Identifying engaging features of schooling : assessing the psychometric soundness of student generated research

In this article we report on data analysed from a student project about attitudes to school and student perception of engagement and disengagement. The data were collected by students in an Australian study that employed the Young People as Researchers Model. Middle years students devised and administered a questionnaire to students in grade eight, nine and ten at a secondary school in Australia. A total of 239 students completed the questionnaire. The students completed the initial analysis which was followed by a more detailed analysis by the authors of this paper. The findings support the work of American, British and Australian researchers about the factors that influence engagement and disengagement from schooling. The reported outcomes from the student work and the secondary analysis indicate that students do have the capacity to undertake valid and meaningful research and can make informed contributions to school improvement and student engagement.

Knowing and teaching the indigenous other : teachers’ engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures

This is the first empirical study of teacher knowledge and classroom practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. It describes the construction of a survey instrument to measure non-Indigenous Australian teachers’ knowledge of Indigenous culture and place, frequency of everyday intercultural exchanges, and attempts to integrate Indigenous knowledge into classroom practice. Many teachers reported low levels of knowledge of Indigenous cultures, and limited encounters outside of school. While the cohort expressed dissatisfaction with pre-service training, exposure to pre- and in-service courses in Indigenous education correlated with higher levels of cultural knowledge and cultural engagement. Teachers with higher levels of cultural engagement were more likely to attempt to integrate Indigenous knowledges in curriculum and pedagogy.

Proteomics science & society : the role of knowledge translation in moving towards clinical applications

Background: Outside the mass-spectrometer, proteomics research does not take place in a vacuum. It is affected by policies on funding and research infrastructure. Proteomics research both impacts and is impacted by potential clinical applications. It provides new techniques & clinically relevant findings, but the possibilities for such innovations (and thus the perception of the potential for the field by funders) are also impacted by regulatory practices and the readiness of the health sector to incorporate proteomics-related tools & findings. Key to this process is how knowledge is translated. Methods: We present preliminary results from a multi-year social science project, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, on the processes and motivations for knowledge translation in the health sciences. The proteomics case within this wider study uses qualitative methods to examine the interplay between proteomics science and regulatory and policy makers regarding clinical applications of proteomics. Results: Adopting an interactive format to encourage conference attendees’ feedback, our poster focuses on deficits in effective knowledge translation strategies from the laboratory to policy, clinical, & regulatory arenas. An analysis of the interviews conducted to date suggests five significant choke points: the changing priorities of funding agencies; the complexity of proteomics research; the organisation of proteomics research; the relationship of proteomics to genomics and other omics sciences; and conflict over the appropriate role of standardisation. Conclusion: We suggest that engagement with aspects of knowledge translation, such as those mentioned above, is crucially important for the eventual clinical application ofproteomics science on any meaningful scale.

Managing distraction and attention in diverse cohorts : 21st century challenges to law student engagement

It is imperative that we consider the use of current and emerging technologies in terms of the nature of our learners, the physical environment of the lecture theatre, and how technology may help to support appropriate pedagogies that facilitate the capturing of student attention in active engaging learning experiences. It is argued that a re-evaluation of pedagogy is required to address the tech-savy traits of the 21st century learner and the extent to which their mobile devices are capable of not only distracting them from learning but also enhancing face-to-face learning experiences.

Facilitating first year students’ engagement with planning education : utilising student affinity for technology to increase cohort cohesion and decrease attrition

First year students overwhelmingly indicate that a strong interest in a field of study prompts them to enrol in university (McInnis et al 2000), yet over a quarter indicate that they have seriously considered dropping out of studies during their first year, with boredom most frequently cited by those domestic students who do depart before graduation (Coates and Ransom 2011). While it may be comforting to write off such withdrawals to the presumed apathy of youth, student “disquiet (in) their first year on campus may be a result of courses and institutions that do not match their needs and objectives, rather than any uncertainty or lack of purpose on their part” (James et al 1999). Voting with their mouse clicks, The current research investigate two conceptualized types of student participation in online discussion forums to increase understanding of student affinity for technology and its potential for fostering social network development amongst first year students.

