Some empirical results for neo-Piagetian reasoning in novice programmers and the relationship to code explanation questions

Recent research on novice programmers has suggested that they pass through neo-Piagetian stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, and concrete operational stages, before eventually reaching programming competence at the formal operational stage. This paper presents empirical results in support of this neo-Piagetian perspective. The major novel contributions of this paper are empirical results for some exam questions aimed at testing novices for the concrete operational abilities to reason with quantities that are conserved, processes that are reversible, and properties that hold under transitive inference. While the questions we used had been proposed earlier by Lister, he did not present any data for how students performed on these questions. Our empirical results demonstrate that many students struggle to answer these problems, despite the apparent simplicity of these problems. We then compare student performance on these questions with their performance on six explain in plain English questions.

Good practice for safeguarding student learning engagement in higher education institutions : Final Report 2012

The project 'Good practice for safeguarding student learning engagement in higher education institutions' commenced in late 2010 as a Competitive Grant with funding provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. The project is now overseen by the Office for Learning and Teaching within the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. The project was completed in December 2012. The project was lead by QUT and comprised of the project team: Professor Karen Nelson, (project leader), Ms Tracy Creagh, (project manager) and Adjunct Professor John Clarke. Commencing in late 2010 the project invited a total of eight institutions across Australia and New Zealand (including QUT) who had either: existing programs and activities that monitored student learning engagement (MSLE); were in the early stages of implementing MSLE programs, or; who were piloting MSLE activities. As well, the project involved an advisory group and project evaluator comprising of academic and professional staff across two additional universities.

Building distributed leadership for effective supervision of creative practice higher research degrees : final report 2014

Building distributed leadership for effective supervision of creative practice higher research degrees is an Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) funded project, conducted in partnership between Queensland University of Technology, The University of Melbourne, Auckland University of Technology, University of New South Wales and University of Western Sydney. The project was initiated to develop a cooperative approach to establishing an understanding of the contextual frameworks of the emergent field of creative practice higher degrees by research (HDRs); capturing early insights of administrators and supervisors; gathering exemplars of good practices; and establishing an in-common understanding of effective approaches to supervision. To this end, the project has produced: • A literature review, to provide a research foundation for creative practice higher research degree supervision (Chapter 3). • A contextual review of disciplinary frameworks for HDR programs, produced through surveys of postgraduate research administrators (Section 4.1), and an analysis of institutional materials and academic development programs for supervisors (Section 4.2). • A National Symposium, Effective Supervision of Creative Arts Research Degrees (ESCARD), at QUT in Brisbane in February 2013, with 62 delegates from 20 Australasian Universities, at which project findings were disseminated, and delegates presented case studies and position papers, and participated in discussions on key issues for supervisors (Appendix 1). • Resources, including a booklet for supervisors: 12 Principles for the Effective Supervision of Creative Practice Higher Research Degrees, which encapsulates attitudes, insights and good practices of experienced and new supervisors. It was produced through a content analysis of interviews with twenty-five supervisors in creative disciplines (visual and performing arts, music, new media, creative writing and design) (Printed booklet, PDF, Appendix 3). • A project website to disseminate project outcomes , which holds project findings, relevant references, and a repository of case studies and position papers by supervisors and program administrators. • A call for papers for a special issue ‘Supervising Practice: Perspectives on the Supervision of Creative Practice Research Higher Degrees’ of ACCESS Journal: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies (ERA ranked A quality) in 2014 (Appendix 2). • A community of supervisory practice initiated through project partnerships, a national symposium where supervisors from across Australasia met in dialogue for the first time, resource sharing, and joint publishing opportunities. • A set of recommendations for supervision capacity building and academic development, produced through the triangulation of literature and contextual reviews, analysis of institutional frameworks, interviews with supervisors and national dialogues. It is anticipated that the project’s outcomes will support experienced and new supervisors in this emergent field, and so benefit HDR students, and will enable creative disciplines to build supervision capacity, and so to accommodate growth in postgraduate enrolments. Funded as a pilot project, the project set out to establish a robust research base to provide a foundation for future work involving sharing good practices, resource building, and designing effective approaches to academic development for supervisors. Recommendations that were produced out of this project include the need to extend beyond generic, formal training for supervisors to academic development that harnesses and extends distributed leadership; focuses on local, disciplinary contexts; has a strong emphasis on case studies; provides diverse resources; and facilitates dialogue between supervisors. Recommendations also include developing frameworks for mentoring new supervisors and building a national network to facilitate cross-institutional discourse, disseminate good practices, and share insights into the management of risk factors, ethical issues, and preparing candidates for examination. As a pilot investigation, the outcomes of this project lay the ground for this future work.

