形成一个学术项目回顾学习社区:一个概念模型的描述

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
A. Hoare, Catharine Dishke Hondzel, S. Wagner
{"title":"形成一个学术项目回顾学习社区:一个概念模型的描述","authors":"A. Hoare, Catharine Dishke Hondzel, S. Wagner","doi":"10.1108/qae-01-2022-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nHigher education institutions are required to evaluate program quality through cyclical program review processes. Despite often being considered the “gold standard” of academic review, there persists dissatisfaction with the lack of integration of program review findings into other planning processes, such as budgeting, assessment and strategic planning. As a result, the notion of program review action plans “collecting dust on the shelf” is so ubiquitous that the concept is normalized as an expected outcome. The purpose of this paper is to describe a conceptual model whereby teams of faculty members receive education and training from quality assurance practitioners and educational developers, access to institutional resources, opportunities for cross-departmental collaborations and collective advocacy to increase the capacity of faculty members to implement improvement goals resulting from program reviews.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors theorize that a professional learning community is a meaningful approach to program review and present a conceptual model – the Academic Program Review Learning Community (PRLC) – as an antidote to hierarchical, fragmented, compliance-oriented processes. The authors suggest that the PRLC offers a reliable institutional framework for learning through formalized structures and nested support services, including peer learning and external coaching, which can enhance the catalytic capacity of reviews.\n\n\nFindings\nThe authors argue that postsecondary institutions should create formal structures for incorporating learning communities because, without a reliable infrastructure for collective learning, decision-making may be fragmented oridiosyncratic because of shifting demands, priorities or disconnected faculty.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nA learning community model for program review fits well with a new way to think about program review because faculty are most engaged when they feel ownership over the process. Furthermore, few models exist for conducting program review; as a result, chairs and academics often struggle to conduct reviews without a coherent framework to draw upon.\n","PeriodicalId":46734,"journal":{"name":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forming an academic program review learning community: description of a conceptual model\",\"authors\":\"A. Hoare, Catharine Dishke Hondzel, S. Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qae-01-2022-0023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nHigher education institutions are required to evaluate program quality through cyclical program review processes. Despite often being considered the “gold standard” of academic review, there persists dissatisfaction with the lack of integration of program review findings into other planning processes, such as budgeting, assessment and strategic planning. As a result, the notion of program review action plans “collecting dust on the shelf” is so ubiquitous that the concept is normalized as an expected outcome. The purpose of this paper is to describe a conceptual model whereby teams of faculty members receive education and training from quality assurance practitioners and educational developers, access to institutional resources, opportunities for cross-departmental collaborations and collective advocacy to increase the capacity of faculty members to implement improvement goals resulting from program reviews.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe authors theorize that a professional learning community is a meaningful approach to program review and present a conceptual model – the Academic Program Review Learning Community (PRLC) – as an antidote to hierarchical, fragmented, compliance-oriented processes. The authors suggest that the PRLC offers a reliable institutional framework for learning through formalized structures and nested support services, including peer learning and external coaching, which can enhance the catalytic capacity of reviews.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe authors argue that postsecondary institutions should create formal structures for incorporating learning communities because, without a reliable infrastructure for collective learning, decision-making may be fragmented oridiosyncratic because of shifting demands, priorities or disconnected faculty.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nA learning community model for program review fits well with a new way to think about program review because faculty are most engaged when they feel ownership over the process. Furthermore, few models exist for conducting program review; as a result, chairs and academics often struggle to conduct reviews without a coherent framework to draw upon.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":46734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-01-2022-0023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-01-2022-0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的要求高等教育机构通过周期性的课程审查过程来评估课程质量。尽管通常被认为是学术审查的“黄金标准”,但仍然存在对缺乏将项目审查结果整合到其他规划过程(如预算、评估和战略规划)的不满。因此,程序审查行动计划“在架子上收集灰尘”的概念是如此普遍,以至于这个概念被规范化为预期的结果。本文的目的是描述一个概念模型,在这个模型中,教师团队从质量保证从业人员和教育开发人员那里接受教育和培训,获得机构资源,跨部门合作的机会和集体倡导,以提高教师的能力,实现由项目审查产生的改进目标。设计/方法论/方法作者认为,专业学习社区是一种有意义的项目审查方法,并提出了一个概念模型——学术项目审查学习社区(PRLC)——作为分层、碎片化、遵从性导向过程的解药。作者认为,PRLC通过形式化的结构和嵌套的支持服务(包括同伴学习和外部指导)为学习提供了可靠的制度框架,可以增强评审的催化能力。研究结果作者认为,高等教育机构应该建立正式的结构来整合学习社区,因为如果没有可靠的集体学习基础设施,决策可能会因为需求的变化、优先事项或教师的脱节而变得支离破碎。原创性/价值项目评审的学习社区模型与一种思考项目评审的新方式非常契合,因为当教师们在这个过程中感受到所有权时,他们是最投入的。此外,很少有模型存在进行程序审查;因此,主席和学者们往往难以在没有连贯框架的情况下进行审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Forming an academic program review learning community: description of a conceptual model
Purpose Higher education institutions are required to evaluate program quality through cyclical program review processes. Despite often being considered the “gold standard” of academic review, there persists dissatisfaction with the lack of integration of program review findings into other planning processes, such as budgeting, assessment and strategic planning. As a result, the notion of program review action plans “collecting dust on the shelf” is so ubiquitous that the concept is normalized as an expected outcome. The purpose of this paper is to describe a conceptual model whereby teams of faculty members receive education and training from quality assurance practitioners and educational developers, access to institutional resources, opportunities for cross-departmental collaborations and collective advocacy to increase the capacity of faculty members to implement improvement goals resulting from program reviews. Design/methodology/approach The authors theorize that a professional learning community is a meaningful approach to program review and present a conceptual model – the Academic Program Review Learning Community (PRLC) – as an antidote to hierarchical, fragmented, compliance-oriented processes. The authors suggest that the PRLC offers a reliable institutional framework for learning through formalized structures and nested support services, including peer learning and external coaching, which can enhance the catalytic capacity of reviews. Findings The authors argue that postsecondary institutions should create formal structures for incorporating learning communities because, without a reliable infrastructure for collective learning, decision-making may be fragmented oridiosyncratic because of shifting demands, priorities or disconnected faculty. Originality/value A learning community model for program review fits well with a new way to think about program review because faculty are most engaged when they feel ownership over the process. Furthermore, few models exist for conducting program review; as a result, chairs and academics often struggle to conduct reviews without a coherent framework to draw upon.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: QAE publishes original empirical or theoretical articles on Quality Assurance issues, including dimensions and indicators of Quality and Quality Improvement, as applicable to education at all levels, including pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher and professional education. Periodically, QAE also publishes systematic reviews, research syntheses and assessment policy articles on topics of current significance. As an international journal, QAE seeks submissions on topics that have global relevance. Article submissions could pertain to the following areas integral to QAE''s mission: -organizational or program development, change and improvement -educational testing or assessment programs -evaluation of educational innovations, programs and projects -school efficiency assessments -standards, reforms, accountability, accreditation, and audits in education -tools, criteria and methods for examining or assuring quality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信