No abstract

In higher education, faculty work is typically enacted—and rewarded—on an individual basis. Efforts to promote collaboration run counter to the individual and competitive reward systems that characterize higher education. Mentoring initiatives that promote faculty collaboration and support also defy the structural and cultural norms of higher education. Collaborative mentoring initiatives, however, support all faculty to be lifelong learners. We analyze a reciprocal model of mentoring—a community of practice for mentoring—that integrates collaborative mentoring into faculty's daily work. Additionally, we examine the dilemmas, benefits, and costs of institutionalizing a community of practice model for mentoring in higher education. Our analyses indicate that communities of practice can be fruitful sites of mentoring for all faculty when members mutually engage in shared practices required by the institution. Additionally, such communities nurture relationships and emotional support that sustain engagement in practice and reduce isolation. Given these benefits, we argue that communities of practice should be publically recognized at the institutional level as viable mechanisms for faculty mentoring and learning. Institutions of higher education must explicitly support a campus culture of collaboration and lifelong learning. Findings offer guidance for faculty and center for teaching and learning (CTL) interested in starting or participating in communities of practice.

This article examines a multiyear project funded by the Teagle Foundation to assess student learning in humanitarian studies. It explores outcomes derived from developing a collaborative learning approach to humanitarian action that emphasizes both cross-campus and cross-institutional peer-to-peer learning and exchange. Faculty, staff, and students from Fairfield, Fordham, and Georgetown Universities worked together as members of the Jesuit Universities Humanitarian Action Network (JUHAN) to design an innovative and comprehensive assessment process for curricular programs in humanitarian studies, as well as courses with significant humanitarian content. In particular, we focus on the value of establishing cognitive and affective learning objectives, developing tools and methods to assess learning (for example, rubrics and vignettes), demonstrating use of these tools through piloting and data analysis, and closing the assessment "loop." As the first of its kind assessment strategy for humanitarian studies at the undergraduate level, we argue that these efforts make important inroads in establishing a common baseline for measuring learning in the burgeoning field of humanitarian studies. They also contribute to preparing individuals for futures in the humanitarian profession and to becoming "men and women for and with others."

No abstract

No abstract