Hi there, this is something we frequently talk about in the project! I think it's critical to have a set of change "leaders" who are willing to spend some time working through this (this is part of the change work as much as the new curricular changes, etc. etc.). One thing we talk about relates to the sources of resistance or the reasons why people are resistant to change, many of which are quite legitimate. For example, some institutions have a history of putting a lot of energy into new and exciting projects, but then quickly move on to the next project without paying enough attention to how new efforts become embedded in the teaching and learning. So faculty may see a change initiative as the "latest fad" and be skeptical of its longevity. I think some ways of addressing resistance include being honest about how past change efforts have played out, and if needed, discussing how leaders are developing this change effort differently to address some of the past problems. I can also point to a short resource on resistance that we have posted on our Core Commitments website, an interview I conducted with Lee Knefelkamp, an organizational psychologist at Teachers College, Columbia University: http://www.aacu.org/core_commitments/documents/Resistance.pdf.

Hi there, for many of our institutions, individual research goals and objectives have been paramount to success in the academy. While we have many individual faculty who--out of good will and interest--teach toward personal and social responsibility goals and use engaged learning practices, we also need institutional structures and supports to communicate to faculty that these things are valued and then actually value them in terms of promotion and reward structures. To quote Dr. Knefelkamp, who is a consultant to our project, "we cannot expect in our students what is not supported and reinforced in the campus culture." I would say the same thing is true for our faculty. I'll give one example that is fresh in my mind - we are running a conference right now in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on faculty roles in high-impact practices, and last night heard from Syracuse University Chancellor Nancy Cantor. The Syracuse faculty and administrative leadership are tackling the tough question of promotion and tenure be inclusive of what they are calling "scholarship in action" - that is, engaged, community-based teaching and research that directly improves the surrounding communities in the city of Syracuse, New York. Here is a 2007 speech I just found by Cantor that you might be interested in reading: http://www.syr.edu/chancellor/speeches/michigan1_12_07.pdf.

Hi there, the answer is a qualified yes. For example, there's been a movement in recent years to introduce what's called "character education" into K-12 (kindergarten through high school) in the United States, but this is a voluntary movement that has had traction in some schools but not in others. An earlier generation saw civics courses in high schools but those have not been in place more recently. I think in some ways this is cyclical. When we see evidence of moral and ethical problems in the larger society, such as the recent issues with subprime lending, there are calls for more of this kind of education. At AAC&U, we believe that there is enough evidence in place that traditional aged college students, especially, are still in the throes of personal development and so are looking to develop a sharpened moral compass that helps them move from the received knowledge and wisdom of family, religion, etc., and internalize the moral codes and ethical reasoning that will guide their future actions.