Volume 3, Issue 3 (SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2022)                   johepal 2022, 3(3): 108-117 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Andersen H L. (2022). A Clash of Intentions in Higher Education. johepal. 3(3), 108-117. doi:10.52547/johepal.3.3.108
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-251-en.html
Abstract:   (513 Views)
Modern higher education has an obligation to form graduates who can work in new fields, deal with complex problems and contribute with new angles to societal challenges. Consequently, programs should be planned so that students learn to apply disciplinary knowledge to real problems in their surroundings and develop complex cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal skills. For this, quality assurance and clear goal orientation can be helpful tools. Nevertheless, the development of these tools seems to bring education into a direction of predictability where students – and their teachers – lose motivation. The perceived reasons are: detachment from research, heavy administrative tasks, and less room for curiosity and creativity. In relation to this, I wish to discuss how universities, with specific reference to university management systems, can fulfil their mission to educate independent critical thinkers and play an important role in solving the basic problems of society. I will analyse some of the challenges we need to address, mainly in the planning and management of education, including the pedagogical approaches and the relation to the research base and research methods. In order to understand the current tendencies in education today, the challenges of the growing performance culture will be included in the overall picture.
Full-Text [PDF 1625 kb]   (282 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2022/08/3 | Accepted: 2022/09/19 | Published: 2022/09/30

1. Andersen, H. L. (2011). Kommunikation og læring på universitetet. Ryberg, B. (red.) Læringens perspektiv - udfordringer til ledelse og undervisning: Festskrift til Mads Hermansen. København: Akademisk Forlag.
2. Andersen, H. L. (2021). ”Målstyring og dannelsens mulighed” in Brinkmann, S., Rømer, T.A. & Tanggaard, L. (red) Sidste chance. Nye perspektiver på dannelse, Klim.
3. Andersen, H. L., & Bager, L. T. (2012). Alignment – mål og motivation i uddannelser, i Andersen, H.L. & J.C. Jacobsen. Uddannelseskvalitet i en globaliseret verden. København: Samfundslitteratur, 123-137.
4. Andersen, H. L., & Jacobsen, J. C. (2017). Til dannelse eller nytte, Universitetsuddannelser mellem forskningsbaseret faglighed og relevans for arbejdsmarkedet. Frederiksberg: Frydenlund.
5. Andersen, H. L., & Tofteskov, J. (2016). (2d ed.). Eksamen og eksamensformer: bedømmelse og betydning. København: Samfundslitteratur.
6. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33-46. [DOI]
7. Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessment to curriculum objectives. Imaginative Curriculum Project: Learning and Teaching Support Network Generic Centre. [Article]
8. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Vol. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
9. Dolin, J. (2016). Idealer og realiteter i målorienteret undervisning. Cursiv, 19(4), 67-89. [Article]
10. Ford, N. (1986). Psychological determinants of information needs: A small-scale study of higher education students. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 18(1), 47-62. [DOI]
11. Giannini, S. (2020, June 18). Build back better: Education must change after COVID-19 to meet the climate crisis. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/news/build-back-better-education-must-change-after-covid-19-meet-climate-crisis [Article]
12. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562-575. [DOI]
13. Kreber, C. (2013). Authenticity in and through Teaching: The Transformative Potential of the Scholarship of Teaching. Routledge.
14. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77-86. [DOI]
15. Nielsen, K. (2017). Motivation, learning, and the educational dialogue. In A. Qvortrup, & M. Wiberg (Eds.), Dealing with Conceptualisations of Learning, 49-59. SensePublishers. [DOI]
16. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. [DOI]
17. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-118). Cambridge University Press.
18. Spoon, R., Rubenstein, L. D. V., & Terwillegar, S. R. (2021). Team effectiveness in creative problem solving: Examining the role of students’ motivational beliefs and task analyses in team performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100792. [DOI]

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb