Dua et al. (2020) wrote about the importance of building partnerships with community stakeholders. This makes me wonder what types of partnerships could potentially help our students during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, I wonder if there is a mutually beneficial experience local fitness centers and university students can gain from one another. Could students majoring in exercise science or secondary education, physical education create virtual workouts for the fitness centers in exchange for discounted rates for the university students and faculty? This could result in a focus on improved physical and mental wellness while also benefiting the business.

I wonder what the COVID-19 response plan for this institution was prior to the 700 students testing positive. The article did not really give details about what the restrictions were, the precautions being taken, etc. It mentioned that there were social gatherings off campus and that some students were suspended for those gatherings, but I would be interested to know more about cleaning procedures, social distancing precautions, and other restrictions. Were there any? If not, then it seems appropriate that there would be some accountability to the lack of response to the pandemic. However, if there was a plan and place, and students were still choosing to get together off campus, I am unsure of how that is the president's fault. I could be off on this, but these are just my thoughts as I read this.

This article was fascinating, but I'll be honest that I had not even heard of psycholinguistics until reading this. I did some research and learned that it is the study of the relationships between linguistic and psychological behaviors (Merriam Webster, n.d.). I guess it is not surprising that our use of words would change with our mental states, but the data presented in this study was very telling regarding just how much the pandemic has affected people across the world. We feel this burden in America, but it was interesting to see that Italy and China deal with similar struggles in the midst of this pandemic.

This was a very interesting piece. I love Seymour's (2016) idea of shifting our mindset from accountability to responsibility. I had not thought about it this way until reading this article. Instead of meeting the minimum standards/requirements that we are held accountable to, we should be imagining and designing a better institution by doing what is morally right and just, by being responsible for decisions that benefit students and the public. I can think of a couple things my institution is doing currently to further diversity and inclusion efforts that we are not necessarily required to do but that we have chosen to do because it aligns with our Franciscan Values, specifically the one that calls us to "Revere the unique dignity of each individual" (University of Saint Francis, n.d.).

This video mentions that teacher education programs need to include curriculum to produce trauma informed educators. Specifically, Dr. Jill Biden and the others on the panel suggested that teachers should be trauma informed in order to help K-12 students who have parents in the military. While this is absolutely true, it also makes me wonder about the trauma that many students across the world have gone through during this pandemic. Staying home and potentially not having access to food, safety, peaceful environments has created traumatic situations for many students. I would argue that this is another reason educator preparation programs should be including curriculum about trauma and our response as educators to students experiencing trauma.

Jansen (2005) wrote about the importance of role modeling, which reminds me of the individual choice book I am reading. Fitzpatrick (2019), author of Generous Thinking, wrote about the university's role in leading and modeling for the rest of society. It is our responsibility to demonstrate love and kindness to all individuals through celebrating diversity of all kinds (race, religion, gender, customs, etc.) if we want the rest of society to follow suit.

Shahjahan (2015) wrote, "I suggest that to re-embody the body in the learning environment, we need to slow down, be mindful, and embrace present moments. How can we re-imagine learning, teaching, and a curriculum in light of slowing down?" (p. 495-496). This was my favorite quote from the article, particularly because my research will be about educator burnout. I think the education profession is in dire need of restructuring to allow educators to breathe. How to do this, I'm still not sure. :)

Eberhardt and Valente (n.d.) described the five ethics categories: student welfare, the institution, the profession, the community, and the personal conscience. Until reading this paper, I had never thought about how Student Affairs employees must balance all of those. I had naively assumed that they were most concerned with ethics pertaining to students, but I now see that the decisions a Student Affairs team will make should also take ethics of the institution, profession, community, and personal conscience into consideration.

Theme 2 is about leading in, through, and around crises in higher education. I found an article that goes nicely with this theme. I have listed the citation at the bottom of this post. In short, this article is about the pressures college/university presidents face in the midst of all the 2020 crises and what those leaders need in order to feel supported and, therefore, be successful in their leadership. Even though this is about presidents, specifically, I thought it also related nicely to leaders in general.

Storbeck, S. (Jan. 2021). College presidents need help lately, too. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/college-presidents-need-help-lately-too

I really like the emphasis on resiliency in this article. Williams et al. (2017) write about resiliency needing to be part of organizations/institutions/leaders in order to "bounce back" from trials or crises. As we consider our leadership styles, this gives us something to reflect upon. Are we resilient in times of challenge? How can we be so going forward?

The researcher analyzes the collected perspectives through his own lens now. He is PART OF the research, just as the text and module 4 presentation stated.

"as we live it" = different perspectives

The module 4 presentation explained that phenomenology is less about narrative and more about the subjective view about an objective topic/experience. In this case, the objective experience is the middle school classroom context, and the subjective perspectives come from the 18 participants.

