Search

Design thinking is often proposed as an educative strategy to enhance growth mindset, problem solving, and creativity, but there are very few evaluations of the impact of experiential design thinking programs. The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether an online design-thinking workshop provided to outdoor education staff could improve their design-thinking traits. The pilot program was delivered over a 6-week period and comprised four, 2-hour sessions, in which teams worked together to actively engage in the steps of the design thinking process. Significant improvements were observed in participants' growth mindset and design thinking process—specifically, feedback seeking. Furthermore, design thinking was strongly correlated with growth mindset and cognitive flexibility; two constructs previously theorised to be associated with design thinking. This study provides a framework for constructing online design thinking workshops and how to effectively evaluate participant outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responding to student demand for flexibility in the delivery of classes as well as the potential barriers and enabling factors supporting student success, universities have introduced distinctive educational models, including replacing the standard 12-week, sequential delivery of units of study with 4- or 8-week blocks of one or two units at a time (Block Model). Most Block Model delivery and evaluation has been at the undergraduate level. The aim of this study was to investigate, via individual interviews, university staff experiences of teaching the Block Model at the postgraduate level. Staff affirmed that the Block Model resulted in high levels of engagement in teaching and learning; effective learning management systems; and up-to-date, engaging, and problem-based module design. However, staff also recognised the timetabling of units for students who were employed or had family commitments, and the cognitive burden carried by time-poor staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review examines academic literature published between 2012 and 2022 on micro-credential research and practices in higher education. A deductive analysis of empirical evidence from the 29 included articles offers insights into awareness, benefits, challenges, effectiveness, and factors influencing effectiveness of micro-credentials in the sector. The results suggest that there are potential benefits for including micro-credentials in higher education. The findings also highlight that micro-credentials are not a micro task for students to complete or for higher education providers to successfully implement. Micro-credentials in higher education, however, are still at the early stage of development, and further research is required to evaluate their viability and effectiveness in the long term. The review carries implications for micro-credential research and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

University rankings often include surveys that involve self-assessments, but little is known about the effects of these self-assessments on results. This paper tests for the existence of leniency effects and differential leniency effects, terms borrowed from the performance assessment literature, with a data set of ratings and rankings of Australian university disciplines by Australian academics. It finds support for the leniency effect - these academics rate and rank their own universities higher than others do. It finds less support, however, for the differential leniency effect - academics at the lower-rated universities do not seem to overrate their universities more than do academics from the higher-rated universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over 20 years ago, the first university rankings entered public attention in the United States. Since then, there have been numerous other efforts to rank or rate universities or university departments. University report cards have become both popular with the public and increasingly important for academic institutions. A detailed examination of 10 report cards from around the world, which evaluate and focus on either undergraduate choice or overall standing, finds that the various schemes share broad principles and approaches but differ considerably in details. Many of these variations are attributable to differences in aims, higher education systems and cultures, and the availability and reliability of data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]