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.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Mary Anne Kennan.

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 Huan Vo-Tran.

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 ALTC Fellowship Report

This ALTC Teaching Fellowship aimed to establish Guiding Principles for Library and Information Science Education 2.0. The aim was achieved by (i) identifying the current and anticipated skills and knowledge required by successful library and information science (LIS) professionals in the age of web 2.0 (and beyond), (ii) establishing the current state of LIS education in Australia in supporting the development of librarian 2.0, and in doing so, identify models of best practice. The fellowship has contributed to curriculum renewal in the LIS profession. It has helped to ensure that LIS education in Australia continues to meet the changing skills and knowledge requirements of the profession it supports. It has also provided a vehicle through which LIS professionals and LIS educators may find opportunities for greater collaboration and more open communication. This will help bridge the gap between LIS theory and practice and will foster more authentic engagement between LIS education and other parts of the LIS industry in the education of the next generation of professionals. Through this fellowship the LIS discipline has become a role model for other disciplines who will be facing similar issues in the coming years. Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups exploring the current and anticipated skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in the web 2.0 world and beyond. Whilst each focus group tended to draw on specific themes of interest to that particular group of people, there was a great deal of common ground. Eight key themes emerged: technology, learning and education, research or evidence-based practice, communication, collaboration and team work, user focus, business savvy and personal traits. It was acknowledged that the need for successful LIS professionals to possess transferable skills and interpersonal attributes was not new. It was noted however that the speed with which things are changing in the web 2.0 world was having a significant impact and that this faster pace is placing a new and unexpected emphasis on the transferable skills and knowledge. It was also acknowledged that all librarians need to possess these skills, knowledge and attributes and not just the one or two role models who lead the way. The most interesting finding however was that web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 represented a ‘watershed’ for the LIS profession. Almost all the focus groups spoke about how they are seeing and experiencing a culture change in the profession. Librarian 2.0 requires a ‘different mindset or attitude’. The Levels of Perspective model by Daniel Kim provides one lens by which to view this finding. The focus group findings suggest that we are witnessing a re-awaking of the Australian LIS profession as it begins to move towards the higher levels of Kim’s model (ie mental models, vision). Thirty-six LIS educators participated in telephone interviews aimed at exploring the current state of LIS education in supporting the development of librarian 2.0. Skills and knowledge of LIS professionals in a web 2.0 world that were identified and discussed by the LIS educators mirrored those highlighted in the focus group discussions with LIS professionals. Similarly it was noted that librarian 2.0 needed a focus less on skills and knowledge and more on attitude. However, whilst LIS professionals felt that there was a paradigm shift within the profession. LIS educators did not speak with one voice on this matter with quite a number of the educators suggesting that this might be ‘overstating it a bit’. This study provides evidence for “disparate viewpoints” (Hallam, 2007) between LIS educators and LIS professionals that can have a significant implications for the future of not just LIS professional education specifically but for the profession generally. Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice 1 Inviting the LIS academics to discuss how their teaching and learning activities support the development of librarian 2.0 was a core part of the interviews conducted. The strategies used and the challenges faced by LIS educators in developing their teaching and learning approaches to support the formation of librarian 2.0 are identified and discussed. A core part of the fellowship was the identification of best practice examples on how LIS educators were developing librarian 2.0. Twelve best practice examples were identified. Each educator was recorded discussing his or her approach to teaching and learning. Videos of these interviews are available via the Fellowship blog at .The LIS educators involved in making the videos felt uncomfortable with the term ‘best practice’. Many acknowledged that there simply seeking to do the best by their students and that there was always room for improvement. For this reason these videos are offered as examples of “great practice”. The videos are a tool for other educators to use, regardless of discipline, in developing their teaching and learning approaches to supporting web 2.0 professionals. It has been argued that the main purpose of professional education is transformation (Dall’ Alba, 2009; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007). As such professional education should focus not just on skills and knowledge acquisition but also on helping students to develop ways of being the professionals in question (ie LIS professionals, teachers, lawyers, engineers).The aim of this fellowship was to establish Guidelines for Library and Information Science Education 2.0 it has however become apparent that at this point in time it is not yet possible to fulfil this aim. The fellowship has clearly identified skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in web 2.0 world (and beyond). It has also identified examples of ‘great practice’ by LIS educators as they endeavour to develop LIS professionals who will be successful in a web 20 world. The fellowship however has also shown that the LIS profession is currently undergoing significant attitudinal and conceptual change. Consequently, before a philosophy of LIS education 2.0 can be expressed, the Australian LIS profession must first explore and articulate what it means to be an LIS professional in the 21st century (ie a world of web 2.0 and beyond). In short, the LIS profession in Australia must take stock not of “what we know and can do” but on “who we are becoming” (Dall’Alba, 2009, p 34).