12 principles for the effective supervision of creative practice higher research degrees, dispatches from the field

In late 2012 and early 2013 we interviewed 25 experienced and early career supervisors of creative practice higher research degrees. This journey spanned five universities and a broad range of disciplines including visual art, music, performing art, new media, creative writing, fashion, graphic design, interaction design and interior design. Some of the supervisors we interviewed were amongst the first to complete and supervise practice-led and practice-based PhDs; some have advocated for and defined this emergent field; and some belong to the next generation of supervisors who have confidently embarked on this exciting and challenging path. Their reflections have brought to light many insights gained over the past decade. Here we have drawn together common themes into a collection of principles and best practice examples. We present them as advice rather than rules, as one thing that the supervisors were unanimous about is the need to avoid proscriptive models and frameworks, and to foster creativity and innovation in what is still an emergent field of postgraduate supervision. It is with thanks to all of the supervisors who contributed to these conversations, and their generosity in sharing their practices, that we present their advice, exemplars and case studies.

Reflective Practice in the Arts

In creative disciplines, reflective practice is an integral and cumulative form of learning. Reflective learning generates knowledge that is specific to oneself and is a form of evidence upon which to analyse and change one’s practice. Critical reflection requires a deep knowledge of the discipline and an awareness of one’s positioning within that discipline and in relation to one’s creative performance. Meaning making through performative expression allows for personal transformation through acute awareness of and reflection on one’s own beliefs, knowledges and values through the process of creating artistic work. Self-awareness and identity are significant both in the study of the arts and in becoming an artist, as aesthetic inquiry and performance are constituted by subjective self-expression in relation to objective conditions. Reflection can be expressed using symbols or semiotic systems other than language. Depending on the disciplinary context, particular modes or forms of expression will be privileged, including material forms of practice, still and moving images, music and sound, live action and digital code. This chapter explores the problematics of what counts as reflection in the arts and how reflection is represented, expressed and performed in discursive and non-discursive ways in becoming arts literate.

Practice and procedure : Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s56

In Amos v Brisbane City Council [2005] QCA 433 the Queensland Court of Appeal was called upon to determine the scope of s56 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. The decision makes it clear that the section does not provide a complete code governing awards of damages and does not deprive the court of power to award costs against a plaintiff who fails to succeed on liability.

Public policy on corporate audit committees : case study evidence of current practice

Corporate failures and malpractices have led to an increasing emphasis on the governance role of audit committees. The Smith report Audit Committee Combined Code Guidance and the Higgs Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-Executive Directors (now incorporated in a Revised Combined Code) represent further attempts to strengthen corporate accountability in the UK. Although the regulatory focus on audit committees indicates confidence in their role as part of the solution to governance failures, questions remain about their efficacy in practice. Against the background of the publication of the Smith report and the wider reliance on audit committees in several countries to help improve corporate accountability, this paper provides research evidence, drawn from an ACCA-sponsored project, on the processes and effects of the audit committees in three UK companies. This study complements other research on audit committees by adopting a case study approach, in order to reflect the importance of investigating audit committee operations from within the organisation and to develop a closer understanding of audit committee impact than is available from generally observable data. The empirical evidence for the case studies was obtained from semi-structured interviews with personnel involved in the audit committee process, internal documents made available by the companies, and publicly available information, including annual reports.

