Your search found 3582 results.

Descriptors:
Linguistic Theory; Personal Narratives; Rhetoric; Humanities; Educational Philosophy; Educational Theories; Problem Solving

Abstract:
Over the last few decades there has been a strong narrative "turn" within the humanities and social sciences in general and educational studies in particular. Especially Jerome Bruner's theory of narrative as a specific "mode of knowing" was very important for this growing body of work. To understand how the narrative mode works Bruner proposes to study narratives "at their far reach"--as an art form--and on several occasions he refers to the "dramatistic pentad" as an important method for "unpacking" narratives. The pentad proposed by Bruner to study narratives was developed by the American philosopher and rhetorician Kenneth Burke and is embedded in his general linguistic theory of "dramatism". From an educational perspective Bruner's reference to the work of Burke has not been elaborated upon thus far. In this paper we aim to take Bruner's suggestion at hand and explore how his educational theory of narrative as a mode of knowing can indeed be enriched by Kenneth Burke's theory and method of dramatism. We claim that specifically the rhetorical framework that is developed by dramatism offers an important "perspective about perspectives" for education in a context that is increasingly confronted with a plurality of interpretive frameworks. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Preservice Teacher Education; Teacher Education Programs; Humanities; Mathematics; Social Change; Fundamental Concepts; Racial Discrimination; Resistance (Psychology); Teacher Educators; Equal Education; Culturally Relevant Education

Abstract:
As a response to the attacks on ethnic studies in Arizona and the move to ban certain books, this essay presents theoretical and pedagogical reflections from two professors and addresses the ways teacher preparation programs can offer a resistance. Based on the authors' experience in teacher preparation programs, one in the humanities and the other in mathematics, they discuss fundamental concepts that undergird social change methodology from Gloria Anzaldua (la facultad and conocimiento) and from Isabel Gunning's work (World Traveling). Ultimately, our premise is that teachers of teachers can impact the curricula in significant ways that result in dismantling racism and in teaching that is focused on positive social change. We posit that the university classroom where future teachers are trained must address (1) Equity issues, (2) Cultural identity or cultural framing, and (3) Culturally relevant strategies and teaching, modeled by the university professor. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Teaching Methods; English (Second Language); Grounded Theory; Graduate Students; Humanities; Language Styles; Task Analysis; English for Special Purposes; Second Language Learning; Second Language Instruction; Intellectual Disciplines

Abstract:
Genre-based approaches are widely used in academic writing courses for graduate students. Yet, despite numerous studies of academic discourses and genres, there is still little research focusing on the learner in ESP genre-based instruction, and further consideration of individual learners' responses to genre pedagogy is needed. This article reports on a study conducted at a multi-disciplinary humanities faculty. It examines graduate learners' approaches to "examine-and-report-back" genre-analysis tasks by comparing 32 students from four disciplines: archaeology, history, literature, and media studies. The data are subjected to qualitative analysis inspired by the constant comparative method. The overview of features in students' genre-analysis tasks across the four disciplines is illustrated with excerpts from student writing. Graduate learners' approaches to genre-analysis fall into two categories: descriptive and analytical. It is shown that graduate learners' approaches to genre-analysis tasks vary depending on individual students' capacity to analyse academic texts in relation to their purpose, audience, and disciplinary practices. Another possible factor impacting this variation includes the extent of learners' understanding of disciplinary knowledge-making practices. Finally, students' own aims and learning histories affect the way they approach genre-analysis tasks. (Contains 2 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Awards; Ethics; Foreign Countries; Humanities; Educational Change; Educational Policy; Commercialization; Marketing; Newspapers; Reputation; Institutional Characteristics; Educational Strategies; Educational Objectives; News Reporting