Moving beyond transition pedagogy: Maturity models and student engagement

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). This paper proposes that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities. We will describe the Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012) we are currently investigating. We will discuss if our research may address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. The first aim of our research is to extend the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). The second aim of this research is to move beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

Verifying a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM): A reality check of the model using data derived from three universities

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). We have proposed that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities and we are currently articulating a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012). Our research aims to address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. Our research extends the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). Our research also moves beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. The issues explored in this workshop are (i) whether the maturity model concept can be usefully applied to provide a measure of institutional capability for SESR; (ii) whether the SESR-MM can be used to assess the maturity of a particular set of institutional practices; and (iii) whether a collective assessment of an institution’s SESR capabilities can provide an indication of the maturity of the institution’s SESR activities. The workshop will be approached in three stages. Firstly, participants will be introduced to the key characteristics of maturity models, followed by a discussion of the SESR-MM and the processes involved in its development. Secondly, participants will be provided with resources to facilitate the development of a maturity model and an assessment instrument for a range of institutional processes and related practices. In the final stage of the workshop, participants will “assess” the capability of these practices to provide a collective assessment of the maturity of these processes. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

Engagement, persistence, progress and success as theoretically distinct aspects of business creation processes

Starting from the vantage point that explaining success at creating a venture should be the unique contribution—or at least one unique contribution—of entrepreneurship research, we argue that this success construct has not yet been adequately defined an operationalized. We thus offer suggestions for more precise conceptualization and measurement of this central construct. Rather than regarding various success proxies used in prior research as poor operationalizations of success we argue that they represent other important aspects of the venture creation process: engagement, persistence and progress. We hold that in order to attain a better understanding of venture creation these constructs also need to be theoretically defined. Further, their respective drivers need to be theorized and tested separately. We suggest theoretical definitions of each. We then develop and test hypotheses concerning how human capital, venture idea novelty and business planning has different impact on the different assessments of the process represented by engagement, persistence, progress and success. The results largely confirm the stated hypotheses, suggesting that the conceptual and empirical approach we are suggesting is a path towards improved understanding of the central entrepreneurship phenomenon of new venture creation.

Teaching about trafficking : opportunities and challenges for critical engagement

When I was first invited to teach a women's studies course called Sex Trafficking in 2002, most of my students had never heard of the issue. Internet and literature searches for "trafficking" mostly turned up references to trafficking in drugs and weapons, not people. When I revised the course for a topical capstone in Criminology, Justice, and Policy Studies in 2006, all of my students had heard about human trafficking, and a handful had already studied it in other classes. The availability of books, films, scholarly articles, and advocacy pieces had all increased exponentially since I first became engaged in the field. This bounty provided a wealth of resources for teaching but also presented a greater challenge when it came to deciding which texts to include. It also added to the inevitable pedagogical angst over what to leave out. I came to know about trafficking by accident, when I was hired as a research assistant at The Protection Project (TPP) in 1999. In my time at TPP I authored a literature review on human trafficking. At that time, my comprehensive database of sources contained fewer than one hundred books and articles, a few UN documents, a handful of films, and some websites from nongovernmental organizations. My review of the literature inevitably reflected the ideological chasm between those who saw trafficking as primarily a labor, migration, and rights issue and those who saw it as primarily a sexual exploitation issue. On the policy end, these ideological orientations created bizarre bedfellows of individuals and organizations that otherwise would have been at odds. The ideological divide has not diminished in the intervening years, and it is important to be aware of and to negotiate this in designing a course on trafficking. As a feminist teacher, I was very aware of the divisions among feminists on the subject of trafficking, and was interested in communicating these differences to students who were not well versed in the varieties of feminist thought. I was also mindful of the difficulties my American students had in engaging with some of the course texts and issues the first time around. For some students, moral judgments about prostitutes were as far as they were able to go in engaging with the course. These students could not find a way in to think about the many issues involved in trafficking. How could I reach them? In this article, I share some of my texts and tactics with others who might find themselves in a position to teach about human trafficking. I include my case for why feminist teachers should teach trafficking, an overview of the debate that divides the field, my rationale for organizing the course the way that I did, issues to consider when designing a course on trafficking, and some suggested readings, films, and web resources.

