Search results

The thrust of this essay is that there is an increasing emphasis on the capabilities graduates need to have. We live in a changing, complex world and so post‐secondary programs need to equip students with the capacity to adapt their learning into working in a variety of new situations. Planning for the unknown is always tricky and needs to be done with care. Using technology in designing post‐secondary programs provides new opportunities but also adds another layer of complexity. Four aspects considered essential are: defining what we are asking students to ultimately achieve (graduate capabilities); designing at both program and course levels; working together in teams (the complexity demands that); and obtaining evidence that we are on the right track.

In this paper teaching excellence awards are evaluated, with an eye to improving them.

Literature is reviewed and an analytic framework developed in Canada is modified to apply to the University of Sydney's Vice Chancellor Outstanding Teaching Award. Data come from 60 respondents familiar with the Sydney award and web research on the Australian Group of Eight research‐intensive universities.

Among the conclusions reached are that the Sydney award is supported even by those who have been unsuccessful in applying for it, that awards alone do not make teaching the equal to research in a university that identifies itself as a research university, awards that integrate into the university's strategic direction are powerful, and that awards that have a continuing profile ease that integration.

Along the way, several contentious points are discussed including the relationship of awards to promotion and the importance of pedagogic awareness of the reflective practitioner in picking out outstanding teachers who can articulate their approach to benefit others and to integrate with the larger purposes of the university beyond their own classroom.

Some practical means to enhance the impact of teaching awards are identified.

The current work aims to introduce the concept of conflict perception and construct a scale that measures individual differences in perceptions about conflicts along religious, national and material dimensions. The concept and the measure are developed in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

The research design combines three methodological elements: 14 focus groups in Israel and the West Bank, which represent diversity in place of residence, religion, age and political background; an expert panel review; and a survey of 411 student respondents that was conducted between September 29 and October 9, 2013, among university students in Israel and Palestine.

The findings show that conflict perception is an individual’s subjective view regarding the essence of the conflict and its central issues, the identities of the parties involved and their motivations, which may include material, ideological or symbolic motives, or any combination thereof. A novel scale consisting of five statements that can measure conflict perception that was developed, validated and implemented via a survey sample showed that Palestinians in the West Bank and in Israel have a religious perception of the conflict, whereas Jews have a national perception of the conflict.

First, the paper introduces a new concept that sheds additional light on the micro foundations of peoples’ attitudes in conflict situations. Second, it develops and validates a measurement tool for conflict perception that may be usable, with necessary adjustments, in other conflicts. Third, it demonstrates that parties to the conflict do not necessarily share similar perceptions about the conflict, a finding with far-reaching consequences for conflict resolution at both the scholarly and policy levels.