Higher Education and Sustainable Development : A Model for Curriculum Renewal

Responding to the global and unprecedented challenge of capacity building for twenty-first century life, this book is a practical guide for tertiary education institutions to quickly and effectively renew the curriculum towards education for sustainable development. The book begins by exploring why curriculum change has been so slow. It then describes a model for rapid curriculum renewal, highlighting the important roles of setting timeframes, formal and informal leadership, and key components and action strategies. The second part of the book provides detailed coverage of six core elements that have been trialled and peer reviewed by institutions around the world: - raising awareness among staff and students - mapping graduate attributes - auditing the curriculum - developing niche degrees, flagship courses and fully integrated programs - engaging and catalysing community and student markets - integrating curriculum with green campus operations. With input from more than seventy academics and grounded in engineering education experiences, this book will provide academic staff with tools and insights to rapidly align program offerings with the needs of present and future generations of students.

The SOLO Taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing learning in higher education

This paper is a discussion of the use of the SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes) Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982, 1989; Biggs, 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Boulton‐Lewis, 1992, 1994) as a means of developing and assessing higher order thinking in Higher Education. It includes a summary of the research into its use to date as an instrument to find out what students know and believe about their own learning, to assess entering knowledge in a discipline, to present examples of structural organization of knowledge in a discipline, to provide models of levels of desired learning outcomes, and in particular to assess learning outcomes. A proposal is made for further research.

LeaD-In : a cultural change model for peer review of teaching in higher education

Peer review of teaching is recognized increasingly as one strategy for academic development even though historically peer review of teaching is often unsupported by policy, action and culture in many Australian universities. Higher education leaders report that academics generally do not engage with peer review of teaching in a systematic or constructive manner, and this paper advances and analyses a conceptual model to highlight conditions and strategies necessary for the implementation of sustainable peer review in higher education institutions. The model highlights leadership, development and implementation, which are critical to the success and formation of a culture of peer review of teaching. The work arises from collaborative research funded by the Office for Learning and Teaching to foster and advance a culture of peer review of teaching across several universities in Australia.

Conference report : ‘For the Socially Responsible University’. Reflections on Universidad 2014, the 9th International Higher Education congress in Havana, Cuba, February 2014

This article describes salient aspects of 'Universidad', the 9th International Higher Education conference held in Havana, Cuba, in February 2014. Addressing the conference theme, 'For the Socially Responsible University', participants debated the university's capacity to lead societies in matters of knowledge creation and diffusion, and discussed how it could help governments in the quest for solutions to inequality and exclusion. A particularly interesting panel was one that discussed the social commitment of Hugo Chavez, the late president of Venezuela, and his work to support the expansion of education.

Moderation in higher education: Four discourses

Across the globe, higher education institutions are working in environments of increasing accountability with little sign of this trend abating. This heightened focus on accountability has placed greater demands on institutions to provide evidence of quality and the achievement of standards that assure that quality. Moderation is one quality assurance process that plays a central role in the teaching, learning and assessment cycle in higher education institutions. While there is a growing body of research globally on teaching, learning and , to a lesser degree, assessment in higher education, the process of moderation has received even less attention (Watty, Freeman, Howieson, Hancock, O'Connell, et al. 2013). Until recently, moderation processes in Australian universities have been typically located within individual institutions, with universities given the responsibility for developing their own specific policies and practices. However, in 2009 the Australian Government announced that an independent national quality and regulatory body for higher education institutions would be established. With the introduction of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Authority (TEQSA), more formalised requirements for moderation of assessment are being mandated. In light of these reforms, the purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and investigate current moderation practices operating within one faculty, the Faculty of Education, in a large urban university in eastern Australia. The findings of this study revealed four discourses of moderation: equity, justification, community building and accountability. These discourses provide a starting point for academics to engage in substantive conversations around assessment and to further critique the processes of moderation.

Leadership to support quality improvement in Vietnamese higher education

The impetus for the study reported in this paper is the Higher Education (HE) reform agenda outlined by the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). The paper reports on phase one of a mixed method research; a quantitative approach using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to investigate the Vietnamese HE leaders’ leadership styles. The MLQ survey was administered to approximately 190 senior managers in State HE institutions in Mekong Delta region in Vietnam (nine of colleges). The psychometrics of the MLQ for the Vietnamese sample confirmed the reliability and validity of the instrument with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.779. A CFA was conducted and all factor structures were stable and consistent. The demographic variables were used to analyse patterns of leadership behaviours by the different sub-groups. The findings suggest that leaders who have different educational background and different gender in Mekong Delta region, Vietnam do not differ significantly in their perceptions about leadership factors.