Nurses driving change to improve access to education and quality in lcinical teaching : A partnership between Australia and Viet Nam

In Viet Nam, standards of nursing care fail to meet international competency standards. This increases risks to patient safety (eg. hospital acquired infection), consequently the Ministry of Health identified the need to strengthen nurse education in Viet Nam. This paper presents experiences of a piloted clinical teaching model developed in Ha Noi, to strengthen nurse led institutional capacity for in-service education and clinical teaching. Historically 90% of nursing education was conducted by physicians and professional development in hospitals for nurses was limited. There was minimal communication between hospitals and nursing schools about expectations of students and assessment and quality of the learning experience. As a result when students came to the clinical sites, no-one understood how to plan their learning objectives and utilise teaching and learning approaches appropriate to their level. Therefore student learning outcomes were variable. They focussed on procedures and techniques and “learning how to do” rather than learning how to plan, implement and evaluate patient care. This project is part of a multi-component capacity building program designed to improve nurse education in Viet Nam. The project was funded jointly by Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and the Australian Agency for International Development. Its aim was to develop a collaborative clinically-based model of teaching to create an environment that encourages evidence-based, student-centred clinical learning. Accordingly, strategies introduced promoted clinical teaching of competency based nursing practice utilising the regionally endorsed nurse core competency standards. Thirty nurse teachers from Viet Duc University Hospital and Hanoi Medical College participated in the program. These nurses and nurse teachers undertook face to face education in three workshops, and completed three assessment items. Assessment was applied, where participants integrated the concepts learned in each workshop and completed assessment tasks related to planning, implementing and evaluating teaching in the clinical area. Twenty of these participants were then selected to undertake a two week study tour in Brisbane, Australia where the clinical teaching model was refined and an action plan developed to integrate into both organisations with possible implementation across Viet Nam. Participants on this study tour also experienced clinical teaching and learning at QUT by attending classes held at the university, and were able to visit selected hospitals to experience clinical teaching in these settings as well. Effectiveness of the project was measured throughout the implementation phase and in follow up visits to the clinical site. To date changes have been noted on an individual and organisational level. There is also significant planning underway to incorporate the clinical teaching model developed across the organisation and how this may be implemented in other regions. Two participants have also been involved in disseminating aspects of this approach to clinical teaching in Ho Chi Minh, with further plans for more in-depth dissemination to occur throughout the country.

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

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.

Curriculum, assessment teaching and learning for all

This chapter explores how the culture of classrooms and schools can acknowledge diversity and meet all learning needs. Classroom and school culture can and should enhance the belonging and learning of all students. Understanding of learning, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment influences the ways teachers consider their expectations of student achievement and participation in school. We revisit the theory of social constructionism to emphasise the development of shared and valued curriculum, which meets all learner needs. Decisions about what to teach, how to teach and assess, and what supports student needs are important considerations discussed in this chapter. Key messages drawn from the Australian and New Zealand curriculum reinforce the need to ensure education responds to the diversity of students in classrooms. A range of models of pedagogy that have influenced education in Australia and New Zealand are presented, with a particular focus on meeting the needs of students who have disabilities. In addition, the issues related to student and teacher identity, the importance of respectful partnerships that acknowledge family knowledge, and respectful collaboration are discussed. Belonging to a community of learners is made possible through teachers forming authentic relationships with students and their families. In turn, these relationships support teachers to understand how the students in their classrooms learn, and to know their students’ strengths and interests.