This is ironic because the author is referring to a practice that is good for teaching, but this same practice is perfect for phenomenology too! The participants and the researcher conducting the phenomenology study need to be reflective of the experience/perspective.

Again, this is the author's way of including multiple perspectives about the same thing.

The group of 18 middle school teachers is still a rather small group, but one thing that stuck out as I watched the module 4 presentation is that narrative inquiry is specifically about just a couple of people, while phenomenology needs to be about multiple perspectives, which is why 18 in this case is appropriate.

Phenomenology depicts a shared meaning that multiple people experience. In this case, it appears the study is focused on middle school teachers.

In her book Generous Thinking, Fitzpatrick (2019) describes her position that she will not always agree with what is happening around her in the world. Even though the specific situations might not give her hope, they do give her purpose. I agree with her summation that we won't always like specific situations/events, but we can use them as fuel to live out our purpose in our role as higher education leaders. Her entire book is about creating an environment of generous thinking, and what she means by that is that we must learn from one another, listen to each other, and work together. She suggests building an environment in the higher education institution that models this way of life for the public. Our theme this week is leading in, through, and around crisis. If we apply Fitzpatrick's (2019) belief that we should be generous in our thinking, we are better prepared as leaders to make decisions that improve the state of higher education and, therefore, the public population.

Williams et al. (2017) write about "how to develop organizational resilience not only to respond to adversity but also to mitigate it before it arises" (p. 734). Did anyone else's college/university put together a COVID Crisis Response Team to brainstorm and determine an action plan for institutional response to COVID? My university did put together a team of faculty, staff, and administrators. However, the quote I included from Williams et al. (2017) makes me wonder if this type of crisis response team should be a permanent committee. There is always something bound to happen/occur that the institution will need to address in a safe, thoughtful manner. If it is not COVID, it is something else. Thoughts?

I love the first image we get when reading this article: the soccer match on a round field with loose regulations. Weick (1976) then compares that to organizations with unconventional regulations and loose structure. As I read this article I wondered about those higher education institutions that follow a structured framework and those that were already quite unorganized and the difference that structure (or lack of structure) made in the institution's ability to continue operating successfully in the last year given all the change in the world.

I am reading Generous Thinking (2019) by Kathleen Fitzpatrick for my choice book. I am not that far into the book, but I do know the purpose of the book is to explore how to build a relationship of trust between the university and the public. In light of everything that has happened in 2020 with the pandemic, political unrest, natural disasters, etc., I think our first theme of "Reflecting on the Year" fits nicely with this choice book. How do we move on from everything that has happened in the last year, and how can higher education leaders make decisions that will rebuilt trust and support with the public? These questions are hypothetical at this point, and I look forward to learning more in the book to address these questions.

As I read the Bolman and Deal (2017) text this week, several ideas stuck out to me. The authors write, "Cluelessness is a pervasive affliction for leaders, even the best and the brightest" (p. 5). They go on to write that this cluelessness does not derive from character/personal flaws such as pride or lack of intelligence, but, rather, it is a failure to frame the situation correctly (Bolman & Deal, 2017). This resonated with me because I think we have all been in situations we do not understand fully due to not having the right context or background. So, what does this mean for leaders in higher education dealing with situations as a result of COVID, political tension, or other crises? Bolman and Deal's (2017) explanation of the importance of "framing" the situation supports the idea that leaders need to understand the crisis and its consequences before making higher education decisions.

This article was particularly interesting to me because I am employed at an institution that has held on-ground, in-person instruction all 2020-2021 academic year so far. According to Leidner et al. (2021), the counties with in-person delivery at universities experienced 56% increase in COVID diagnoses! This was shocking to me that it was so much higher than those counties with remote learning at the higher education level. It makes me think about how interconnected all the students are, especially those who live in dorms. They go to classes together, live in dorms together, and socialize outside of school together. I guess that percentage makes sense once I think about how college students interact in these settings.

There is a part in this article that mentions grief turning into trauma. This makes me worry for our students. They could have lasting effects from the grief and discomfort they went through and are still going through during the pandemic. How will this change education? As faculty members, we need to be trauma informed in our teaching practices. Another point that really stuck out from this article was the idea that we will develop a new normal. I teach pre-service teachers. I notice that I am unable to model the same teaching practices I once modeled for my students, practices like collaborative learning, hands on learning, movement throughout the classroom, etc. If my pre-service teachers are not seeing this modeled, will we have an entire group of pre-service teachers who are not learning the same best practices, and how will that affect students in the P-12 setting when their teachers do not know about the importance of implementing that type of instruction?