Writing embodied practice from the inside : outside the exegesis

The textual turn is a good friend of expert spectating, where it assumes the role of writing-productive apparatus, but no friend at all of expert practices or practitioners (Melrose, 2003). Introduction The challenge of time-based embodied performance when the artefact is unstable As a former full-time professional practitioner with an embodied dance practice as performer, choreographer and artistic director for three decades, I somewhat unexpectedly entered the world of academia in 2000 after completing a practice-based PhD, which was described by its examiners as ‘pioneering’. Like many artists my intention was to deepen and extend my practice through formal research into my work and its context (which was intercultural) and to privilege the artist’s voice in a research world where it was too often silent. Practice as research, practice-based research, and practice-led research were not yet fully named. It was in its infancy and my biggest challenge was to find a serviceable methodology which did not betray my intentions to keep practice at the centre of the research. Over the last 15 years, practice led doctoral research, where examinable creative work is placed alongside an accompanying (exegetical) written component, has come a long way. It has been extensively debated with a range of theories and models proposed (Barrett & Bolt, 2007, Pakes, 2003 & 2004, Piccini, 2005, Philips, Stock & Vincs 2009, Stock, 2009 & 2010, Riley & Hunter 2009, Haseman, 2006, Hecq, 2012). Much of this writing is based around epistemological concerns where the research methodologies proposed normally incorporate a contextualisation of the creative work in its field of practice, and more importantly validation and interrogation of the processes of the practice as the central ‘data gathering’ method. It is now widely accepted, at least in the Australian creative arts context, that knowledge claims in creative practice research arise from the material activities of the practice itself (Carter, 2004). The creative work explicated as the tangible outcome of that practice is sometimes referred to as the ‘artefact’. Although the making of the artefact, according to Colbert (2009, p. 7) is influenced by “personal, experiential and iterative processes”, mapping them through a research pathway is “difficult to predict [for] “the adjustments made to the artefact in the light of emerging knowledge and insights cannot be foreshadowed”. Linking the process and the practice outcome most often occurs through the textual intervention of an exegesis which builds, and/or builds on, theoretical concerns arising in and from the work. This linking produces what Barrett (2007) refers to as “situated knowledge… that operates in relation to established knowledge” (p. 145). But what if those material forms or ‘artefacts’ are not objects or code or digitised forms, but live within the bodies of artist/researchers where the nature of the practice itself is live, ephemeral and constantly transforming, as in dance and physical performance? Even more unsettling is when the ‘artefact’ is literally embedded and embodied in the work and in the maker/researcher; when subject and object are merged. To complicate matters, the performing arts are necessarily collaborative, relying not only on technical mastery and creative/interpretive processes, but on social and artistic relationships which collectively make up the ‘artefact’. This chapter explores issues surrounding live dance and physical performance when placed in a research setting, specifically the complexities of being required to translate embodied dance findings into textual form. Exploring how embodied knowledge can be shared in a research context for those with no experiential knowledge of communicating through and in dance, I draw on theories of “dance enaction” (Warburton, 2011) together with notions of “affective intensities” and “performance mastery” (Melrose, 2003), “intentional activity” (Pakes, 2004) and the place of memory. In seeking ways to capture in another form the knowledge residing in live dance practice, thus making implicit knowledge explicit, I further propose there is a process of triple translation as the performance (the living ‘artefact’) is documented in multi-facetted ways to produce something durable which can be re-visited. This translation becomes more complex if the embodied knowledge resides in culturally specific practices, formed by world views and processes quite different from accepted norms and conventions (even radical ones) of international doctoral research inquiry. But whatever the combination of cultural, virtual and genre-related dance practices being researched, embodiment is central to the process, outcome and findings, and the question remains of how we will use text and what forms that text might take.