Incongruence between self-reported and observed senior physical education teaching styles : an analysis using Mosston and Ashworth’s spectrum

Pedagogical styles, methods, models, practices or strategies are valued for what they claim they can achieve. In recent times curriculum documents and governments have called for a range of teaching approaches to meet the variety of learner differences and allow students to make more independent decision making in physical education (Hardy and Mawer, 1999). One well known system of categorizing teaching styles is the Mosston and Ashworth’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles (2002). In Queensland, prior to 2005, no research had been conducted on the teaching styles used by teachers of Physical Education. However, many teachers self-reported that they employed a variety of teaching styles depending on the aims and content of the material to be taught (Cothran, et al., 2005). This research, for the first time, collected teacher’s self-reported use of teaching styles and through observations verify the styles that were being used to teach Senior Physical Education in Queensland. More specifically the aims of the research were to determine: a) What teaching styles teachers of Senior Physical Education in Queensland believe they use? i) Were they using a range of teaching styles? ii) Were teachers of Senior Physical Education in Queensland using teaching styles that the Queensland Senior Physical Education Syllabus (2004) required? b) If Mosston and Ashworth’s (2002) Spectrum of Teaching Styles were used to categorise styles observed during the teaching of Senior Physical Education did the styles being used provide opportunities for evaluating as described by the Queensland Senior Physical Education Syllabus (2004)? The research was conducted in two phases. Part A involved use of a questionnaire to determine the teaching styles Queensland teachers of Senior Physical Education reported using and how often they reported using them. The questionnaire was administered to 110 teachers throughout Queensland. The sample was determined from 346 schools teaching Senior Physical Education (in 2006) across the state of Queensland, Australia. 286 questionnaires were sent to 77 non-randomised schools. There were 66 male and 44 female respondents in the sample. A wide range of teaching styles were reportedly used by teachers of Senior Physical Education with Practice Style-Style B, Command Style-Style A and Divergent Discovery Style-Style H, the most reportedly used. The Self-Teaching Style-Style K was reportedly used the least by teachers involved in this study. From the respondents a group of teachers were identified to form the participants for Part B. Part B of the study involved observation of a group of volunteer participants (from those who had completed the questionnaire) who displayed many of the ‘typical’ characteristics, and a cross-section of backgrounds, of teachers of Senior Physical Education in Queensland. In the case of this study, the criteria used to select the group of teachers to be observed teaching were, teaching experience (number of years: 0-4, 5-10 and 11 years and over), gender, geographical location of schools (focused on Brisbane and near area for travel/access purposes), profile of the students at schools (girls, boys or co-educational), nature of school (Government or Private) and the physical activities being taught in a school (activities to reflect all the areas of physical activity outlined within the syllabus). A total of 27 questionnaire respondents from Part A indicated that they were willing to be observed teaching practical lessons. The respondents who volunteered to be involved in Part B of the study came from different regions across the state of Queensland and was not confined to the Brisbane metropolitan area or large cities. From the group of people who volunteered for Part B four came from outside Brisbane and 23 from the Brisbane area. The final observation group of nine participants included eight teachers from the Brisbane area and one from a rural area. The characteristics of the final group included three females and six males from private and public schools with a range of teaching experience in years and a range of physical activities. Four year 12 and five year 11 teachers and their classes were videoed on three occasions as they progressed through an eight – nine week unit of work. This resulted in 24 hours 48 minutes and 20 seconds (or 4465 observations) of video teaching data which was subsequently coded by several researchers (99% interobserver reliability) to determine the teaching styles employed by the participants. This research indicated that, based on Mosston and Ashworth’s (2002) Spectrum of Teaching Styles, teachers of Senior Physical Education in Queensland used predominantly one style to teach 27 observed lessons. This is in sharp contrast to the variety of styles 110 teachers self- reportedly used and in spite of the Queensland Senior Physical Education Syllabus (2004) suggesting a range of specific styles be used. These results are discussed in the context of the Queensland Senior Physical Education Syllabus (2004), teacher knowledge of teaching styles and high-stakes curriculum and external pressures such as national testing and the publication of data from schools in tabloid newspapers. The data and findings in this research provide a rationale for improving teacher knowledge regarding teaching styles and the need for a clear definition of terminology in syllabus documents. Careful examination of the effects that the publishing of school data may have on teaching styles is advised. This research not only collected teacher’s perceptions of the teaching styles they believed they used it also verified these claims through direct observations of the teachers while teaching. These findings are relevant to syllabus writers, teacher educators, policy makers within education and teachers.

