Advertisement

University Teaching as Situated Work: Imagining, Experimenting, and Working for Change

  • Leonie RowanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Research focused on university teaching has previously highlighted the ways in which students appear to respond positively to staff with particular kinds of personalities. Attributing student engagement to the phenomenon of personality, however, fails to acknowledge the embodied nature of the work of university teachers. Contesting the idea that teaching is an example of personality-in-public, this chapter explores the way that a focus on the work of teaching contributes to transformative educational agendas associated with the creation of educationally and socially just futures.

Keywords

Higher education pedagogy Social justice Student satisfaction Relationship-centred education Educational philosophy Decision making Situated actions Academic work Academic identity Academic personality Academic performance Subjectivity Change Experiments Hope Freedom 

References

  1. Baker, P., & Copp, M. (1997). Gender matters most: The interaction of gendered expectations, feminist course content, and pregnancy in students’ course evaluations. Teaching Sociology, 25(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Delucchi, M. (2000). Don’t worry, be happy: Instructor likeability, student perceptions of learning, and teacher ratings in upper-level sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 22(3), 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080022000013518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Gladwell, M. (2002). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York, NY: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  6. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Nixon, E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2016). Her majesty the student: Marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis)satisfactions of the student-consumer. Studies in Higher Education, 43(6), 927–943.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1196353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s lie. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Rowan, L., & Bigum, C. (2016). A professional sensibility to the digital: Insights from a full stack approach to innovation. Retrieved from https://www.chrisbigum.com/downloads/wp_7.pdf.
  10. Rowan, L., & Grootenboer, P. (Eds.). (2017). Student engagement and educational rapport in higher education. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  11. Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109–132.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03258963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructural theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia

Personalised recommendations