Agree or not agree?

As educators, our primary objective is to provide impactful and effective learning experiences that reflect our areas of expertise. However, assigning faculty to teach subjects outside their specialization detracts from this objective and jeopardizes the overall quality of education. Teaching transcends mere content delivery; it involves interpreting the subject matter and assisting students in navigating intricate concepts. Assigning courses to individuals needing more in-depth knowledge of the subject is not only pedagogically unsound but also unprofessional, ultimately harming both students and faculty. Universities must prioritize aligning courses with faculty expertise to cultivate genuine learning environments.

We understand that due to the economics of the education syndrome factor, these practices are being avoided by stubborn administrators to save bucks at the expense of faking the ongoing narrative: student-centered learning, teacher well-being, increasing motivations, etc. How can we expect engagement and integration when we don't respect and seriously consider the faculty profile?

Once again, K12 prices are being transferred blindly (maybe purposefully) to higher education: a teacher of English can also teach history, geography, humanities, social sciences, mathematics...or any other subject in 5, 7, or 11. That is the mindset we are in, unfortunately.

 #HigherEd #Pedagogy #TeachingExcellence #EducationMatters.

Curriculum is conversation (Applebee, 1996), they say.

It has been quite some time since my last visit here, and it appears that my reflective faculties have been temporarily suspended. Such occurrences are not uncommon and arise for a multitude of reasons; this is simply a facet of life. Today, I wish to discuss a significant issue that has been a topic of conversation among many of my colleagues in various pedagogical and educational networks, particularly within the MENA region. This concern is notably less prevalent in countries where the identities and well-being of both faculty and administrators are duly acknowledged and respected. In the forums I have observed, there is a palpable dissatisfaction among my colleagues regarding the management of 'hidden curriculum practices' within their respective departments. Administrators often refer to these as 'operational and local practices,' granting them an unwarranted legitimacy, particularly when one considers that curriculum practices, as articulated by Applebee (1996), emphasize that 'Curriculum is Discussion,' especially in the context of higher education.

It is insufficient to merely assign a 'course' to a faculty member without engaging in a meaningful dialogue with them or thoroughly reviewing their curriculum vitae and professional profile. At the college or university level, administrative personnel frequently apply curriculum practices that are remnants of K-12 education, which is inappropriate. This approach may serve the administration's interests by fostering a hierarchical dynamic that undermines faculty autonomy, often justifying their decisions under the guise of unit/faculty/departmental needs. They must invest more effort into the selection and allocation process by gaining a deeper understanding of the instructors' profiles and engaging in discussions with them instead of focusing on exclusively quantitative and meaningless variables. Assigning a course without considering essential quality assurance criteria is fundamentally anti-pedagogical.

This assertion is corroborated by numerous faculty communities, albeit not extensively, throughout the region. I can personally attest to this observation, having visited/worked in various universities where such practices appear to be widespread, with only a few exceptions I must say. Probably these have to do with the cultural beliefs and philosophies of each institution.