Standing brave in the face of rapid curriculum change : EAL/D teachers speak about critical literacy and its place in senior English teaching

Critical literacy (CL) has been the subject of much debate in the Australian public and education arenas since 2002. Recently, this debate has dissipated as literacy education agendas and attendant policies shift to embrace more hybrid models and approaches to the teaching of senior English. This paper/presentation reports on the views expressed by four teachers of senior English about critical literacy and it’s relevance to students who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who are learning English while undertaking senior studies in high school. Teachers’ understandings of critical literacy are important, esp. given the emphasis on Critical and Creative Thinking and Literacy as two of the General Capabilities underpinning the Australian national curriculum. Using critical discourse analysis, data from four specialist ESL teachers in two different schools were analysed for the ways in which these teachers construct critical literacy. While all four teachers indicated significant commitment to critical literacy as an approach to English language teaching, the understandings they articulated varied from providing forms of access to powerful genres, to rationalist approaches to interrogating text, to a type of ‘critical-aesthetic’ analysis of text construction. Implications are also discussed.

Creating efficiencies in teaching : where are the right resources when you need them?

Early career engineering academics are encouraged to join and contribute to established research groups at the leading edge of their discipline. This is often facilitated by various staff development and support programs. Given that academics are often appointed primarily on the basis of their research skills and outputs, such an approach is justified and is likely to result in advancing the individual academic’s career. It also enhances their capacity to attract competitive research funding, while contributing to the overall research performance of their institution, with further potential for an increased share of government funding. In contrast, there is much less clarity of direction or availability of support mechanisms for those academics in their role as teachers. Following a general induction to teaching and learning at their institution, they would commonly think about preparing some lecture materials, whether for delivery in a face-to-face or on-line modality. Typically they would look for new references and textbooks to act as a guide for preparing the content. They would probably find out how the course has been taught before, and what laboratory facilities and experiments have been used. In all of these and other related tasks, the majority of newly appointed academics are guided strongly by their own experiences as students, rather than any firm knowledge of pedagogical principles. At a time of increased demands on academics’ time, and high expectations of performance and productivity in both research and teaching, it is essential to examine possible actions to support academics in enhancing their teaching performance in effective and efficient ways. Many resources have been produced over the years in engineering schools around the world, with very high intellectual and monetary costs. In Australia, the last few years have seen a surge in the number of ALTC/OLT projects and fellowships addressing a range of engineering education issues and providing many resources. There are concerns however regarding the extent to which these resources are being effectively utilised. Why are academics still re-inventing the wheel and creating their own version of teaching resources and pedagogical practice? Why do they spend so much of their precious time in such an inefficient way? A symposium examining the above issues was conducted at the AAEE2012 conference, and some pointers to possible responses to the above questions were obtained. These are explored in this paper and supplemented by the responses to a survey of a group of engineering education leaders on some of the aspects of these research questions. The outcomes of the workshop and survey results have been analysed in view of the literature and the ALTC/OLT sponsored learning and teaching projects and resources. Other factors are discussed, including how such resources can be found, how their quality might be evaluated, and how assessment may be appropriately incorporated, again using readily available resources. This study found a strong resonance between resources reuse with work on technology acceptance (Davis, 1989), suggesting that technology adoption models could be used to encourage resource sharing. Efficient use of outstanding learning materials is an enabling approach. The paper provides some insights on the factors affecting the re-use of available resources, and makes some recommendations and suggestions on how the issue of resources re-use might be incorporated in the process of applying and completing engineering education projects.

