Understanding University Teachers Research Articles

Understanding University Teachers’ Perspectives of English Medium Instruction in Indonesia

Despite the massive growth of universities offering EMI in non-Anglophone countries including Indonesia, there is little research regarding the underlying rationales for the implementation of EMI and the perceptions of lecturers in relation to the enactment of EMI. Several studies have also highlighted the absence of official guidelines for EMI in this context, which has contributed to the dissimilar practices of EMI among Indonesian universities. This case study aimed to find out the underpinning rationales for the implementation of EMI at the Indonesian universities. It also aimed to investigate how lecturers at the Indonesian universities perceived the implementation of EMI. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine non-English lecturers from both state and private Indonesian universities. The results of this study showed that some factors, including promoting university internationalisation, enhancing academic reputations, and taking part in international competitions, were found to underpin the implementation of EMI. In addition, this study also underlined the issue of internationalisation in relation to Englishisation and its impacts on EMI. In this study, the participants' use of the Indonesian language intended to facilitate communication and understanding of content learning could also be seen as a way to value multilingual practices. Therefore, this study suggests that the Indonesian linguistic ecology where Bahasa Indonesia and English co-exist with the hundreds of local languages should be taken into consideration in the educational language policy-making.

The process of designing for [online] learning: response to Bennett et al.

This article examines practical implications of the work by Bennett et al. (Educational Technology Research and Development 65(1):125–145, 2017) entitled, “The process of designing for learning: Understanding university teachers’ design work”. It addressed the knowledge gap of design practices of university faculty by conducting an extensive qualitative study with 30 interviewees. Three design practices reported that are incremental and iterative. Understanding these common design practices is critical to effectively and efficiently support faculty with transferring their instruction online when many institutions face the challenge of supporting a large number of inexperienced faculty with transferring instructions online. Based on the findings, three stages of support can be devised for before, during, and after sessions. Given the non-systematic cyclic design process of the teachers, need-based, just-in-time support and resources may be helpful. Although the reported process is not specifically for online learning design, the findings may contribute to establishing best practices for supporting faculty’s online learning design.

The shift to digital: designing for learning from a culturally relevant interactive media perspective.

In the midst of a global pandemic, higher education saw a modality shift to online learning that caused panic and discomfort as many instructors lacked the skills, resources, and didactic aptitude in this response (Lederman, The shift to remote learning: The human element. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/25/how-shift-remote-learning-might-affect-students-instructors-and, 2020). The current review discusses the impact of this article for successful learning design as well as applications, limitations, constraints and future suggestions during the COVID-19 era. Specifically, this paper is in response to the article entitled, “The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work” (Bennett et al., The process of designing for learning: Understanding university teachers’ design work. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 125–145. 10.1007/s11423-016-9469-y, 2017). The impact of the article under review can provide a roadmap to expert instruction with its focus on flexibility across interdisciplinary higher education fields of knowledge. In application, the findings of Bennett and her colleagues work, suggested designing for efficiency, broad considerations to specific details, and design and refining processes. The limitations of the current study under review, included having participants remember particular experiences of design with one-off interviews and no significant follow up. Given the aforementioned limitation, the next stage of research could be to develop a more explanatory and then prescriptive study to explore the rationale behind design decisions and strengthen implications. The descriptive framework of the current study allows educators and students opportunities to co-design authentic meaning making experiences given cultural relevant pedagogy. Ultimately, the current review concludes from a learning design perspective that focuses on culturally relevant educational ecosystems and interactive media.

University teachers’ design work: implications for an urgent shift to digital

This is a response to Bennett et al.’s (2016) “The Process of Designing for Learning: Understanding University Teachers’ Design Work.” We examine this study of faculty approaches to course design in order to connect the authors’ findings to implications for course design practices in the current context of shifting courses online. The design processes of experienced faculty are the primary subjects of the study, which may have implications for how institutions approach supporting faculty efforts to design courses under time constraints. However, research shows that less experienced faculty may be unprepared to effectively redesigning courses under time constraints. The primary approaches to course design are the individual approach, where a faculty designer follows his or her own design process and the centralized or team approach, where a subject matter expert joins an instructional designer and/or additional educational design or technology specialists to develop courses. Institutions need to consider how much of their faculty have 10 years or more of experience in order to determine which approach would work best.

Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: a human-centered approach.