Abstract:
This paper argues that the "Times Higher" provides a powerful tool for understanding the changing character of UK higher education (HE) and can usefully be seen as representative, and in some ways constitutive, of that changing character. Drawing on an analysis of a sample of stories from the "Times Higher," it documents the changing policy climate of UK HE from 1979 to 2010. It offers a broadly chronological account of themes that have emerged as prominent at different times during this period, pointing, "inter alia," to fears about threats to the humanities, the rise of various forms of instrumentalism and the incorporation of HE institutions and agencies into a common mindset characterised by a preoccupation with marketing and corporate success. The last of these is embodied in the changing format of the newspaper itself and in its own activities as a key player in the HE sector, notably as a sponsor of university rankings and awards. Whilst being sensitive to countervailing tendencies, the authors suggest that the growing instrumentalisation of HE and related cultural shifts represent a changed "structure of feeling" in UK HE. They conclude that the university rankings, awards and other image commodities that are a key part of this changed structure of feeling now play such a substantial role in the cultural life of universities that the norms of both rationality and professional ethics which tended to prevail in deliberations about university strategy 30 years ago may no longer be taken for granted. (Contains 82 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Animals; Humanism; Violence; Trauma; Evolution; Humanities

Abstract:
On January 3, 2012, the "New York Times" featured an article announcing the emergence of the new interdisciplinary field of animal studies, which is spreading across college campuses in new course offerings, new majors, and new undergraduate and graduate programs. This new field grows out of, on the one hand, a long history of scientific research on animals whose cumulative results (animal cognition, animal emotions, animal communication, animal morality) have now decisively blurred the "once-sharp distinction" between human and nonhuman animals, and, on the other hand, the field of cultural studies, which has been focused on "ignored and marginalized humans"--for example, women and minorities who were once considered "outsiders," not quite fully human, and often closer to animals. In the context of violence and trauma, the field of animal studies emerges in recent years not as the latest academic curiosity to be reported, somewhat smugly, in the "New York Times" or as the most recent challenge from within the university to business-as-usual in the crisis-prone humanities. The interdisciplinary field of animal studies emerges as a call to relinquish the habit and the hubris of anthropocentrism and humanism and to broaden the sense of "our time" to include the catastrophe that is the systematic and relentless and ongoing exploitation, abuse, and killing of nonhuman animals. Moreover, the author points out that animal studies calls on individuals to see the deep and abiding connection between how they interact with and treat each other and how they interact with and treat nonhuman others. In this article, the author talks about understanding the problem of human violence by focusing on cultural studies, animal studies, and the promise of posthumanism. (Contains 29 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Productivity; English Departments; Costs; Humanities; Federal Government; Cost Indexes; Citation Analysis; Funding Formulas; Research Needs; Research Opportunities; Research Administration; Financial Support; Agenda Setting; Experimenter Characteristics; Robustness (Statistics); Investment; Value Judgment; Statistical Bias; Intellectual Disciplines

Abstract:
Over the last decade, and in the context of the fiscal crisis in the nation in general and in higher education in particular, a debate has raged over the value of humanities research. Various commentators have argued that unlike nonhumanities disciplines, fields such as English studies and other humanistic disciplines bring very little into their universities. The federal government simply does not fund the National Endowment for the Humanities--the major federal funding agency for humanities research--at a level comparable to that of the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes for Health. This funding inequity in and of itself is an illustration of the society's value system vis-a'-vis the humanities. In this article, the author focuses on a report published at the end of 2011: "Literary Research: Costs and Impact," authored by Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein for the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. The report presents the results of an empirical analysis of faculty productivity: Bauerlein examines the costs of research in four English departments and then juxtaposes those costs to the numbers of citations of works published by faculty in those departments. The author aims to show first how this is a critically flawed study because it is representative of many attacks on the humanities and especially English studies, and because it thus illustrates a set of common assumptions about educators' work as humanists. Then he discusses how educators might better respond to these types of misunderstandings of and attacks on their work. (Contains 4 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Humanities; Computer Uses in Education; College Faculty; Teacher Attitudes; Interdisciplinary Approach; Technological Advancement; Scholarship; Cooperation; Research; Teacher Student Relationship; Web Sites; Integrated Curriculum; Social Networks; Interprofessional Relationship