Good Practice Report : Postgraduate Research and Coursework Degrees

Over the past decade, enrolments in postgraduate courses in Australian universities have risen by 34% (or from 258,164 in 2004 to 347,363 in 2013) (uCube, 2014). This substantial growth can be attributed to increased demand for postgraduate coursework as continuing professional education, the expansion of Higher Degrees Research (HDR) intakes, and the development of postgraduate research and coursework degrees in new fields. At the same time, the establishment of the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) and national Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), as well as the internationalisation of postgraduate education, have brought challenges and opportunities to the sector. During the past five years, the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) and its predecessor bodies have funded a number of projects and Fellowships on postgraduate coursework and research degrees. They span diverse topics–from entry pathways and research training to supporting international and Indigenous students, examination, scoping studies of new and emergent programs, and effective supervision. In 2014 the OLT commissioned this good practice report to review the grants and fellowships conducted between 2009 and 2014. Encompassing twenty-seven learning and teaching projects and fellowships, the aims of this report include providing universities and academics with an overview of the current state of postgraduate study in Australia and the major influences upon it; a coherent overview of funded projects’ findings and outcomes; and a central point to access good practices, resources and tools in summary form. The objectives of this good practice report are to provide: • A literature review, which contextualises the projects within the Australian and international Higher Education environment, emphasises factors that currently influence postgraduate programs, and highlights challenges and opportunities for the sector. It also explains variations in postgraduate course types and definitions within the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF), and identifies key learning and teaching issues as well as good practices identified in scholarly research and position papers. • A collated overview of the twenty-seven national learning and teaching projects and fellowships on postgraduate coursework and research, including a summary of each project’s aims and objectives, methodologies, outcomes and resources. • A summative index of project characteristics (topics, themes and approaches) and inventory of scholarly research outcomes of the completed projects (publications, reports) as well as resources produced (tools, methods, good practice case studies), and their location (URL Links, references, etc.). • A summary of good practices that have been identified from the literature and the findings of completed projects. • A set of recommendations to address remaining gaps in the field and areas in which further work or development are appropriate. Bringing this work together will help enable university course teams to improve the delivery and development of existing postgraduate courses and to develop new ones, and it will provide academics with an overview of good practices and resources for teaching, supervising and supporting postgraduate students.

Grant application: QUT Learning and Teaching scheme 2012 Cracking the Code - A checklist to complement CRAs for first year Justice students.

Widening participation brings with it increasing diversity, increased variation in the level of academic preparedness (Clarke, 2011; Nelson, Clarke, & Kift 2010). Cultural capital coupled with negotiating the academic culture creates an environment based on many assumptions about academic writing and university culture. Variations in staff and student expectations relating to the teaching and learning experience is captured in a range of national and institutional data (AUSSE, CEQ, LEX). Nationally, AUSSE data (2009) indicates that communication, writing, speaking and analytic skills, staff expectations are quite a bit higher than students. The research team noted a recognisable shift in the changing cohort of students and their understanding and engagement with feedback and CRAs, as well as variations in teaching staff and student expectations. The current reality of tutor and student roles is that: - Students self select when/how they access lectures and tutorials. - Shorter tutorial times result in reduced opportunity to develop rapport with students. - CRAs are not always used consistently by staff (different marking styles and levels of feedback). - Marking is not always undertaken by the student’s tutor/lecturer. - Student support services might be recommended to students once a poor grade has been given. Students can perceive this as remedial and a further sense of failure. - CRA sheet has a mark /grade attached to it. Stigma attached to low mark. Hard to focus on the CRA feedback with a poor mark etched next to it. - Limited opportunities for sessionals to access professional development to assist with engaging students and feedback. - FYE resources exist, however academic time is a factor in exploring and embedding these resources. Feedback is another area with differing expectations and understandings. Sadler (2009) contends that students are not equipped to decode the statements properly. For students to be able to apply feedback, they need to understand the meaning of the feedback statement. They also need to identify, the particular aspects of their work that need attention. The proposed Checklist/guide would be one page and submitted with each assessment piece thereby providing an interface to engage students and tutors in managing first year understandings and expectations around CRAs, feedback, and academic practice.