Framing student evaluations of university learning and teaching : discursive strategies and textual outcomes

Evaluation in higher education is an evolving social practice, that is, it involves what people, institutions and broader systems do and say, how they do and say it, what they value, the effects of these practices and values, and how meanings are ascribed. The textual products (verbal, written, visual, gestural) that inform and are produced by, for and through evaluative practices are important as they promulgate particular kinds of meanings and values in specific contexts. This paper reports on an exploratory study that sought to investigate, using discourse analysis, the types of evaluative practices that were ascribed value, and the student responses that ensued, in different evaluative instruments. Findings indicate that when a reflective approach is taken to evaluation, students’ responses are more considered, they interrogate their own engagement in the learning context and they are more likely to demonstrate reconstructive thought. These findings have implications for reframing evaluation as reflective learning.

How Jung's concept of the wounded healer can guide learning and teaching in social work and human services

The concept of the “wounded healer” has been used to explain why those with adverse childhood histories often enter helping professions such as social work and human services (SWHS). Psychotherapist Carl Jung (1875–1961) believed wounded healers developed insight and resilience from their own experiences, enabling transformative interventions to occur with clients. Concerns exist that students with adverse childhood histories in SWHS may display unresolved emotional issues. This journal article explores how Jung’s interpretation of the wounded healer can be critically applied to understanding the learning needs of SWHS students with histories of abuse, neglect or other childhood adversity. The relevance of the wounded healer to SWHS education is explored in three key areas: - 1) the increased possibility of the occurrence of countertransference; - 2) the potential for vicarious traumatisation and burnout, and; - 3) personal and professional resilience displayed by SWHS students with a history of childhood adversity. The wounded healer metaphor allows for a more nuanced understanding of SWHS students with these histories. It also provides insight into the pedagogical considerations associated with teaching this student cohort.

Interview with Barbara Comber in "Chapter 3 : Critical Literacy" of "Making Literacy Real : Theories and Practices for Learning and Teaching [2nd. Ed.]"

One of the so-called ‘wicked problems’ confronting most nations is poverty, or the unequal distribution of resources. This problem is perennial, but how, where and with which physical, psychological, social and educational effects, and for which students (and their teachers), needs continual scrutiny. Poverty is relative. Entire populations may be poor or groups of people and individuals within nations may be poor. Poverty results from injustice. Not only the un- and under-employed are living in poverty, but also the ‘working poor’. Now we see affluent societies with growing pockets of persistent poverty. While there are those who dispute the statistics on the rise of poverty because different nations use different measures (for example see Biddle, 2013; http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-poverty-on-the-rise-in-australia-17512), there seems to be little dispute that the gaps between the richest and the poorest are increasing (see http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf)...

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.

Australian learning and teaching council projects in the mathematical sciences : a retrospective

Since 2004, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) and its predecessor, the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, have funded numerous teaching and educational research-based projects in the Mathematical Sciences. In light of the Commonwealth Government’s decision to close the ALTC in 2011, it is appropriate to take account of the ALTCs input into the Mathe- matical Sciences in higher education. Here we present an overview of ALTC projects in the Mathematical Sciences, as well as report on the contributions they have made to the Discipline.

Learning and teaching reflection : developing capacities for lifelong learning

Reflection is an essential part of being an effective learner and working as a productive teacher. It enables the learner or teacher to deliberate about the factors that lead to successful learning and teaching for them and/or their students, in a particular place and for a specific purpose, so they can make reasoned and effective choices. This chapter introduces important frameworks that cover a century of thinking around reflection in education, and illustrates how preservice teachers can use these ideas across three phases. First, becoming a reflective learner as a university student to enhance learning and assessment outcomes; second, becoming a reflective teacher to improve classroom teaching and learning outcomes; and third, developing the reflective capacities of primary students so they can enhance their skills for lifelong learning.

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.

Kaleidoscope : illuminating learning and teaching evaluation for a shared stakeholder lens

Within the Australian higher education sector, institutions are required to evaluate teaching, units and courses to assure the quality of the student learning experience, however with hardly any regulatory parameters guiding institutions, and with disparate practices, there are few opportunities to benchmakr across institutions or the sector. QUT has received interest and requests from national and international universities on accessing Reframe: QUT's Evaluation Framework.