sponsored policy. The difficulties in creating cultural change within higher education are discussed. The paper argues, with cautious optimism, that there is evidence of increased attention being paid to teaching in higher education in England, in part, as a consequence of this funded initiative, but that the evidence for wholesale cultural change remains difficult to interpret.

This article focuses on university education in innovation. We examine and present a novel system we have developed that is achieving our vision of instantiating a robust education that teaches, develops, and grades innovation in the education system. This paper is discussing a paradigm shift, offering new degrees with a common core focused on innovation, with teams of students learning and practicing the key elements of the innovation process. First we examine the motivation and need for a radically new approach, not a new major or a course, that is based upon a new common core and family of degrees. We describe how we knew that to effectively reach our goals the program had to span across departments, college boundaries, and beyond the very core of the university. Second, we show how in doing so we created a family of degrees that moved us beyond the centuries-old B.S. and B.A. educational constraints with a new, innovative "Bachelor of Innovation^™" (B.I.) family of degrees that includes a core built around multi-disciplinary multi-year innovation partnering with real companies. Lastly we summarize the unique aspects of the program and the rationale behind them, from the 3-year multi-disciplinary team experience to the trademarked name. We present our B.I. program as its own case study in innovation within higher education, reviewing the key challenges we faced so that other innovative institutions and departments may learn from our experience. We conclude with lessons learned and the future of the B.I. family of degrees.