A Deweyan experience economy for higher education : The case of the Australian Indie 100 Music Event

In this essay we argue that a Deweyan experience economy will best support the higher education (HE) sector in the future, and we draw a contrast between that economy and the sector’s current focus on informational concerns, as expressed by the recent rush to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and other mass online informational offerings. We base our argument on current developments in music education and music technology that we see as being preemptive of wider trends. We use examples from a three-year study of online and offline music pedagogies and outline a four-year experiment in developing a pedagogical experience economy to illustrate a theoretical position informed by John Dewey’s theory of experience,Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of habitus and capital, and recent work in economic geography on epistemic communities. We argue further that the future of the HE sector is local rather than global, experiential rather than informational, and that therefore a continued informational approach to the future of HE risks undermining the sector.

Student engagement with an ePortfolio : a case study of pre-service education students

The emergence of ePortfolios is relatively recent in the university sector as a way to engage students in their learning and assessment, and to produce records of their accomplishments. An ePortfolio is an online tool that students can utilise to record, catalogue, retrieve and present reflections and artefacts that support and demonstrate the development of graduate students’ capabilities and professional standards across university courses. The ePortfolio is therefore considered as both process and product. Although ePortfolios show promise as a useful tool and their uptake has grown, they are not yet a mainstream higher education technology. To date, the emphasis has been on investigating their potential to support the multiple purposes of learning, assessment and employability, but less is known about whether and how students engage with ePortfolios in the university setting. This thesis investigates student engagement with an ePortfolio in one university. As the educational designer for the ePortfolio project at the University, I was uniquely positioned as a researching professional to undertake an inquiry into whether students were engaging with the ePortfolio. The participants in this study were a cohort (defined by enrolment in a unit of study) of second and third year education students (n=105) enrolled in a four year Bachelor of Education degree. The students were introduced to the ePortfolio in an introductory lecture and a hands-on workshop in a computer laboratory. They were subsequently required to complete a compulsory assessment task – a critical reflection - using the ePortfolio. Following that, engagement with the ePortfolio was voluntary. A single case study approach arising from an interpretivist paradigm directed the methodological approach and research design for this study. The study investigated the participants’ own accounts of their experiences with the ePortfolio, including how and when they engaged with the ePortfolio and the factors that impacted on their engagement. Data collection methods consisted of an attitude survey, student interviews, document collection, a researcher reflective journal and researcher observations. The findings of the study show that, while the students were encouraged to use the ePortfolio as a learning and employability tool, most students ultimately chose to disengage after completing the assessment task. Only six of the forty-five students (13%) who completed the research survey had used the ePortfolio in a sustained manner. The data obtained from the students during this research has provided insight into reasons why they disengaged from the ePortfolio. The findings add to the understandings and descriptions of student engagement with technology, and more broadly, advance the understanding of ePortfolios. These findings also contribute to the interdisciplinary field of technology implementation. There are three key outcomes from this study, a model of student engagement with technology, a set of criteria for the design of an ePortfolio, and a set of recommendations for effective practice for those implementing ePortfolios. The first, the Model of Student Engagement with Technology (MSET) (Version 2) explored student engagement with technology by highlighting key engagement decision points for students The model was initially conceptualised by building on work of previous research (Version 1), however, following data analysis a new model emerged, MSET (Version 2). The engagement decision points were identified as: • Prior Knowledge and Experience, leading to imagined usefulness and imagined ease of use; • Initial Supported Engagement, leading to supported experience of usefulness and supported ease of use; • Initial Independent Engagement, leading to actual experience of independent usefulness and actual ease of use; and • Ongoing Independent Engagement, leading to ongoing experience of usefulness and ongoing ease of use. The Model of Student Engagement with Technology (MSET) goes beyond numerical figures of usage to demonstrate student engagement with an ePortfolio. The explanatory power of the model is based on the identification of the types of decisions that students make and when they make them during the engagement process. This model presents a greater depth of understanding student engagement than was previously available and has implications for the direction and timing of future implementation, and academic and student development activities. The second key outcome from this study is a set of criteria for the re-conceptualisation of the University ePortfolio. The knowledge gained from this research has resulted in a new set of design criteria that focus on the student actions of writing reflections and adding artefacts. The process of using the ePortfolio is reconceptualised in terms of privileging student learning over administrative compliance. The focus of the ePortfolio is that the writing of critical reflections is the key function, not the selection of capabilities. The third key outcome from this research consists of five recommendations for university practice that have arisen from this study. They are that, sustainable implementation is more often achieved through small steps building on one another; that a clear definition of the purpose of an ePortfolio is crucial for students and staff; that ePortfolio pedagogy should be the driving force not the technology; that the merit of the ePortfolio is fostered in students and staff; and finally, that supporting delayed task performance is crucial. Students do not adopt an ePortfolio just because it is provided. While students must accept responsibility for their own engagement with the ePortfolio, the institution has to accept responsibility for providing the environment, and technical and pedagogical support to foster engagement. Ultimately, an ePortfolio should be considered as a joint venture between student and institution where strong returns on investment can be realised by both. It is acknowledged that the current implementation strategies for the ePortfolio are just the beginning of a much longer process. The real rewards for students, academics and the university lie in the future.

Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Sue Reynolds.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS educative practice in helping to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Bob Pymm.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Jake Wallis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Lyn Hay.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Roy Crotty.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.