Abstract:
A persistent criticism of the digital-humanities movement is that it is elitist and exclusive because it requires the resources of a major university (faculty, infrastructure, money), and is thus more suited to campuses with a research focus. Academics and administrators at small liberal-arts colleges may read about DH and, however exciting it sounds, decide that it ill suits their teaching mission. In fact, teaching-focused colleges have significant advantages over research universities in pursuing the digital humanities. With shallower administrative hierarchies and less institutional inertia, liberal-arts colleges can innovate relatively rapidly and at lower cost. They usually have more collegiality across disciplines and divisions, and between faculty and staff members. It's easier to build coalitions and to organize project teams at small colleges. Because of their teaching focus, they have lighter expectations for faculty research: Faculty members are more likely to be able to experiment with projects that may not lead to traditional scholarly publications. Some liberal-arts colleges even have a culture of faculty-student collaborative research, which translates perfectly into the project-building methods of the digital humanities. And the great variety of missions among liberal-arts colleges allows each of them to develop projects serving communities that might otherwise be neglected. All in all, participating in DH is not more difficult at liberal-arts colleges than at research universities; it simply presents a different set of challenges and opportunities. Since 2008 the author has been part of an effort to build a DH program at a liberal-arts college in the Midwest. In this article, he offers some casual suggestions for program building in this emerging field: (1) Stop calling it "digital humanities"; (2) Show how digital humanities supports the liberal arts; (3) Build a support network with like-minded colleagues; (4) Integrate digital humanities into the curriculum; (5) Show how digital techniques support faculty research; (6) Celebrate the accomplishments of students and colleagues; (7) Seek the support of the higher-ups; (8) Invest in faculty and staff development; (9) Seek external partnerships; and (10) Strive to be a "servant leader". Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Time to Degree; College Faculty; Tenure; College Instruction; Graduate Study; Graduate Students; Humanities; Doctoral Programs; Labor Market; Doctoral Dissertations; Academic Persistence; Adjunct Faculty; Employment Potential

Abstract:
Graduate education in the humanities is in crisis. Every aspect, from the most specific details of the curriculum to the broadest questions about its purpose, is in crisis. It is a seamless garment of crisis: If one pulls on any one thread, the entire thing unravels. It is therefore exceptionally difficult to discuss any one aspect of graduate education in isolation. Questions about the function of the dissertation inevitably become questions about the future of scholarly communication; they also entail questions about attrition, time to degree, and the flood of A.B.D.'s, who make up so much of the non-tenure-track and adjunct labor force. Questions about attrition and time to degree open onto questions about the graduate curriculum and the ideal size of graduate programs. Those questions obviously have profound implications for the faculty. So one seamless garment, one complexly interwoven web of trouble. In the humanities, when one talks about the purpose of graduate programs and the career trajectories of graduate students, the discussion devolves almost immediately to the state of the academic job market. Graduate programs in the humanities have been designed precisely to replenish the ranks of the professoriate; that is why they have such a strong research component, also known as the dissertation. But leaving aside a few upticks in the academic job market in the late 1980s and late 1990s, the overall job system in the humanities has been in a state of more or less permanent distress for more than 40 years. Since 1970 doctoral programs have been producing many more job candidates than there are jobs; and yet this is not entirely a supply-side problem, because over those 40 years, academic jobs themselves have changed radically. Of the 1.5 million people now employed in the profession of college teaching, more than one million are teaching off the tenure track, with no hope or expectation of ever winding up on the tenure track. Many of them do not have Ph.D.'s: According to the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (the last such study conducted), 65.2 percent of non-tenure-track faculty members hold the M.A. as their highest degree--57.3 percent teach in four-year institutions, 76.2 percent in two-year institutions (many holding more than one part-time position). Clearly, something about the structure of graduate education in the humanities is broken. Or, more precisely, the system has been redesigned in such a way as to call into question the function of the doctorate as a credential for employment in higher education. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Educational Change; Administrators; Private Colleges; Humanities; College Curriculum; Tuition; Tutoring; College Instruction; College Faculty; College Students; Student Attitudes

