The ‘naked’ syllabus as a model of faculty development: is this the missing link in Higher Education?

References

• Ashwin, P. (2009). Analysing teaching-learning interactions in Higher Education accounting for structure and agency. Continuum International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Banta, T. W., Pike, G. R., & Hansen, M. J. (2009). The use of engagement data in accreditation, planning, and assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141(141), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.284
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, H. C. (2005). White paper: Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved from: https://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/JAAL-REFLECT3.pdf [Accessed on 02/01/2022]
   Google Scholar
• Bers, T., Davis, D., & Taylor, W. (1996). Syllabus analysis: Are we teaching and telling our students? Assessment Update, 8(6), 14–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.3650080602
   Google Scholar
• Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the life course: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education 1, 5–22. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from www.herdsa.org.au/herdsa-review-higher-education-vol-1/5-22
   Google Scholar
• Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandes, D., & Ginnis, P. (2001). A guide to student centred learning. Nelson Thrones.
   Google Scholar
• Brown Wilson, C., & Slade, C. (2020). From consultation and collaboration to consensus: Introducing an alternative model of curriculum development. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(2), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1584897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciesielkiewicz, M. (2019). The use of e-portfolios in higher education: From the students’ perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 29(3), 649–667. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from https://www.iier.org.au/iier29/ciesielkiewicz.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2017). Where student engagement meets faculty development: How student-faculty pedagogical partnership fosters a sense of belonging. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 1(2), 3. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/cook
   Google Scholar
• Cook-Sather, A. (2009). ‘I am not afraid to listen’: Prospective teachers learning from students. Theory Into Practice, 48(3), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840902997261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doolittle, P. E., & Siudzinski, R. A. (2010). Recommended syllabus components: What do higher education faculty include in their syllabi? Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 21(3), 29–61.
   Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, J., Milton, P., & Crawford, C. (2010). The Search for Competence in the 21st Century. Quest Journal, 2. Retrieved from: https://www.yrdsb.ca/Programs/PLT/Quest/Journal/2010-Search-for-Competence-in-the-21st-Century.pdf [Accessed on 02/01/2022]
   Google Scholar
• Eberly, M. B., Newton, S. E., & Wiggins, R. A. (2001). The syllabus as a tool for student-centered learning. The Journal of General Education, 50(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2001.0003
   Google Scholar
• Evans, N., Stevenson, R. B., Lasen, M., Ferreira, J. A., & Davis, J. (2017). Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education. A synthesis of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 405–417 doi:10.1016/J.TATE.2017.01.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfolo, B. T., & L’Huillier, B. (2015). Demystifying assessment: The road to accreditation. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – Third Quarter, 15(4), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v12i3.9303
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hellenic Authority for Higher Education (HAHE) (2022) Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.ethaae.gr/en/quality-assurance/what-is-the-evaulation [Accessed on 02/01/2022]
   Google Scholar
• Hudd, S. (2003). Syllabus under construction: Involving students in the creation of class assignments. Teaching Sociology, 31(2), 195–202. doi:10.2307/3211308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jongbloed, B., Vossensteyn, H., van Vught, F., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2018). Transparency in Higher Education: The emergence of a new perspective on higher education governance. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, and R. Pricopie (Eds.), European Higher Education area: The impact of past and future policies (pp. 441–454). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77407-7_27
   Google Scholar
• Kay, J., Dunne, E., & Hutchinson, J. (2010). Rethinking the values of higher education – Students as change agents? QAA. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from www.qaa.ac.uk/students/studentengagement/undergraduate.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Levy, P., Little, S., & Whelan, N. (2011). Perspectives on staff-student partnership in learning, research and educational enhancement. In S. Little (Ed.), Staff-student partnerships in higher education (pp. 1–15). Continuum International.
   Google Scholar
• Little, S. (ed.). (2011). Staff-student partnerships in higher education. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• LUBICZ-NAWROCKA, Tanya. Co-Creation of the Curriculum: Challenging the Status Quo to Embed Partnership. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 2, dec. (2017). ISSN 2055-4990. Available at: <https://journals.studentengagement.org.uk/index.php/studentchangeagents/article/view/529/520> [Accessed: 06/01/2022]. doi:10.21100/jeipc.v3i2.529
   Google Scholar
• Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2018). From partnership to self-authorship: The benefits of co-creation of the curriculum. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3207
   Google Scholar
• McKeachie, W. J. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (11th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & A. M. Huberman. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, J. (2004). Linking levels, learning outcomes and assessment criteria; case study. European Higher Education Area. Rertieved February 2, 2021, from. http://ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/Learning_Outcomes_Edinburgh_2004/77/4/040701-02Linking_Levels_plus_ass_crit-Moon_577774.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, K. L., & Oesterreich, H. A. (2013). Student-centred inquiry as curriculum as a model for field-based teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 394–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.719550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pegg, J. (2014). Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) Model. In: Lerman S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_182
   Google Scholar
• QAA. (2012). UK quality code for higher education. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/uk-quality-code-for-higher-education-chapter-b5-student-engagement#.WBe3_C2LSUk
   Google Scholar
• Rajala, A., Kumpulainen, K., Rainio, A.P., Hilppö, J., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Dealing with the contradiction of agency and control during dialogic teaching. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 17–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve, J., & Shin, S. H. (2019). How Teachers Can Support Students’ Agentic Engagement. Theory Into Practice, 59(02), 150–161. doi:10.1080/00405841.2019.1702451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, C. (2012). Student engagement: What does this mean in practice in the context of higher education institutions? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 4(2), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/17581181211273039
   Google Scholar
• Roseler, K., Paul, C. A., Felton, M., & Theisen, C. H. (2018). Observable features of active science education practices. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47 (6), 83–91. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/observable-features-active-science-education/docview/2065276773/se-2?accountid=17198
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schuetz, P. (2008). A theory-driven model of community college student engagement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(4–6), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701884349
   Google Scholar
• Shah, T., Patel, M. A., & Shah, H. (2017). A comparative study on the teaching effectiveness of chalk & talk versus Microsoft PowerPoint presentation- An institution based pilot study of physiotherapy students. International Journal of Current Research Reviews, 9(11), 40–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.7324/IJCRR.2017.9118
   Google Scholar
• Singh, N., & Phoon, C. K. L. (2021). Not yet a dinosaur: The chalk talk. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00126.2020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). http://cie.asu.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Watson, P. (2002). The role and integration of learning outcomes into the educational process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787402003003002
   Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. J. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 11(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994
   Google Scholar
• Willms, J. D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. (First National Report) Canadian Education Association.
   Google Scholar
• Windham, C. (2005). The Student’s Perspective. In D. Oblinger, and J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 5.1-5.16). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved December 2010, from http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
   Google Scholar
• Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Butler, P. (2010). Student engagement: What is it and what influences it? Teaching & Learning Research Initiative. Wellington, N.Z.: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/92 [Accessed on 02/01/2022]
   Google Scholar
• Zhidong, B. (2012). An Exploration of the driving force behind teacher resistance to curriculum change. In S. Chen & M. Kompf (Eds.), Chinese scholars on western ideas about thinking, leadership, reform and development in education. Critical issues in the future of learning and teaching (Vol. 7). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-010-1_14
   Google Scholar