Creating Queensland, creative communities partnership - major Brisbane festival & Australia Council for the Arts

In March 2010, Brisbane Festival commissioned a Research Team, led by Dr Bree Hadley and Dr Sandra Gattenhof, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, to conduct an evaluation of the Creating Queensland program, a new Creative Communities partnership between Brisbane Festival and the Australia Council for the Arts. This Final Report reviews and reports on the effectiveness of the program gathered during three phases throughout 2010: Phase 1, in which the research team analysed Brisbane Festival’s pre-existing data on the Creating Queensland events in 2009; Phase 2, in which the research team designed a new suite of instruments to gather data from producers, producing partners, artists and attendees involved in the Creating Queensland events in 2010; and Phase 3, in which the research team used content analysis of the narratives emerging in the data to establish how Brisbane Festival has adopted processes, activities or engagement protocols to operate as catalysts that produce experiences with specific impacts on individuals and communities. The Final Report finds that the Creating Queensland events concentrate on developing specific experiences for those involved – usually associated with storytelling, showcasing, and the valorisation or re-valorisation of neglected or forgotten cultural forms – in order to give communities a voice. It finds that the events prioritise accessibility – usually associated with allowing specific local communities or local artists to present material that is meaningful to them – and inclusivity – usually associated with using connections with producing partners (such as the Multicultural Development Association) to bring more and more people into the program. It finds that the events have a capacity-building effect, which allows local communities to increase their capacity to launch their own ideas, initiatives or events, allows individuals to increase their employability, or allows communities and individuals to increase their visibility within mainstream cultural practices and infrastructure. The Final Report further finds that Brisbane Festival has, throughout its years of commitment to community programming, developed specific techniques to enable events in the Creating Queensland program to have these effects, that these can be tracked, and, as a result, deployed or redeployed both by Brisbane Festival and other community arts organisations in the development of effective community arts programs. The data demonstrates that Creating Queensland is, by and large, having the desired effect on communities – people are actually participating, presenting work, and increasing their personal, professional and social skills in various ways, and this is valued by all stakeholders. The data also demonstrates that, as would be expected with any community arts program – particularly programs of this size and complexity – there are areas in which Creating Queensland is functioning exceptionally well and areas in which continuous improvement processes should be continued. Areas of excellence relate to Brisbane Festival’s longstanding commitment to community arts, and active community participation in the arts, as well as its ability to create well-known and loved programs that use effective techniques to have a positive impact on communities. Areas for improvement relate to Brisbane Festival’s potential to benefit from the following: clarifying relationships between community participants and professionals; increasing mentoring relationships between these groups; consolidating the discourses it uses to describe event aims across strategic, production, and publicity documents across the years; and re-considering the number of small events inside the larger Creating Queensland program.

Developing authentic professional knowledge through transformative community engagement in an interdisciplinary service learning project

This showcase presents a preliminary analysis of a community service learning project designed to align more authentically with contemporary society and emerging constructs of professional knowledge. As described in the paper, the project involves a multidisciplinary group of students working collaboratively with a community organisation to find creative presponses to challenging issues concerning the organisation's identity, how it interfaces with stakeholders, and how it evidences its inclusive practice. Of particular interest is how the interdisciplinary practice of the students within a service learning context encouraged reconsideration of their world0view and their rols as future professionals. Also highlighted is the need for greater congruence between the goals of the project and the structural elements of the curriculum.

First year industrial design studio-based teaching pedagogies and students’ engagement

Student engagement tends to be viewed as a reflection of learning processes, and in the context of first year university studies, it is a crucial means of an educational process that establishes the foundations for successful later year studies (Krausse and Coates, 2008). In the context of first year design studio teaching in higher education, fostering students’ positive engagement poses challenges to design educators as current trends set these design studios to be large size classes that makes difficult to manage and follow up students’ individual learning experiences. At QUT’s first year industrial design studio classes we engage in a variety of teaching pedagogies from which we identify two of them as instrumental vehicles to foster positive student engagement. Concept bombs and the field trip experience provide such platform as shown in student responses through a learning experience survey.

