Group items tagged

Educational outcomes related to sustainability often include affective attributes such as values, attitudes and behaviours. Educators in higher education who attempt to research, monitor, assess or evaluate learning of affective attributes can face a bewildering array of methodologies and approaches and a research literature that spans several fields of enquiry. This article provides an overview of affective learning in the broad area of education for sustainable development, guidance for university teachers and researchers contemplating measuring affective attributes and a frame-work of affective attribute measurement based on the Krathwohl et al. (1964) taxonomy.

In 1996, a relatively unknown associate professor of comparative literature at the Université de Montréal caused a stir by publishing a book that showed how colleges and universities are run more like businesses or corporations than educational institutions. Widely read and cited, Bill Readings' The University in Ruins (1996) was an indictment of corporate practices in academia. It announced that business values were supplanting academic values in the administration of universities-and laid the groundwork for a chorus of increasingly dystopian voices decrying the political and economic future of higher education. Readings' book was highly influential and convinced many scholars whose primary area of research was not higher education to start thinking and writing about the corporate conditions of academe. Over the course a dozen years following Readings' publication, many other fine accounts of the corporate logic of the contemporary university were published, including CUNY sociologist Stanley Aronowitz's The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating True Higher Learning (2001), former Harvard President Derek Bok's Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education (2003), freelance journalist and New America Foundation fellow Jennifer Washburn's University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education (2005), and more recently, Ohio State University English professor Frank Donoghue's The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities (2008). Derek Bok reports how he received "one proposition after another to exchange some piece or product of Harvard for money-often, quite substantial sums of money" (2009, 46). Donoghue boldly

Today's conservative movement for the reform of public education in the United States, and in much of the world, is based on the prevailing view that public education is in a state of emergency and in need of restructuring due to its own internal failures. In contrast, I shall argue that the decay of public education is mainly a product of externally imposed contradictions that are inherent to schooling in capitalist society, heightened in our time by conditions of economic stagnation in the mature capitalist economies, and by the effects of the conservative reform movement itself. The corporate-driven onslaught on students, teachers, and public schools-symbolized in the United States by George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation-is to be explained not so much by the failure of the schools themselves, but by the growing failures of the capitalist system, which now sees the privatization of public education as central to addressing its larger malaise.

"This article offers an analysis of conservative critiques of education with particular attention given to how policy problems are framed to build public consensus. It investigates how conservatives claim political legitimacy and describe education and social problems in ways that promote a conservative agenda. Using a case study of the Australian Howard Government's education policy, the article draws on Lakoff's work and particularly his 'moral accounting schemes' to identify the politics that are not always apparent in debates, but which nonetheless play a powerful role in popular and policy understandings of schools and universities and which help shape policy solutions to the problems those educational institutions are said to face."

To date, much of the research on internationalization and globalization of higher education has focused on the institution or higher education system as the unit of analysis. Institution based studies have focused on the analysis of institutional practices and policies designed to further internationalization. System-level studies focus on state policy initiatives or approaches. In this paper we explore the inter-relationships among multiple levels of authority within a higher education system through an analysis of research policies and activities related to internationalization. While we are interested in the internationalization of university research, our primary objective is to explore the relationships between policy initiatives and approaches at different levels. Using the "Global Higher Education Matrix" as a framework, we discuss the policy emphasis on the internationalization of research at the federal, provincial (Ontario), and institutional levels of authority, as well as the international research activities associated with two large professional schools operating at the understructure level. By focusing on the inter-relationships among initiatives at different levels of authority, this study explores the complexity of policy perspectives within the internationalization of research in the context of multi-level governance.

In early 2011 the World Bank will approve a new education sector strategy amid trends that mean that international goals on education will not be met. Zoe Godolphin of the University of Bristol argues that the Bank's proposed approach fails conceptually because it does not accept that education is a human right. It also fails pragmatically because it continues to advocate a template approach instead of supporting genuinely country-driven priorities in education planning

Recent years have seen a number of studies on the determinants of educational spending. Almost all of the existing work emphasizes the importance of left-wing governments as a motor of expansion because such expansion allegedly ensures both redistribution and the facilitation of a supply-side economy. The existing literature thereby corroborates the power resource theory. Against this common wisdom the article presents an argument building on the varieties of capitalism approach. It is argued that education is a poor instrument for redistribution because access is universal and high-income groups have a tendency to use education even more than low-income groups. Instead, we argue that deindustrialization is the main driver of educational spending because deindustrialization constitutes one of the most salient threats to workers in modern societies. As deindustrialization rises workers risk ending up with redundant skills, especially in countries where the average skills specificity is high, that is, coordinated market economies. The expectations find empirical support in a time-series cross-section regression analysis of 18 Western countries in the years 1980-2000

