Report of Faculty Experiences When Team Teaching in Higher Education

This article continues the project of current authors (Malak & Gambescia, 2023) who learned about the personalities, leadership styles, and pedagogical preferences of higher education instructors that have collaborated on lessons, by expanding the analysis to the experiences of team teaching in the areas of best, worse, and overall experiences in the teaching/learning process. Thirty-five faculty who had team taught in the past completed an online survey responding to 16 questions related to their team-teaching experience, using a Likert Scale rating and several open-ending questions. Respondents found that the most benefit from the experience was in collaborating with the other faculty member as opposed to benefits to the student. Furthermore, in this collaboration faculty found satisfaction in the planning and building of components in the teaching/learning process to provide a quality course versus activities related to students such as building better relationships and activities related to assessing students’ work. External influences and benefits to self that were not related to the other faculty member or student interaction were not evident. Given these results, we believe that a significant characteristic of any faculty member involved in team teaching is knowing how to lead and knowing how to follow

Nature and Extent of Catholic Identity Communicated through Official Websites of U.S. Catholic Colleges and Universities

No abstract provided

Best practice in syllabus construction with a commitment to shared governance

The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 54(1): pp. 20-27.The course syllabus has been one of the most recognized tools that facilitate the teaching and learning process in higher education. Historically it has represented the intellectual capital provided by the knowledgeable and well-credentialed instructor. In a practical sense, the syllabus has become better known as the prelude to and roadmap for students to understand what they “will have to do” to complete a course. More recently, the syllabus has become the agreement or even the legal contract between student and instructor and sometimes between the student and the institution. If a student stays enrolled in a course, de facto he/she agrees to abide by the syllabus. Similarly, an instructor agrees to follow and execute in good faith the terms of the syllabus as presented. When grievances arise, the syllabus becomes a core document for inspection by academic administrators. Therefore, a closer look at best practices in syllabus construction is warranted

Team Teaching in Higher Education: Personalities, Leadership Styles, and Preferences

Objective: This study aims to find out more about a) certain personality types, leadership styles, and teaching philosophies of those who have participated in team teaching, as well as b) their preferences for team teaching. These preliminary results ought to be helpful to faculty who may be asked to consider team teaching with a colleague(s), and results may help academic administrators assign and match faculty to team teach courses in their program offerings.Background: Given that few faculty have had the opportunity to team teach relative to the numerous courses they offer solo, there is a lack of focus, faculty development opportunities, and research on this subject. This does not, however, diminish the value of this method of delivering courses in higher education. Faculty may explore collaborative teaching in a number of ways, such as inviting a colleague to provide a one-time guest lecture, distributing assignments according to the collaborators' specialized knowledge, or working together on every part of the course.Methods: Using previously developed Myers-Briggs personality type finders and leadership style research tools, the participants' leadership and personality types were identified (Malak et al., 2022). People's experiences with teaching and preferences for leading vs. following were mapped using both qualitative (self-report) and quantitative (survey) approaches.Results: Sixty-three percent of the respondents identified as utilizing either servant leadership or coaching/mentoring. The majority of "E" type personalities like to "Lead," especially in a team-teaching atmosphere, according to this study's findings. The traditional team-teaching method was adopted by 49% of the participants, while 26% used cooperative learning, 11% used integrated learning, 9% used parallel learning, and the remaining 6% used monitoring learning. It is important to highlight that more than 60% of the subjects who had "E" qualities had backgrounds in nursing, public health, health administration, or health care.Conclusions: In summary, the faculty survey data reveal an overall profile of the faculty who have team taught in higher education as an extrovert with a penchant for judging; who prefers to lead rather than follow; uses a coaching/mentoring or servant leadership style; and prefers high level cooperation with a colleague(s) in the full range of teaching/learning activities

Best practice protocol for handling academic honesty issues with adult students

The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 55(1): pp. 47-55

Review of prior learning assessment options for adult continuing education degree programs

Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 55 (3): pp. 35-48

Current administrative structures used for online degree program offerings in higher education

Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, X(III)Online distance learning or distributed learning (i.e., learning via the Internet and the World Wide Web) can be regarded as one of the fastest mainstreamed instructional delivery systems and technologies introduced in higher education. Naturally with such a fast introduction of a radically new instructional innovation, major stakeholders were quick to assess distance learning via the Internet for its quality, academic standards, affect on accreditation, institutional strategic opportunities, pedagogical potential, and market value potential. I t is evident that colleges and universities see online distance learning as part of their strategic plans and initiatives. Therefore, more attention should be given to how best to structure distance learning programs within higher education organizations. This study identified the range of general administrative structures that universities are currently using in offering online degree programs. A typology is identified that accounts for the extent and nature of these general administrative structures through our analyzing 239 universities selected for offering at least one graduate degree fully online. The study looked at the launch date trends as they relate to selection of one of the six general administrative structures emerging into a typology: 1) Academic Department; 2) Continuing Education/Professional Studies Unit; 3)Distance Education Unit; 4) Consortium; 5) Alliance and 6) Outsource. We learned that 90 percent of schools in our study are delivering their online degree programs with an Internally-based administrative arrangement. Only 10 percent of the schools we investigated are using some type of External administrative structure to offer their online degree programs. More specifically, when we look at the locus of control for internally-based administrative programs, we see that 62 percent of those schools analyzed for this study still have the academic departments in control. When examining the frequency of launch dates for the respective Internal administrative structures for the yearly range 1998 to 2004, we found two significant trends: The decrease in the Department as a chosen Internal administrative structure and the more recent popularity of the Distance Education Unit as the chosen administrative structure. Findings from this research corroborate, clarify, or correct findings from prior research that looked at administrative structures used for online degree programs. Research limitations are given. Authors outline their areas for further investigation

Enlightenment thinking could bring health care for all americans

Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly 28 (1/2): pp. 19-23.Many health care groups are giddy about the prospect of real national health care reform, following the Democratic takeover of both Congressional chambers in January 2007. Taking this cue, the several presidential campaigns give priority to health care reform and are, therefore, slowly divulging their plans. Recalling President and Mrs. Clinton’s efforts of fifteen years ago, presidential hopefuls of today perceive this as an opportunity to advance a Democratic “core value”: universal health care. President Bush and some Republican Congressional members understandably have their own ideas regarding how to slow the increase in costs of health care, to insure more people, and (generally) to assist the system to “heal thyself.” Getting health care reform onto a “national agenda” is a vital first step to improving the health care of all Americans, but keeping it there and making significant change is of far greater import. Thus, if the latest national health care reform movement follows the perfunctory political stream, the result will be yet another set of incremental policy changes that add more complexity, but these changes will provide little improvement to a system very much in distress. We must get serious about true health care reform