STEM futures and practice, can we teach STEM in a more meaningful and integrated way?

Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects can be engaging for students, can promote problem-solving and critical thinking skills and can help build real-world connections. However, STEM has long been an area of some confusion for some educators. While they can see many of the conceptual links between the various domains of knowledge they often struggle to meaningfully integrate and simultaneously teach the content and methodologies of each these areas in a unified and effective way for their students. Essentially the question is;how can the content and processes of four disparate and yet integrated learning areas be taught at the same time? How can the integrity of each of the areas be maintained and yet be learnt in a way that is complementary? Often institutional barriers exitin schools and universities to the integration of STEM. Organizationally, at a departmental and administrative level, the teaching staff may be co-located, but when it comes to classroom practice or the teaching and learning of these areas they are usually taught very separately. They are usually taught in different kinds of spaces, in different ways (using different pedagogical approaches) and at different times. But is this the best way for students to engage with the STEM areas of learning? How can we make learning more integrated, meaningful and engaging for the students?

A model for enhancing assessment and teaching practice at the coalface : Insights from a Fellow-In-Residence engagement program

Australian universities are currently engaging with new governmental policies and regulations that require them to demonstrate enhanced quality and accountability in teaching and research. The development of national academic standards for learning outcomes in higher education is one such instance of this drive for excellence. These discipline-specific standards articulate the minimum, or Threshold Learning Outcomes, to be addressed by higher education institutions so that graduating students can demonstrate their achievement to their institutions, accreditation agencies, and industry recruiters. This impacts not only on the design of Engineering courses (with particular emphasis on pedagogy and assessment), but also on the preparation of academics to engage with these standards and implement them in their day-to-day teaching practice on a micro level. This imperative for enhanced quality and accountability in teaching is also significant at a meso level, for according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 25 per cent of teachers in Australian universities are aged 55 and above and more than 54 per cent are aged 45 and above (ABS, 2006). A number of institutions have undertaken recruitment drives to regenerate and enrich their academic workforce by appointing capacity-building research professors and increasing the numbers of early- and mid-career academics. This nationally driven agenda for quality and accountability in teaching permeates also the micro level of engineering education, since the demand for enhanced academic standards and learning outcomes requires both a strong advocacy for a shift to an authentic, collaborative, outcomes-focused education and the mechanisms to support academics in transforming their professional thinking and practice. Outcomes-focused education means giving greater attention to the ways in which the curriculum design, pedagogy, assessment approaches and teaching activities can most effectively make a positive, verifiable difference to students’ learning. Such education is authentic when it is couched firmly in the realities of learning environments, student and academic staff characteristics, and trustworthy educational research. That education will be richer and more efficient when staff works collaboratively, contributing their knowledge, experience and skills to achieve learning outcomes based on agreed objectives. We know that the school or departmental levels of universities are the most effective loci of changes in approaches to teaching and learning practices in higher education (Knight & Trowler, 2000). Heads of Schools are being increasingly entrusted with more responsibilities - in addition to setting strategic directions and managing the operational and sometimes financial aspects of their school, they are also expected to lead the development and delivery of the teaching, research and other academic activities. Guiding and mentoring individuals and groups of academics is one critical aspect of the Head of School’s role. Yet they do not always have the resources or support to help them mentor staff, especially the more junior academics. In summary, the international trend in undergraduate engineering course accreditation towards the demonstration of attainment of graduate attributes poses new challenges in addressing academic staff development needs and the assessment of learning. This paper will give some insights into the conceptual design, implementation and empirical effectiveness to date, of a Fellow-In-Residence Engagement (FIRE) program. The program is proposed as a model for achieving better engagement of academics with contemporary issues and effectively enhancing their teaching and assessment practices. It will also report on the program’s collaborative approach to working with Heads of Schools to better support academics, especially early-career ones, by utilizing formal and informal mentoring. Further, the paper will discuss possible factors that may assist the achievement of the intended outcomes of such a model, and will examine its contributions to engendering an outcomes-focussed thinking in engineering education.