This paper is in response to the article entitled “The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work” (Bennett et al., Educ Tech Res Dev 65:125–145, 2017). Bennett et al. (Educ Tech Res Dev 65:125–145) present a descriptive model of the design process that reports findings from a qualitative study investigating the design processes of 30 instructors from 16 Australian universities through semi-structured interviews. This exploratory study provides rich, contextualized descriptions about university teachers’ design process and pinpoints key design characteristics as top-down, breadth-first, iterative, responsive, and reflective. These key design characteristics revealed by the rich contextual descriptions could provide applicable insights into the design process especially for new instructors. The findings of the study could inform how learning design could be adapted during an emergency remote teaching (ERT) as it is dynamic and open to revision. A noteworthy limitation of the study is that complementary data such as design artifacts could be utilized to ensure data triangulation in addition to self-reported data obtained via interviews. The study found that university instructors’ design process did not appear to draw on instructional design models. Therefore, future studies could focus on to what extent and how such models could be used by university instructors. Lastly, future studies may explore how technology is used in ERT design to support their needs. In this article, I share how design can be informed by humanizing pedagogy and pedagogy of care during ERT.

Build, buy, or rent? A systems view of faculty design work in the digital learning era.

To suggest sound practices in obtaining the faculty design talent needed to rapidly deploy or scale up digital learning, this paper adopts a systems view of the findings and implications of “The Process of Designing for Learning: Understanding University Teachers’ Design Work” by Bennett et al. (Educational Technology Research and Development 65(1), 125–145, 2017). Bennett et al.’s article makes an important contribution to our growing understanding of faculty capacity for and approaches to course design. Their work establishes faculty roles as designers, which is an essential consideration as institutions seek digital design talent. Nevertheless, important limitations of their research are limited detail about faculty design skills and an emphasis on how faculty design resembles others’ design approaches. This paper suggests specific ways that institutions can apply and extend insights from Bennett et al.’s research to cultivate faculty design talents in nimble responses to large-scale or rapid shifts to digital learning through practices of professional development and strategic faculty hiring.

Designing for emergency remote blended and online education: a response to Bennett et al. (2017)

This paper is in response to the article entitled “The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work” (Bennett et al. in Educ Technol Res Dev 65(1):125–145, 2017). Design constitutes a fundamental part of what teachers do (Goodyear in HERDSA Rev Higher Educ 2:27–50, 2015). However, it has received negligible attention in the research literature. Bennett et al. make a significant contribution to knowledge by identifying and illustrating how university teachers engage in educational design. In particular, the paper identifies key areas for further support and the professional development of university teachers, including in the use of systematic design models and tools. This will help university teachers significantly, especially during the current pandemic has increased the design workload of university teachers as they endeavour to migrate and transtion their teaching online. Our response discusses Bennett et al. (2017) in the context of emergency remote teaching and the wholesale shift to new modalities of blended and online education. We also offer future suggestions arising from our review, including the importance of further international research on the topic.

Informing designs for learning when shifting to digital

This paper is a response and considers practical and design implications of the article, The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work by Bennett et al. (Educ Technol Res Dev 65:125–145, 2017). Bennett et al. guide us in better understanding teachers’ design practices and in discussions on how such practices could be improved. A key contribution of the article is presenting a descriptive model of the design process. As such, the article is focused on teachers’ current design work, while giving more limited attention to how teachers’ design practice could be improved. When looking forward, this response emphasizes that teachers should be encouraged to inform their designs for learning and iteratively improve their designs based on reflection and evaluation. If teachers take time to look into what is known and deliberately learn more along the way through reflection and evaluation, they will improve their understanding of how to design for learning.

The process of designing for learning: understanding university teachers’ design work

Interest in how to support the design work of university teachers has led to research and development initiatives that include technology-based design-support tools, online repositories, and technical specifications. Despite these initiatives, remarkably little is known about the design work that university teachers actually do. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study that investigated the design processes of 30 teachers from 16 Australian universities. The results show design as a top-down iterative process, beginning with a broad framework to which detail is added through cycles of elaboration. Design extends over the period before, while, and after a unit is taught, demonstrating the dynamic nature of design and highlighting the importance of reflection in teachers’ design practice. We present a descriptive model of the design process, which we relate to conceptualizations of higher education teaching and learning, and compare with the characteristics of general design and instructional design. We also suggest directions for future research and development.

How Do Elementary School Teachers Plan? The Nature of Planning and Influences on It

The Elementary School Journal Volume 81, Number 1 ? 1980 by The University of Chicago 0013-5984/81/8101-0008$0o1.00 In colleges and universities across the country, prospective and practicing teachers and administrators take courses on planning-curriculum-planning and instructional planning. During the courses, teachers and administrators usually study an objectives-first model of curriculumplanning. This model has four steps. Planners are expected to 1. Formulate objectives 2. Choose appropriate learning activities