Abstract
Teaching in college entails managing substantial trade-offs across quality dimensions – broad perspective and linkages versus in-depth focus, functional or cross-functional approach, workplace versus conceptual emphasis, efficiency, flexibility, student motivation, inclusion and leveraging diversity, learning uniformity or individuality etc. This paper focuses on teachers’ reflections on their teaching in an environment characterized by dominant expectation of standardized output-driven education. The aim of the paper is to explore how faculty members and visiting staff of an international undergraduate business programme leverage elements of inclusive pedagogy in their teaching, what is their rationale for it and in what elements are the perceived trade-offs substantial for the teacher to feel discouraged in further development of inclusion. Interviews were carried out with teachers of International business administration of TalTech, Estonia – a programme with relatively high student diversity in race, culture and educational background. The study comments on inclusive teaching practices that are available for integration more easily (such as learning design accounting for student learning styles, diverse groupwork facilitation, group and peer grading) as well as practices perceived to fall outside of teacher’s reach in routine teaching (such as personalized student motivation management, accounting for diversity in students’ capabilities, individualized feedback). In sum, teachers appear to have a moderate amount but limited degrees of freedom in implementing elements of inclusive pedagogy provided this is in line with their teaching philosophy regardless of the confines of efficiency-centric governance paradigm.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Sanger, C.S.: Inclusive pedagogy and universal design approaches for diverse learning environments. In: Sanger, C.S., Gleason, N.W. (eds.) Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education, pp. 31–71. Springer, Singapore (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1628-3_2
Grier-Reed, T., Williams-Wengerd, A.: Integrating universal design, culturally sustaining practices, and constructivism to advance inclusive pedagogy in the undergraduate classroom. Educ. Sci. 8(4), 167, 1–14 (2018)
Rogerson, A.M., Rossetto, L.C.: Accommodating student diversity and different learning backgrounds. J. Intercult. Commun. Res. 47(5), 411–420 (2018)
Stentiford, L., Koutsouris, G.: What are inclusive pedagogies in higher education? A systematic scoping review. Stud. High. Educ. 46(11), 2245–2261 (2021)
Murray, N., McConachy, T.: “Participation” in the internationalized higher education classroom: an academic staff perspective. J. Int. Intercult. Commun. 11(3), 254–270 (2018)
Eryaman, M.Y., Genc, S.Z., Aktan, E.: Perceptions of the EU and democratic values. In: Spinthourakis, J.A., Lalor, J., Berg, W. (eds.) Cultural Diversity in the Classroom, pp. 199–217. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93494-5_13
Lawrie, G., et al.: Moving towards inclusive learning and teaching: a synthesis of recent literature. Teach. Learn. Inq. 5(1), 1–13 (2017)
Shapiro, S.: Inclusive pedagogy in the academic writing classroom: cultivating communities of belonging. J. Acad. Writ. 10(1), 154–164 (2020)
Awang-Hashim, R., Kaur, A., Valdez, N.P.: Strategizing inclusivity in teaching diverse learners in higher education. Malays. J. Learn. Instr. 16(1), 105–128 (2019)
Meyer, E.: The Culture Map. Decoding How People Think, Lead and Get Things Done Across Cultures. Public Affairs, New York (2014)
Poort, I., Jansen, E., Hofman, A.: Intercultural group work in higher education: costs and benefits from an expectancy-value theory perspective. Int. J. Educ. Res. 93, 218–231 (2019)
Gibbs, J.J., Hartviksen, A., Lehtonen, E.S.: Pedagogies of inclusion: a critical exploration of small-group teaching practice in higher education. Teach. High. Educ. 26(5), 696–711 (2019)
Livingston-Galloway, M., Robinson-Neal, A.: Re-conceptualizing inclusive pedagogy in practice in higher education. J. Sch. Teach. Learn. Christians High. Educ. 11(1), 29–63 (2021)
Hodge, J., Slater, S., Robinson, A. The pandemic as a catalyst for more inclusive pedagogy in field-based disciplines. J. Innov. Polytech. Educ. 4(1) (2022)
Moriña, A.: Faculty members who engage in inclusive pedagogy: methodological and affective strategies for teaching. Teach. High. Educ. 27(3), 371–386 (2022)
Hsieh, H.F., Shannon, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15(9), 1277–1288 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Niine, T., Küttim, M., Semm, K. (2023). The Prospect of Inclusive Pedagogy in Efficiency-Centric Governance Paradigm: Business and Entrepreneurship Teachers’ Perspectives. In: Auer, M.E., Pachatz, W., Rüütmann, T. (eds) Learning in the Age of Digital and Green Transition. ICL 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 634. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_72
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_72
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-26189-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-26190-9
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)