Too many cooks? Co-creating and co-teaching studio courses in the creative media context : a career-focussed approach

This Case Study relates to the creation and implementation of career‐focussed courses in Creative Media for film, television, animation, broadcast and web contexts. The paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of co‐teaching, and how different professional and academic backgrounds and disciplines can productively inform curriculum design and delivery in the academic/professional context. The authors, as co‐creators and co‐lecturers, have developed a number of courses which represent current working models for intermediate to advanced level academic/professional study, and attract students from across the creative disciplines; including theatre, media, visual arts and music. These courses are structured to develop in students a wide range of aesthetic and technical skills, as well as their ability to apply those skills professionally within and across the creative media industries. Issues regarding the balance between academic rigour, practical hands‐on skill development, assessment, logistics, resources, teamwork and other issues, are examined in the paper.

Technological tools for science classrooms : choosing and using for productive and sustainable teaching and learning experiences

In this age of rapidly evolving technology, teachers are encouraged to adopt ICTs by government, syllabus, school management, and parents. Indeed, it is an expectation that teachers will incorporate technologies into their classroom teaching practices to enhance the learning experiences and outcomes of their students. In particular, regarding the science classroom, a subject that traditionally incorporates hands-on experiments and practicals, the integration of modern technologies should be a major feature. Although myriad studies report on technologies that enhance students’ learning outcomes in science, there is a dearth of literature on how teachers go about selecting technologies for use in the science classroom. Teachers can feel ill prepared to assess the range of available choices and might feel pressured and somewhat overwhelmed by the avalanche of new developments thrust before them in marketing literature and teaching journals. The consequences of making bad decisions are costly in terms of money, time and teacher confidence. Additionally, no research to date has identified what technologies science teachers use on a regular basis, and whether some purchased technologies have proven to be too problematic, preventing their sustained use and possible wider adoption. The primary aim of this study was to provide research-based guidance to teachers to aid their decision-making in choosing technologies for the science classroom. The study unfolded in several phases. The first phase of the project involved survey and interview data from teachers in relation to the technologies they currently use in their science classrooms and the frequency of their use. These data were coded and analysed using Grounded Theory of Corbin and Strauss, and resulted in the development of a PETTaL model that captured the salient factors of the data. This model incorporated usability theory from the Human Computer Interaction literature, and education theory and models such as Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK model, where the grounded data indicated these issues. The PETTaL model identifies Power (school management, syllabus etc.), Environment (classroom / learning setting), Teacher (personal characteristics, experience, epistemology), Technology (usability, versatility etc.,) and Learners (academic ability, diversity, behaviour etc.,) as fields that can impact the use of technology in science classrooms. The PETTaL model was used to create a Predictive Evaluation Tool (PET): a tool designed to assist teachers in choosing technologies, particularly for science teaching and learning. The evolution of the PET was cyclical (employing agile development methodology), involving repeated testing with in-service and pre-service teachers at each iteration, and incorporating their comments i ii in subsequent versions. Once no new suggestions were forthcoming, the PET was tested with eight in-service teachers, and the results showed that the PET outcomes obtained by (experienced) teachers concurred with their instinctive evaluations. They felt the PET would be a valuable tool when considering new technology, and it would be particularly useful as a means of communicating perceived value between colleagues and between budget holders and requestors during the acquisition process. It is hoped that the PET could make the tacit knowledge acquired by experienced teachers about technology use in classrooms explicit to novice teachers. Additionally, the PET could be used as a research tool to discover a teachers’ professional development needs. Therefore, the outcomes of this study can aid a teacher in the process of selecting educationally productive and sustainable new technology for their science classrooms. This study has produced an instrument for assisting teachers in the decision-making process associated with the use of new technologies for the science classroom. The instrument is generic in that it can be applied to all subject areas. Further, this study has produced a powerful model that extends the TPACK model, which is currently extensively employed to assess teachers’ use of technology in the classroom. The PETTaL model grounded in data from this study, responds to the calls in the literature for TPACK’s further development. As a theoretical model, PETTaL has the potential to serve as a framework for the development of a teacher’s reflective practice (either self evaluation or critical evaluation of observed teaching practices). Additionally, PETTaL has the potential for aiding the formulation of a teacher’s personal professional development plan. It will be the basis for further studies in this field.