So I come to you tonight in part with an academic analysis of current discourse. But more than that I come to you with an invitation. An invitation to participate in a loosely coordinated set of efforts, a national coalition and a national campaign, a national caucus, if you will, of academic labor seeking to reframe and redirect public discourse and public policy about higher education. A national coalition and campaign that are underway. Central to that campaign is entering in a systematic, coordinated, collective way, the national conversation about higher education. That conversation is being advanced and defined outside of the academy by foundations such as Gates and Lumina, by governors and state legislators, and by the Department of Education and Congress. It is a conversation that is being defined within the academy by academic managers. It is a conversation that is framed by a neoliberal political economy that privileges the private over the public (which is remarkable given the collapse and bail-out of Wall Street), that features large corporate, for-profit employers, but that ignores small and medium-sized business, not-for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit employees. It is a conversation that calls for students (as customers) to pay more to get less, that overlooks the persistent gap between what we promise and what we deliver to various student populations, that are the growth populations of the future, lower income students, students of color, and immigrants. It is a conversation that is defined by absence, by an absence of professional voice, an absence of imagination, and an absence of a sense of the possible. It is a national conversation defined by a politics of scarcity, and by a narrow view of what we do in higher education, of the functions we serve.

Globalizing Education Policy. Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard. New York: Routledge, 2010. 228 pp. $45.95 (paper); and Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom. David Harvey. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. 352 pp. $27.50 (cloth). The authors of the texts reviewed here situate current education and social policies within the rise of the neoliberal state and describe how Friedman's free market capitalism became the dominant view of society not only in the United States, but also throughout much of the globe. Rizvi and Lingard explain how neoliberalism became the dominant "social imaginary which is, as Taylor (2007) defines, the way in which large groups of people "imagine their social existence-how they fit together with others and how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations" (19). The concept of social imaginary is useful in placing how people think about the world within the context of culture, economic, and political events. Social imaginary differs from social theory in that it is held by large groups of people, and often communicated in stories and anecdotes. However, although it may be less theoretical, it is no less powerful because it shapes how people think of the role of government and the "nature and scope of political authority" (Rizvi and Lingard 2010, 13). It reminds us that how people view the world is largely contested not theoretically, but at the level of lived experience. Consequently, scholars and members of the educational community must explicitly engage in problematizing our social imaginaries.

The purpose of this study was to critically review the reform movement of Higher Education by the Ministry of Education and how its reform policy toward global competition has created a discrepancy between the knowledge produced and the needs of local society. The study found, first of all, that the state‐driven reform policy has decreased the autonomy of South Korean universities, although the state, including the Ministry of Education, did not increase financial support. South Korean universities have enjoyed little autonomy in terms of financial expenditure, offering courses, recruitment of professors, the number of students, etc. Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education are able to filter most of the policies and measures. Secondly, the study looked into the consequences of the policy emphasis of global competition. The governance and management of South Korean universities have again turned towards the 'business university,' rather than toward the research university and as such, tends to produce knowledge and human resources for immediate societal needs. To support these assertions, the study examined how the reform policies for global competition surrounding the emphasis of SSCI journals might produce globally competitive but also perhaps locally unsuitable knowledge. The study found that there is indeed a disjoint between the knowledge produced in the research sphere and the needs of the local society. Local researchers are compelled to adopt mainstream theoretical frameworks of North America and Europe in order to get their work published in the indexed journals. Local issues and problematics are subsequently neglected and/or relegated to the margins of pertinent academic research interests.

"As economic conditions around the country (and world) impose increasing limitations on funding for higher education, it is worthwhile to review some of the major reasons that higher education costs are so high and rise so rapidly. An understanding of these reasons is critical to making rational responses that preserve (and perhaps even strengthen) important components of institutional mission. This is, of course, a subject that has been extensively written about over the past several decades by many authors, but since responses to the current economic situation seem to generally ignore what is known about the problem, perhaps another brief review is justified. Interested readers will find my many earlier takes on this issue collected here"

"This article explores the presence of US institutions of higher education in Eastern Europe as one facet of the neoliberal global environment. It draws on policy documents, institutional statistics, materials produced by interest groups and NGOs, official mission statements, press releases and media coverage, and personal narratives. The American University in Bulgaria is examined as a case of this wider phenomenon. Exclusively structuralist, critical analyses of such institutions can easily lead to conclusions of homogenization and dominance through the hegemony of 'exporter' education institutions and programs. Post-structural analysis-attuned to multiplicities of meanings, nuances of context, and complex interplays of power and knowledge claims-allow for more attention to the local dynamics, while human interpretation and agency may point the way to more hopeful roles for US institutions of higher education abroad. In turn, these roles may challenge the one-way deterministic flow of influence suggested by structuralist analyses."

