No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Evaluation of teaching in higher education is an important, yet difficult, process for deans, other administrators and teachers. The purpose of this dissertation is to advance helpful ideas to those who are charged with the responsibility to judge teaching, and to those who are being judged. A rethinking of four central questions ((1) What is education? (2) What is teaching? (3) Can we teach? (4) Are we doing a good job teaching?) is accomplished with help from the work of Hannah Arendt, Joseph Epstein, Louis Hartz, Richard Hofstadter, Robert Pirsig, Plato, Jean-Paul Sartre and others. A significant issue raised by these four questions is the whole notion of quality and excellence. In addition, judgment itself is explored through Kant's ideas of purposiveness and exemplary validity. The particular stories of three teachers in higher education are given wherein they relate their attitudes toward the four central questions, reflections on their best teachers from higher education and their ideas about quality and excellence in teaching. In conclusion, a review of several approaches or reactions taken toward evaluations is presented. Through this rethinking process it is learned that deans, administrators and teachers need to, and can, take evaluation of teaching seriously. A framework of ideas, including excellence in teaching, philosophical agreement, shared judgment and hope for the future, and an experiment in thought which outlines a possible approach to the essentials in an evaluation process is provided to help us start anew in evaluating teaching. From this framework of ideas and the thought experiment, further research could implement the experiment and monitor the experiences. In all evaluations, the underlying notion of the pursuit and recognition of excellence in teaching must remain intact.

The purpose of this phenomenological inquiry was to explore how graduate students in education programs at a large, public university in the Southeastern United States perceived and interpreted their informal learning experiences from listening to podcasts. Guided by a conceptual framework comprised of Andragogy, Uses and Gratifications, and King's Reflective Action Research Model, this qualitative investigation, conducted during the COVID-19 lockdown of 2020, utilized in-depth Zoom interviews with 15 graduate students in education programs. The participants' constructed personal narratives revealed four distinguishable educative benefits of podcast listenership: Educative Engagement and Enhancement, Self-Directed Convenience, Parasocial Perspective Gathering, and Educative Growth Through Challenge and Conflict. In addition, four educative meaning making themes emerged from participants' informal educational experiences listening to podcasts: Educative Conversation, Practical Application Through Contextual Reflection, Educative Exploration and Discovery, and Personalized Curriculum Construction. The findings, which highlight the potential connection of informal and formal learning experiences through podcast listenership, are discussed in relation to the relevant literature. Recommendations for practice and future research are provided.

Mergers are not uncommon in higher education, yet the phenomenon has rarely been the subject of research. Although some private sector combinations have been the focus of inquiry, there is a notable lack of study of mergers involving public institutions of higher education. This work concentrates on public sector mergers in Massachusetts for the period 1964-1985. The project shows that a critical dichotomy in understanding the nature of merger exists between institutional and public participants in the merger process. At the institutional level, the focus of attention is on the relatively narrow matters of organizational structure and integrity, while the makers of public policy are concerned with the larger issue of service to constituents. As a result of this disparity in perspective, institutional representatives may fail to understand the larger public policy context of the merger process. Merger in the public sector is ultimately a matter of public policy, not just a characteristic of institutional development and evolution. This historical analysis examines four separate public mergers: A 1964 combination of two former textile schools that created the present Southeastern Massachusetts University; a 1975 merger of a technological institute (and former textile school) and a state college that produced the University of Lowell; a 1981 union of an urban campus of a state university and a state college that expanded the University of Massachusetts at Boston, and a 1985 consolidation of a community college and a technical institute that led to a diversified Massasoit Community College.

This study interviewed four faculty members (two-year public and private, four-year public and private) who participated in ongoing cooperative education programs in 1990 in four colleges in Massachusetts. This study was designed to interview and discuss faculty benefits in order to gather and document information necessary to improve and expand involvement of faculty for future growth and success of cooperative education programs. Research was conducted during the Spring Semester of 1990. The study determined there were not many differences between the subjects in the perceptions of benefits. Though there were some which were primarily between the two and four-year faculty on whether or not faculty involved in cooperative education helps to evaluate individual student progress in the classroom. There was also a disagreement as to involvement aiding in the faculty promotion process. There was disagreement between the two-year faculty and four-year faculty as to cooperative education providing opportunities for new research. There was also disagreement in involvement of faculty in cooperative education helps in gaining a favorable tenure recommendation. The two-year faculty and the four-year faculty disagree on whether cooperative education provides faculty with the opportunity to review and evaluate the overall curriculum offered by the institution. There was also disagreement as to whether involvement in cooperative education by faculty creates consulting opportunities. There was a general consensus that cooperative education offers certain benefits (e.g., research) but are utilized differentially. Overall, all faculty were positive about cooperative education, but see a need for help (clerical, administrative, etc.). In summary, it is apparent that an examination of cooperative education benefits to faculty was worthwhile and important. Faculty do perceive benefits to incorporating cooperative education learning experiences. The benefits faculty perceived were academic related, classroom learning is enhanced, a better relationship with students develops, and self-growth. If cooperative education is to continue to grow and prosper, an understanding of faculty benefits will aid in its development and utilization.