Developing a culture to support peer review of teaching in higher education

This presentation addresses issues related to leadership, academic development and scholarship of teaching and learning, and highlights research funded by the Australian Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) designed to embed and sustain peer review of teaching within the culture of 5 Australian universities: Queensland University of Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, University of Adelaide, Curtin University, and Charles Darwin University. Peer review of teaching in higher education will be emphasised as a professional process for providing feedback on teaching and learning practice, which if sustained, can become an effective ongoing strategy for academic development (Barnard et al, 2011; Bell, 2005; Bolt and Atkinson, 2010; McGill & Beaty 2001, 1992; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). The research affirms that using developmental peer review models (Barnard et al, 2011; D'Andrea, 2002; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004) can bring about successful implementation, especially when implemented within a distributive leadership framework (Spillane & Healey, 2010). The project’s aims and objectives were to develop leadership capacity and integrate peer review as a cultural practice in higher education. The research design was a two stage inquiry process over 2 years. The project began in July 2011 and encompassed a development and pilot phase followed by a cascade phase with questionnaire and focus group evaluation processes to support ongoing improvement and measures of outcome. Leadership development activities included locally delivered workshops complemented by the identification and support of champions. To optimise long term sustainability, the project was implemented through existing learning and teaching structures and processes within the respective partner universities. Research outcomes highlight the fundamentals of peer review of teaching and the broader contextual elements of integration, leadership and development, expressed as a conceptual model for embedding peer review of teaching within higher education. The research opens a communicative space about introduction of peer review that goes further than simply espousing its worth and introduction. The conceptual model highlights the importance of development of distributive leadership capacity, integration of policies and processes, and understanding the values, beliefs, assumptions and behaviors embedded in an organizational culture. The presentation overviews empirical findings that demonstrate progress to advance peer review requires an ‘across-the-board’ commitment to embed change, and inherently demands a process that co-creates connection across colleagues, discipline groups, and the university sector. Progress toward peer review of teaching as a cultural phenomenon can be achieved and has advantages for academic staff, scholarship, teaching evaluation and an organisation, if attention is given to strategies that influence the contexts and cultures of teaching practice. Peer review as a strategy to develop excellence in teaching is considered from a holistic perspective that by necessity encompasses all elements of an educational environment and has a focus on scholarship of teaching. The work is ongoing and has implication for policy, research, teaching development and student outcomes, and has potential application world-wide.

Studio teaching in Australian planning curriculum

Planning studio pedagogy has long been a part of planning education and has recently re-emerged as a topic of investigation. Scholarship has: 1) critically examined the fluctuating popularity of studio teaching and the changing role of studio teaching in contemporary planning curricula in the USA and New Zealand; 2) challenged conceptualizations of the traditional studio and considered how emerging strategies for blended and online learning, and ‘real world engagement’ are producing new modes of studio delivery; 3) considered the benefits and outcomes of studio teaching, and; 4) provided recommendations for teaching practice by critically analysing studio experiences in different contexts (Aitken-Rose & Dixon, 2009; Balassiano, 2011; Balassiano & West, 2012; Balsas, 2012; Dandekar, 2009; Heumann & Wetmore, 1984; Higgins, Thomas & Hollander, 2010; Lang, 1983; Long, 2012; Németh & Long, 2012; Winkler, 2013). Twenty-three universities in Australia offer accredited planning degrees, yet data about the use of studio teaching in planning programs are limited. How, when and why are studio pedagogies used? If it is not a part of the curriculum – why?, and has this had any impact on student outcomes? What are the opportunities and limitations of new models of studio teaching for student, academic, professional and institutional outcomes? This paper presents early ideas from a QUT seed grant on the use of studio teaching in Australian planning education to gain a better understanding of the different roles of studio teaching in planning curricula at a National level and opportunities and challenges for this pedagogical mode in the face of dilemmas facing planning education.