Webinars in higher education: use and misuse

[EN]Web meetings have recently become a common tool for eLearning in higher education. But what are they used for? How well do they work? How do they fit into the pedagogical context? In this paper, the wider context of social and technological change over recent years is discussed and, in this light, the (mis)use of webinars to recreate traditional classroom dynamics online is held up to criticism. Possible future educational fits for this technology are indicated.

Campus Architecture and Student Culture in American Higher Education

Human-environment interaction theory, as it specifically relates to architectural determinism, has an indispensible impact on student culture on college campuses. Under the assumptions of architectural determinism, this thesis examines the relationship between architecture and student culture on 30 American college campuses. Specifically, this thesis looks at uniformity of architectural style and color and the prevalence of traditional styles of architecture in relation to the institutions' campus cultures. The results of the study found that a significant relationship exists between student culture and uniformity of building color, but not between student culture and uniformity of style or the prevalence of traditional styles on a given campus. The thesis concludes with a discussion of the findings, limitations of the study, and suggestions for further research.

Modes of Diversification in Bulgarian Higher Education: Case Studies in four Disciplines

This project was stimulated by the unprecedented speed and scope of changes in Bulgarian higher education since 1989. The rapid growth of the student population and the emergence of a new private sector in higher education led to tightening governmental control and a growing criticism of autonomy and academic freedom. This raised questions about the need for diversification in the field, about the importance of recent innovations in terms of strategic choices for future development and so of how higher education governance could maintain diversity without the system deteriorating. The group first traced the extent of spontaneous processes of innovation at the level of content, of institutions, and the organisation of teaching and learning processes. They then identified the different parties in the struggle for institutionalisation and against diversification, and promising mechanisms for maintaining diversity in higher education. On this basis they outlined a basis for a wide-ranging public discussion of the issue which may serve as a corrective to the mechanisms of state control. Their work included analysis of the legislative framework laid down in the Higher Education Act, which effectively dispenses with the autonomy of universities. They then surveyed the views of both high-level executives in the field and the academics actually involved in the process, as well as of the "consumers" of the educational product, i.e. the students. In considering diversification, they focused on four different types of programmes, including those where diversification is largely limited to content level (e.g. Law), those where it operates mainly on structural levels (e.g. Industrial Management), those where it is often feigned (e.g. Social Work), and those where it is at best formal and sporadic (e.g. Mechanical Engineering). They conclude that the educational system in Bulgaria has considerable internal resources for development. The greatest need is for adequate statutory regulation of academic life which will provide incentives for responsible academic development of higher education institutions and create conditions for the institutionalisation of academic self-organisation and self-control, which will in turn limit the pathological trends in the diversification processes.

A Comparative Study on Higher Education Acts in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Russia

The original aim of this project was to describe and analyse the higher education acts in force in five Central and Eastern European countries at present, trying to understand the dependence of higher education on the historical traditions, national peculiarities and all-European tendencies. The description and comparison of the main aspects of higher education was supplemented by a study of the possibilities of transferring experience in the field between the five countries and possible solutions to implementing foreign structural and functional models. Questions covered included the role of the state in the management of higher education, the structures of the higher education systems and the organisation of institutions, academic autonomy and the classifications of academic teaching staff, the main trends in the recent development of research, academic degrees, the accreditation of higher education institutions, and the financing of higher education. Popov found that it was almost impossible to understand the dependence of higher education on historical traditions and national peculiarities purely through a study of the relevant legislation. Education traditions in these countries have twice been broken, once with the start of communism (1917 in Russia and 1944-45 in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania) and for a second time at the beginning of the 1990s. The most recent higher education acts in all five countries studied have abandoned many of their historical and national traditions, following instead all-European trends as determined by Western Europe, and the project included a study of the dependence on these trends. There were also difficulties in comparing some aspects of higher education as it depended on how far a given aspect has different or common features in the different countries and to what extent the application is comparable. While many possible areas for transferring experience between the five countries were identified, Popov concentrated on those where he felt that there was a real practical possibility of application in view of national academic differences. He concluded by defining some of the challenges facing each country in the field of higher education and by making some predictions as to the developments in the different countries.

Governmentality in higher education : a critical analysis of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

In this dissertation, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) serves as a nodal point through which to examine the power relations shaping the direction and practices of higher education in the twenty-first century. Theoretically, my analysis is informed by Foucault’s concept of governmentality, briefly defined as a technology of power that influences or shapes behavior from a distance. This form of governance operates through apparatuses of security, which include higher education. Foucault identified three essential characteristics of an apparatus—the market, the milieu, and the processes of normalization—through which administrative mechanisms and practices operate and govern populations. In this project, my primary focus is on the governance of faculty and administrators, as a population, at residential colleges and universities. I argue that the existing milieu of accountability is one dominated by the neoliberal assumption that all activity—including higher education—works best when governed by market forces alone, reducing higher education to a market-mediated private good. Under these conditions, what many in the academy believe is an essential purpose of higher education—to educate students broadly, to contribute knowledge for the public good, and to serve as society’s critic and social conscience (Washburn 227)—is being eroded. Although NSSE emerged as a form of resistance to commercial college rankings, it did not challenge the forces that empowered the rankings in the first place. Indeed, NSSE data are now being used to make institutions even more responsive to market forces. Furthermore, NSSE’s use has a normalizing effect that tends to homogenize classroom practices and erode the autonomy of faculty in the educational process. It also positions students as part of the system of surveillance. In the end, if aspects of higher education that are essential to maintaining a civil society are left to be defined solely in market terms, the result may be a less vibrant and, ultimately, a less just society.

Present at the Creation: Montana Higher Education Reforms from 1972 Constitution -- Dr. Lawrence K. Pettit “In the Crucible of Change”

Prior to the passage of the 1972 Constitution, Montana’s higher education system was both controlled and victimized by Montana’s politics. Alternatingly, Governors or the Legislature tried to control and/or impose political ideology upon the management and teaching/content within the University System. Political favoritism and power-broking were the hallmark of the legislative appropriation process. Under the new Constitution, a newly empowered Board of Regents, and a new Commissioner of Higher Education managed the system and controlled the allocation of the legislative appropriations, but not without a major battle before the Montana Supreme Court. Dr. Lawrence K. Pettit (Larry Pettit) (b. 5/2/1937) was present at the creation of this newly structured higher education system as the first Commissioner of Higher Education in Montana after his appointment by the Board of Regents of the University System in 1973. Larry Pettit has had a dual career in politics and higher education. Pettit, of Lewistown, served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senators James E. Murray and Lee Metcalf, campaign manager, head of transition team and assistant to Montana Governor Thomas L. Judge, taught political science at The Pennsylvania State University (main campus), was chair of political science at Montana State University, Deputy Commissioner for Academic Programs at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Chancellor of the University System of South Texas (since merged with Texas A&M University), President of Southern Illinois University, and President of Indiana University of Pennsylvania from where he retired in 2003. He has served as chair of the Commission on Leadership for the American Council on Education, president of the National Association of (University) System Heads, and on many national and state boards and commissions in higher education. Pettit is author of “If You Live by the Sword: Politics in the Making and Unmaking of a University President.” More about Pettit is found at http://www.lawrencekpettit.com