Checklists in the academy

Checklists (as promoted in Gawande, A. 2010. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. New York, Picador) involve a small set of clear, readable steps not to be forgotten, pause points to check on the list, and communication among team members.  This seem clearly valuable in “operations” where a group of people have to coordinate to achieve an outcome while minimizing chances for dangerous errors.  Teaching and administration in the academy is not structured like that.  Could it be?

At the simplest level, an academic administrator who has a timetable of items to be addressed (e.g., assigning new students to an advisor) can minimize the extra work others inevitably get drawn into when such steps are missed.  At a more challenging level, an administrator could hold off on new ventures until the checklist was developed for that venture in collaboration with the people who would have to do the work to implement the venture.  At a deeper level, administration could follow checklists of items grouped under the “4Rs“—Respect, Risk, Revelation, and Re-engagement.  A new venture requires the people enacting it to be invested in it.  The costs of not having this include wasted resources then not available for future projects, burnout and cynicism, abandoned initiatives, special deals, and a culture of evasion of evaluation for improvement.

Similarly, teaching could follow checklists.  If students are going to achieve the learning objectives for the course, they need to build up for each course their connections, probing, reflecting, and creating change (in their concepts, practice, and products).  As indicated in the previous post, this requires attention to Respect, then Risk, then Revelation, and then Re-engagement.

Advertisements

About Peter J. Taylor
Peter Taylor is a Professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston where he teaches and directs undergraduate and graduate programs on critical thinking, reflective practice, and science-in-society. His research and writing focuses on the complexity of environmental and health sciences in their social context, incl. Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement (U. Chicago Press, 2005) and Nature-nurture? No (2014, http://bit.ly/NNN2014). On reflective practice, see Taking Yourself Seriously: Processes of Research & Engagement (with J. Szteiter, 2012, http://bit.ly/TYS2012).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: