Learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage : Critical factors in embedding sustainable university-wide engagement in external awards and grants funding initiatives.

Teaching awards, grants and fellowships are strategies used to recognise outstanding contributions to learning and teaching, encourage innovation, and to shift learning and teaching from the edge to centre stage. Examples range from school, faculty and institutional award and grant schemes to national schemes such as those offered by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in the United States, and the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning in higher education in the United Kingdom. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has experienced outstanding success in all areas of the ALTC funding since the inception of the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in 2004. This paper reports on a study of the critical factors that have enabled sustainable and resilient institutional engagement with ALTC programs. As a lens for examining the QUT environment and practices, the study draws upon the five conditions of the framework for effective dissemination of innovation developed by Southwell, Gannaway, Orrell, Chalmers and Abraham (2005, 2010): 1. Effective, multi-level leadership and management 2. Climate of readiness for change 3. Availability of resources 4. Comprehensive systems in institutions and funding bodies 5. Funding design The discussion on the critical factors and practical and strategic lessons learnt for successful university-wide engagement offer insights for university leaders and staff who are responsible for learning and teaching award, grant and associated internal and external funding schemes.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture

The development of the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement for Architecture (the Statement) centred on requirements for the Master of Architecture and proceeded alongside similar developments in the building and construction discipline under the guidance and support of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design (ADBED). Through their representation of Australian architecture programs, ADBED have provided high-level leadership for the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project in Architecture (LTAS Architecture). The threshold learning outcomes (TLOs), the description of the nature and extent of the discipline, and accompanying notes were developed through wide consultation with the discipline and profession nationally. They have been considered and debated by ADBED on a number of occasions and have, in their fi nal form, been strongly endorsed by the Deans. ADBED formed the core of the Architecture Reference Group (chaired by an ADBED member) that drew together representatives of every peak organisation for the profession and discipline in Australia. The views of the architectural education community and profession have been provided both through individual submissions and the voices of a number of peak bodies. Over two hundred individuals from the practising profession, the academic workforce and the student cohort have worked together to build consensus about the capabilities expected of a graduate of an Australian Master of Architecture degree. It was critical from the outset that the Statement should embrace the wisdom of the greater ‘tribe’, should ensure that graduates of the Australian Master of Architecture were eligible for professional registration and, at the same time, should allow for scope and diversity in the shape of Australian architectural education. A consultation strategy adopted by the Discipline Scholar involved meetings and workshops in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. Stakeholders from all jurisdictions and most universities participated in the early phases of consultation through a series of workshops that concluded late in October 2010. The Draft Architecture Standards Statement was formed from these early meetings and consultation in respect of that document continued through early 2011. This publication represents the outcomes of work to establish an agreed standards statement for the Master of Architecture. Significant further work remains to ensure the alignment of professional accreditation and recognition procedures with emerging regulatory frameworks cascading from the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The Australian architecture community hopes that mechanisms can be found to integrate TEQSA’s quality assurance purpose with well-established and understood systems of professional accreditation to ensure the good standing of Australian architectural education into the future. The work to build renewed and integrated quality assurance processes and to foster the interests of this project will continue, for at least the next eighteen months, under the auspices of Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)-funded Architecture Discipline Network (ADN), led by ADBED and Queensland University of Technology. The Discipline Scholar gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions given by those in stakeholder communities to the formulation of the Statement. Professional and academic colleagues have travelled and gathered to shape the Standards Statement. Debate has been vigorous and spirited and the Statement is rich with the purpose, critical thinking and good judgement of the Australian architectural education community. The commitments made to the processes that have produced this Statement reflect a deep and abiding interest by the constituency in architectural education. This commitment bodes well for the vibrancy and productivity of the emergent Architecture Discipline Network (ADN). Endorsement, in writing, was received from the Australian Institute of Architects National Education Committee (AIA NEC): The National Education Committee (NEC) of the Australian Institute of Architects thank you for your work thus far in developing the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for Architecture In particular, we acknowledge your close consultation with the NEC on the project along with a comprehensive cross-section of the professional and academic communities in architecture. The TLOs with the nuanced levels of capacities – to identify, develop, explain, demonstrate etc – are described at an appropriate level to be understood as minimum expectations for a Master of Architecture graduate. The Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) has noted: There is a clear correlation between the current processes for accreditation and what may be the procedures in the future following the current review. The requirement of the outcomes as outlined in the draft paper to demonstrate capability is an appropriate way of expressing the measure of whether the learning outcomes have been achieved. The measure of capability as described in the outcome statements is enhanced with explanatory descriptions in the accompanying notes.

Teaching and assessing critical thinking : the interaction of student approaches to learning and teaching approaches

This study explored the relationship among student approaches to learning and teaching methods on critical thinking in two business units. Key findings included differences in critical thinking scores between student approaches to learning and some evidence of an interaction between student approaches to learning and critical thinking teach method (immersion vs. infusion). Possible explanations for the results are examined and implications for developing critical thinking skills across a degree discussed. What is apparent is that as Universities move towards program-wide level assessment of critical thinking, further work is required in terms of the design of critical thinking teaching interventions and assessment at the unit, school, and degree level. The session will discuss the challenges in developing critical thinking programs in individual units and at the Faculty level.

