The Call for Proposals is now open for the Fall 2020 NAFSA Research Symposium*, which will be held virtually in partnership with George Mason University’s Center for International Education and the Office of Fellowships on Friday, November 20, 2020 at the end of International Education Week. For the first time, in addition to the standard research panels, we will also offer a virtual poster fair.
Please review the Call for Proposals guidelines before submitting either a 1-page paper proposal (due September 7) or a 250-300 word research summary for a poster (due October 5).
Paper proposals should present original, unpublished research in international education; poster submissions may focus on ongoing or completed research relevant to the broad field of international education.
*If you are interested in becoming a Peer Reviewer for this & future events, please email email@example.com stating your research interests (topics/methods/etc).
A reminder that the early bird registration for the 2020 APSA Teaching and Learning Conference is December 14.
As I have said before, this conference is not the standard sequence of tedious, badly-attended panel sessions. Attendees join a working group on a particular topic for the length of the conference. There are also hands-on workshops between sessions. And this TLC will convene in glorious Albuquerque, New Mexico, where in 2011 a conversation led to the creation this blog. Full conference details are at the APSA’s TLC webpage.
A reminder that the 16th APSA Teaching and Learning Conference is going to be held February 7-9 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Proposals are due September 23. Full details are at the APSA’s TLC 2020 webpage. As I’ve mentioned previously, this conference is not the standard sequence of tedious, badly-attended panel sessions. Participants can facilitate interactive workshops or engage in full-weekend working groups on particular topics.
If I remember correctly, when the TLC was last held in Albuquerque, a small group attendees began talking about the need to better communicate what we do and what we are passionate about. This blog was the result.
The next New England Faculty Development Conference will be held on November 8 at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. The deadline for proposals is August 17. Full details are here. The NEFDC is totally teaching-oriented and interactive workshops are encouraged.
As the new Director of Faculty Development at my university, and managing editor of this blog, please get in touch if you would like to publicize a teaching-related conference or event.
I recently presented at nearly back-to-back conferences that were not, strictly speaking, devoted to my areas of expertise. While I think it’s always good to go beyond one’s comfort zone, the experience again illustrated a principle upon which Simon and I have occasionally commented: academic conferences often don’t reflect workplace realities. To wit:
The first conference, of the Northeast Modern Language Association (NeMLA), was held in Washington, DC. Until you found out it wasn’t. I had immediately noticed from the call for proposals, unlike my wife/colleague, that the conference site was actually a 30-minute drive south, in Maryland. Public transit, including from the airport, took 90 minutes. While the hotel itself was gorgeous, its location represented additional expense and inconvenience for attendees, especially for those with limited or no financial support from their home institutions.
But the greater problem, in my opinion: it was the usual routine of presenting obscure research, completely unrelated to teaching, to mostly empty rooms. Hardly anyone who attended the conference has or will have a career that is entirely research-focused. In other words, the conference was organized to serve an audience that doesn’t exist.
The second conference, Eastern Regional Campus Compact, was a bit better in this regard, as one might expect from an organization whose mission is community engagement. But it still demonstrated the disconnect between conference format and audience. My contribution was an interactive workshop on teaching techniques, which drew a crowd of about fifty people, with some spilling out into the corridor — a clear sign of interest. The other sessions I attended, organized as traditional panels, attracted a half dozen or fewer people.
As I mention in the post at the link shown above, the economics of these kinds of conferences are backwards and not sustainable.
Just a reminder that the joint International Teaching and Learning Conference proposal deadline is this Monday, 19 November. The conference will be held in Brighton, United Kingdom, 17-19 June and will focus on teaching politics in an era of populism. It is jointly sponsored by APSA, PSA, BISA, and ECPR. All kinds of proposals are welcome, including panels, papers, individuals for roundtables, lightning talks, workshops, and any other innovative pedagogical approach you want to propose. For more information, head to the PSA conference website.
Today I’m attending ISA’s inaugural Innovative Pedagogy Conference in St. Louis. Victor and I are doing a workshop on using games and simulations to teach political violence, showcasing activities like Survive or Die!, Prisoner’s Dilemma, Model Diplomacy, identity exercise, and others. But I’m most interested in reflecting on the session offered by Matthew Krain and Kent Kille of the College of Wooster on Assessment and Effectiveness in Active Teaching in International Studies. Their framework for formative assessment (that can, in fact, be transformative) is very helpful as an overall approach to teaching.
The 2018 midterm elections are over in the US, and it was a night of mixed results. The Democratic Party took control of the House of Representatives, winning at least 27 seats previously held by the Republican Party, while the GOP increased their majority in the Senate, toppling North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp and my own state of Missouri’s Claire McCaskill.
While clearly not as momentous an election as 2016, or the Brexit referendum, or many other elections, the midterms were still an important point to take stock of the impact of Trumpism on American politics, and whether Democrats who were somewhat over-confident in the fall of 2016 could manage to overcome pro-Trump sentiment, a strong economy, congressional district gerrymandering, voter suppression efforts, and the other structural reasons why succeeding at the polls can be difficult.
Teaching the results of American elections is a frustrating enterprise.
It’s that time of year when I find myself submitting papers
and panels to conferences.
But because it’s not the time of year for conferences, I’ve
not been thinking too much about what I dislike about how those conferences
Often on these pages we write about the shortcomings of
conference panel formats: the long presentations, the reading-out of papers,
the lack of time for Q&A, the ‘question’ that isn’t.
But this year, I’m resolved to actually try and pull my
finger out and try to do something different.
With that in mind, and with the looming announcement of call
for papers for my ‘home’ conference at UACES, I’m going to try a couple of
The first is a flipped format.
My panellists – as and when I find them – will record 15 minute
presentations prior to the conference and upload them to YouTube. We’ll
indicate this in the programme, using a hashtag to help find them.
Then, in the actual session, I’ll limit colleagues to a 3
minute presentation of the core message, so those few who’ve not seen the
YouTube presentation know what’s going on, and so that we can have considerably
more than an hour to discuss the content.
The second panel will be highly interactive, where each
presenter starts off with 3 minutes, then the audience vote on whether to give
them subsequent blocks of 3 minutes, up to a maximum of 12 minutes. I think we
can do that via an app, so no-one has to feel they’re inhibited to ask the
speaker to stop.
The logic of the first panel is to maximise the time for
face-to-face discussion, which seems to be particularly useful for colleagues
to develop their ideas and their papers. It also encourages them to prepare
more before the conference itself.
The logic of the second is to incentivise presenters to foreground
core messages and to ensure that audiences are engaged, rather than using their
time to regurgitate their paper without thought to the format.
In both cases, I hope it will produce a more engaging environment
for colleagues attending the session, not least as I intend to secure a small
air-horn to drown out anyone who can’t ask a concise question, phrased as a
To be honest, I hope no idea if either format will work, but
I want to try, because carrying on as we have isn’t a solution. We all know we
can do better, so consider this a first step in trying to do better.
If it works, then I’ll see if I can get others to adopt the
format, or to try out other formats. Maybe I can persuade those organising
conferences to push the use of these different approaches, perhaps with a conference
prize for the best online presentation or the like.
The only thing I need now is a small band of volunteers to
help try this out.
Some of you might be getting an email, but others of you
might just want to contact me via the comments section below: I’m thinking the
second format might be particularly good for an L&T panel.