Although globalisation has been an increasingly important characteristic of United States higher education for over two decades, there has been little historical analysis of the process or its origins. This article argues that beginning in the early 1970s, institutional, national, and international events established a powerful context for the development of college and university goals that focus on globalisation. These goals are substantially different from the goals of improving the democracy and opportunities for full citizenship articulated in the report of the 1947 President's Commission on Higher Education and subsequently affirmed in other national reports as late as 1971.

This contribution explores the transformation of higher education policy from the mere co-ordination of educational curricula by national governments to the embodiment of the Lisbon Agenda's 'governance architecture', together with its impact on national policies, institutions and actors. It does so by charting change in both policy outputs and policy outcomes in four different European countries - England, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy - and by relating these changes to the ideational and organizational aspects of the Lisbon Strategy. We suggest that Lisbon acted as a 'script' to be followed by national governments and other policy actors, enabling them to gradually adapt to Lisbon-induced ideational and organizational pressures, and to shape national organizational and communicative discourses that can overcome entrenched interests and transform the prevailing perception of higher education so deeply rooted in national cultural and policy traditions.

This contribution explores the transformation of higher education policy from the mere co-ordination of educational curricula by national governments to the embodiment of the Lisbon Agenda's 'governance architecture', together with its impact on national policies, institutions and actors. It does so by charting change in both policy outputs and policy outcomes in four different European countries - England, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy - and by relating these changes to the ideational and organizational aspects of the Lisbon Strategy. We suggest that Lisbon acted as a 'script' to be followed by national governments and other policy actors, enabling them to gradually adapt to Lisbon-induced ideational and organizational pressures, and to shape national organizational and communicative discourses that can overcome entrenched interests and transform the prevailing perception of higher education so deeply rooted in national cultural and policy traditions.

This article reviews and compares the developments in six countries which claim to be an education hub. It explores the meaning of education hub, introduces a working definition, and proposes a typology of three kinds of education hubs as follows: student hub, skilled work force hub, and knowledge/innovation hub. Furthermore, it identifies issues requiring further research and reflection on whether hubs are a fad, a brand or an innovation worthy of serious attention and investment.

"While the economic benefits created by international education export are well documented, few systematic and qualitative analysis studies have been conducted to examine how academic staff perceive the presence of international students in their institutions. Using interview data from 80 academic staff from different disciplines in one higher institution in Australia, this study examines whether the presence of international students has an impact on staff teaching practice. Some of the academic staff reported that they made no adjustments to their teaching. They treated all students as one student group. Other staff members said that there have been changes in their teaching in response to the presence of international students in their classroom. The paper discusses some of the underlying causes of these responses, and implications for the practice of international education. The discussion of the findings is informed by Bennett's Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, which helps us understand how people respond to cultural differences."

The European Union Bologna Process is a significant agent for internationalization of education. Acknowledging fiscal and political drivers, this article shows that Bologna inclusion of the doctoral degree offers potential for enhanced doctoral experience. Interest in transferability of doctoral education across national borders, standardization of degree credit ratings and promotion of best practice offers potential advantages, responsibilities and dimensions of activity to institutions and to individuals. We emphasize increased opportunities for cooperation and collaboration with a personal case study. We consider standards and standardization; the relationship between world and learner; language and writing issues; and global interest in the Bologna process.

Since the late 1990s, the intersection of education and migration policies in Australia has shifted international students from transient consumers to potential citizens. This article analyses responses to the 'problem' of international students as consumers, workers, and migrants, particularly the conceptualization of their rights and protections, and the ways students have been positioned as both passive subjects and activist citizens. The article provides a theoretical review of academic, government, community, and media responses to international students in general and the consequences of the education-migration nexus in particular. It argues that discourses of human rights and consumer rights have become increasingly interconnected in these debates. This analysis adds to the emerging literature on changing conceptions of rights and citizenship in neoliberal contexts, and also illuminates the social and political consequences of the education-migration nexus in Australia. This will have resonance for countries who have implemented a raft of similar policies.

Creating desirable academic departments for individuals' well-being and quality scholarship is an important effort as well as a novel idea. The focus of this reflective article is twofold: (a) We present a social capital theory of social justice covenants as a product and process of community building, and (b) we share the multiple lived experiences of three scholars within the context of our department's covenant ideology and practice. We explore how faculty can promote community and civility by not only developing but also enacting an internally generated covenant while operating within a larger institutional context that produces tension. As related to our purposes, we examined the relevant literature on social capital, capacity building, workplace environments, and organizational covenants to frame our discussion of community-driven action in education. We include an extended application of a covenant that guides our departmental faculty's social outlook, interpersonal behavior, scholarly work, and communal activism. Although our focus is on change-oriented, grassroots activity within higher education, the public schooling context is considered.