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.

Reframing evaluation of learning and teaching: An approach to change

Evaluation practices in the Higher Education sector have been criticised for having unclear purpose and principles; ignoring the complexity and changing nature of learning and teaching and the environments in which they occur; relying almost exclusively on student ratings of teachers working in classroom settings; lacking reliability and validity; using data for inappropriate purposes; and focusing on accountability and marketing rather than the improvement of learning and teaching. In response to similar criticism from stakeholders, in 2011 Queensland University of Technology (QUT) began a project which aims to reframe the organisation’s approach to the evaluation of learning and teaching. This paper describes the existing evaluation system; the emergence and early development of the project; and formulation of a conceptual framework identifying key dimensions of evaluation. It then compares the draft framework with other conceptualisations and models of evaluation identified in the literature, to determine its validity and suitability for supporting QUT’s plans for the future. Overall, the paper represents a structured evaluation of the REFRAME project at a particular point in its lifecycle. Given that the project follows an evidence based, practice-led process and applies an ongoing action research cycle, the findings are presented in the belief that QUT’s experience is broadly applicable to other institutions which may be contemplating change in relation to evaluation of learning and teaching.

Cultivating creative ecologies : creative teaching and teaching for creativity

Australian universities now commonly list creativity amongst the generic attributes that graduates are expected to have achieved or demonstrated upon graduation. While this reflects emerging local and global trends to encourage creativity at every educational level, creativity as a generic capability has special difficulties. These include problems of definition, its perceived value, the gap between espoused beliefs and practice, and tensions between standards and accreditation agendas and the desire to embed creative outcomes in the curriculum. Contextual and disciplinary differences also shape the expression of creative teaching and teaching for creativity. This paper explores these issues, acknowledging the role of information and communications technologies in shaping the technology-enhanced learning spaces where creativity may emerge. Csikszentmihalyi’s model of creativity as a system of interactions is presented as a useful foundation for furthering the discourse in this domain, along with the notion of creative ecologies as spaces for effecting change.

Kaleidoscope : Reframing learning and teaching evaluation through a shared stakeholder lens

Sector wide interest in Reframe: QUT’s Evaluation Framework continues with a number of institutions requesting finer details as QUT embeds the new approach to evaluation across the university in 2013. This interest, both nationally and internationally has warranted QUT’s collegial response to draw upon its experiences from developing Reframe into distilling and offering Kaleidoscope back to the sector. The word Reframe is a relevant reference for QUT’s specific re-evaluation, reframing and adoption of a new approach to evaluation; whereas Kaleidoscope reflects the unique lens through which any other institution will need to view their own cultural specificity and local context through an extensive user-led stakeholder engagement approach when introducing new approaches to learning and teaching evaluation. Kaleidoscope’s objectives are for QUT to develop its research-based stakeholder approach to distil the successful experience exhibited in the Reframe Project into a transferable set of guidelines for use by other tertiary institutions across the sector. These guidelines will assist others to design, develop, and deploy, their own culturally specific widespread organisational change informed by stakeholder engagement and organisational buy-in. It is intended that these guidelines will promote, support and enable other tertiary institutions to embark on their own evaluation projects and maximise impact. Kaleidoscope offers an institutional case study of widespread organisational change underpinned by Reframe’s (i) evidence-based methodology; (ii) research including published environmental scan, literature review (Alderman, et al., 2012), development of a conceptual model (Alderman, et al., in press 2013), project management principles (Alderman & Melanie, 2012) and national conference peer reviews; and (iii) year-long strategic project with national outreach to collaboratively engage the development of a draft set of National Guidelines. Kaleidoscope’s aims are to inform Higher Education evaluation policy development through national stakeholder engagement, the finalisation of proposed National Guidelines. In correlation with the conference paper, the authors will present a Draft Guidelines and Framework ready for external peer review by evaluation practitioners from the Higher Education sector, as part of Kaleidoscope’s dissemination strategy (Hinton & Gannaway, 2011) applying illuminative evaluation theory (Parlett & Hamilton, 1976), through conference workshops and ongoing discussions (Shapiro, et al., 1983; Jacobs, 2000). The initial National Guidelines will be distilled from the Reframe: QUT’s Evaluation Framework’s Policy, Protocols, and incorporated Business Rules. It is intended that the outcomes of Kaleidoscope are owned by and reflect sectoral engagement, including iterative evaluation through multiple avenues of dissemination and collaboration including the Higher Education sector. The dissemination strategy with the inclusion of Illuminative Evaluation methodology provides an inclusive opportunity for other institutions and stakeholders across the Higher Education sector to give voice through the information-gathering component of evaluating the draft Guidelines, providing a comprehensive understanding of the complex realities experienced across the Higher Education sector, and thereby ‘illuminating’ both the shared and unique lenses and contexts. This process will enable any final guidelines developed to have broader applicability, greater acceptance, enhanced sustainability and additional relevance benefiting the Higher Education sector, and the adoption and adaption by any single institution for their local contexts.