What the Current Education Reform Reports Have to Say about Arts and Humanities Education

Art Education ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
Charles G. Wieder
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian M Kinchin ◽  
Christopher Wiley

This paper offers an approach to support the development of reflective teaching practice among university academics that can be used to promote dialogue about quality enhancement and the student experience. Pedagogic frailty has been proposed as a unifying concept that may help to integrate institutional efforts to enhance teaching within universities by helping to maintain a simultaneous focus on key areas that are thought to impede development of pedagogy. These areas and the links that have been proposed to connect them are interrogated here through the dialogic analysis of a framed autoethnographic narrative produced by a community ‘insider’ who has considerable experience of teaching within the arts and humanities. This person-centred methodology acknowledges the subjective nature of teaching and gives voice to important stories that otherwise might not be heard formally, and allows an academic to rehearse this voice individually before comparing it with others in the institution.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mildrid Bjerke

This paper discusses a dialectic between a so-called disinterested appreciation of literature and what I refer to as the ‘neoliberal ethos’. I am interested, primarily, in the influence of this dialectic on literary pedagogy. I will argue that the way in which the neoliberal ethos has permeated educational settings creates a need for a reconceptualised notion of aesthetic disinterest, without which we will struggle to coherently argue for alternative conceptions of the value of education, especially arts and humanities education. I hope to show that reviving the concept of disinterest will facilitate a renegotiation of the literature classroom as a space for genuine aesthetic experience and non-instrumental discussion.


Author(s):  
Michael Darroch

From 1953 to 1955, the Ford Foundation funded a unique experiment in intermedial study and experimentation at the University of Toronto. The Culture and Communications Seminar and the journal Explorations, led by Edmund Carpenter, Marshall McLuhan, and Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, are indicative of the ways in which intermedial studies became organized and institutionalized in the 1950s and 1960s. The scholarly network that took shape during these years of Ford Foundation funding laid the framework in Canada for initiatives in creative media research that have become fundamental aspects of arts and humanities education. This article charts the assemblage of geographic, disciplinary, artistic, and organizational connections that facilitated this educational experiment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-97
Author(s):  
P. Yang

Introduction. The concept of outcomes-based education (OBE) was first put forward in 1981 by the educator W. Spady, and has been widely valued and applied in a rapid speed. During the next 10 years, OBE has formed a relatively complete theoretical system and became the mainstream ideas of national education reform in the United States, Britain, Canada and other counties. At present, the technology and tools of OBE, despite the criticism, remain relevant for the development and optimisation of the humanities education system.The aim of the present research is to study and analyse the theory of OBE and the practice on the application of pedagogical principles for modernisation of the humanities education in China.Results and scientific novelty. Chinese education certification system has made notable progress in recent years. More universities and colleges are pursuing a quality improvement strategy focused on three main components – learning outcomes, student personality and continuous improvement. OBE establishes the same priorities; OBE is considered as a special type of effective pedagogical design. The features of this model implementation are briefly described – the structure of the training process, its stages and characteristics. The opportunities for improving humanities education based on OBE framework were considered. The OBE operates within the framework of the following core issues: the things students learn and the extent of student success, not the manner of learning; the place, the time of learning and the duration of training.OBE process implies ultimate involvement of students’ individual cognitive abilities to master competencies, which help adapt to future life. The knowledge of actual material (content of the programme) is not the key element of the education process, but the skills of knowledge application are important when solving specific tasks. The curricula, educational process, its methods, tools are adjusted, rebuilt and replaced if they do not contribute to the development of such skills, e. g. the results of the training determine its system and act not as a goal, but as a means of achieving it. The structure of results manages all educational activities, and their evaluation is carried out according to clear initially defined criteria, combined with flexible personalised requirements in order to get students to fully self-realise personal potential during a training course. To improve the initial design of curriculum, it is necessary to provide constant feedback “student-teacher”. The teacher has to organise and focus the learning process to give each student confidence in the acquired experience and to guarantee his or her success in further professional activities and life in general.Practical significance. The OBE concept fully complies with the needs and demands of modern society and modern people – it is no coincidence that such training has become one of the most popular forms of education in many countries, including the field of the humanities education in China. The present research leads to the conclusion that in the humanities field, notably in the teaching of foreign languages, a significant improvement in the quality of training of students can be achieved through the use of OBE teaching tools. In this model of training, practice is more important than theory. Moreover, this model assumes understanding to be more valuable than memory; the traditional “cramming” of educational information by students can be completely excluded; also, such model provides an opportunity to establish a continuous productive dialogue between the participants of educational process and to transform a classroom into a laboratory. The student becomes an active, self-motivated and responsible actor of his or her own individual educational trajectory, not a passive consumer of information, and the teacher – active assistant and coordinator of education.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Braun ◽  
Bernhard Leidner

This article contributes to the conceptual and empirical distinction between (the assessment of) appraisals of teaching behavior and (the assessment of) self-reported competence acquirement within academic course evaluation. The Bologna Process, the current higher-education reform in Europe, emphasizes education aimed toward vocationally oriented competences and demands the certification of acquired competences. Currently available evaluation questionnaires measure the students’ satisfaction with a lecturer’s behavior, whereas the “Evaluation in Higher Education: Self-Assessed Competences” (HEsaCom) measures the students’ personal benefit in terms of competences. In a sample of 1403 German students, we administered a scale of satisfaction with teaching behavior and the German version of the HEsaCom at the same time. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the estimated correlations between the various scales of self-rated competences and teaching behavior appraisals were moderate to strong, yet the constructs were shown to be empirically distinct. We conclude that the self-rated gains in competences are distinct from satisfaction with course and instructor. In line with the higher education reform, self-reported gains in competences are an important aspect of academic course evaluation, which should be taken into account in the future and might be able to restructure the view of “quality of higher education.” The English version of the HEsaCom is presented in the Appendix .


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document