Abstract:
This article profiles A.C. Grayling, a British intellectual who pioneers a new model for college. In his role as founder of the New College of the Humanities, Britain's newest and most controversial institution of higher education, A.C. Grayling could have chosen among several titles. The senior academic officer at most English higher-education institutions is known as vice chancellor, with a few rectors and a provost and a president or two in the mix. In Scotland, the customary title is principal. Mr. Grayling, however, has opted for master, an honorific with long antecedents at the colleges that make up England's two oldest universities, Oxford and Cambridge. In June 2011, Mr. Grayling announced his intention to establish the New College of the Humanities, with the involvement--and investment--of a handful of fellow academic celebrities. His goal was to bridge what he sees as the growing gap between higher education and the needs of contemporary society. Though his concerns are echoed by many other critics of mainstream universities, both in Britain and elsewhere, his solution is unique. Unlike so many other recent ventures, Mr. Grayling's attempt to devise a new higher-education paradigm for the 21st century is rooted in the American liberal-arts model and the individualized tutorial system that once prevailed at Oxford and Cambridge. "This is a college for the humanities," he says, and its emphasis on the study of philosophy, history, literature, law, and economics is designed to provide its students with the intellectual equipment that will enable them to organize ideas and muster arguments, even in the face of challenges that "we can't even envisage yet." In marrying those fundamentals of American liberal-arts education to the rigorous training that the classic tutorial system provides, Mr. Grayling says his goal is to create what is sometimes called the T-shaped thinker, one with both breadth and depth. The premise seems simple enough and, especially for an American audience, relatively uncontroversial. But when Mr. Grayling announced what he was planning, there was an outcry. Critics, calling the venture a vanity exercise, accused him of selling a bill of goods to a set of rich kids and undermining the rest of British higher education while he was at it. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Productivity; Higher Education; Evaluation Criteria; Governance; Foreign Countries; Humanities; Global Approach; Competition; Reputation; Benchmarking; Educational Trends; College Faculty; Research; Faculty Publishing; Institutional Evaluation; Educational Policy; Financial Support; Periodicals; Citations (References); Social Sciences; Statistical Analysis; Academic Achievement; Excellence in Education; Student Recruitment

Abstract:
The increasing importance of the competition in global university ranking has resulted in a paradigm shift in academic governance in East Asia. Many governments have introduced different strategies for benchmarking their leading universities to facilitate global competitiveness and international visibility. A major trend in the changing university governance is the emergence of a regulatory evaluation scheme for faculty research productivity, reflected by the striking features of the recent changing academic profile of publication norms and forms that go beyond the territories of nation-states in the East and West. With the expansion of the Taiwanese higher education system in the last two decades, the maintenance of quality to meet the requirements for international competitiveness has become a key concern for policy makers. Since 2005, the Ministry of Education has introduced a series of university governance policies to enhance academic excellence in universities and established a formal university evaluation policy to improve the competitiveness and international visibility of Taiwanese universities. In so doing, the government has legalized a clear link between evaluation results and public funding allocation. Research performance is assessed in terms of the number of articles published in journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index and in terms of citation rates and associated factors. Therefore, evaluation has taken on a highly quantitative dimension. Despite the efforts of concerned parties to encourage academic excellence, the above-mentioned quantitative evaluation indicators have resulted in bitter complaints from the humanities and social sciences, whose research accomplishments are devalued and ignored by the current quantitative indicators. In this paper, the authors describe the recent petition for collective action initiated by university faculty to protest the privileging of SSCI and SCI publications as critical indicators for academic performance regardless of faculty discipline and specialization. The article concludes its argument with a group petition calling for more diverse and reliable indicators in recognizing the research of different natures and disciplines while creating culturally responsive evaluation criteria for social sciences and humanities in the Taiwanese academe. The article not only sheds light on academic evaluation literature, especially on the uncertain paradox of globalization and market economy, but also proposes alternatives to the evaluation system for humanities and social sciences in higher education. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website