Learning and teaching epidemiology with audience response technology

Background The learning and teaching of epidemiology is core to many public health programs. Many students find the content of epidemiology, and specifically risk of bias assessment, challenging to learn. Howbeit, learning is enhanced when knowledge is able to be acquired from an active-learning, hands-on experience. Methods The innovative use of wireless audience response technology “clickers” was incorporated into the lectures of the university’s post-graduate epidemiology units and the tailored epidemiological modules delivered for professional disciplines (e.g. optometry). Clickers were used to apply several pedagogical approaches of active learning including peer-instruction and real-world simulation. Students were also assessed for their gain in knowledge within the lecture (pre-post) and their perceptions of how the use of clickers helped them learn. The routine university-wide end of semester Insight Survey provided further information of the student’s satisfaction with the approach. Results The technology was useful in identifying deficits of knowledge of key concepts either before or after instruction. Where key concepts were re-tested post-lecture, as expected, knowledge increased significantly and provided immediate feed-back to students. Across the lecture series, typically 85% of students identified the technology helped them learn, increased their opportunity to interact with the lecturer, and recommend their use for future classes. The Insight Survey report identified 93% of respondents identified the unit in which clickers were consistently used provided good learning opportunities. Numerous student comments supported the teaching method. Conclusions Epidemiological subject matter lends itself to incorporation of audience response technology. The use of the technology to facilitate interactive voting provides an instant response and participation of everyone to enhance the classroom experience. The pedagogical approach increases students’ knowledge and increases their satisfaction with the unit.

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.

Caught in the headlights: Designing for creative learning and teaching in higher education

This study was an exploration of the different ways that educators conceptualise and approach creative learning and teaching. The research revealed theoretical and practice-based insights, demonstrating that exemplary teachers adopt an ecological approach to designing for student creativity; this approach acknowledges and works with the complexity of the higher education environment and the dynamic relationships between students, peers and teachers. The inquiry confirmed the value of using learning design patterns to uncover hidden creative processes.

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.

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.

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.

Research and/or learning and teaching : a study of Australian professors' priorities, beliefs and behaviours

This paper presents findings from an empirical study of key aspects of the teaching and research priorities, beliefs and behaviours of 72 professorial and associate professorial academics in Science, Information Technology and Engineering across four faculties in three Australian universities. The academics ranked 16 research activities and 16 matched learning and teaching (L&T) activities from three perspectives: job satisfaction, role model behaviour and perceptions of professional importance. The findings were unequivocally in favour of research in all three areas and remarkably consistent across the universities. The only L&T activity that was ranked consistently well was 'improving student satisfaction ratings for teaching', an area in which academics are increasingly held accountable. Respondents also indicated that their seniors encourage research efforts more than L&T efforts. Recommendations include that higher education rewards for quality L&T are maintained or improved and that recognition of L&T research domains is further strengthened.

From policy borrowing to implementation : an illuminative evaluation of learning and teaching in higher education in Australia (2002 to 2008)

This study documents and theorises the consequences of the 2003 Australian Government Reform Package focussed on learning and teaching in Higher Education during the period 2002 to 2008. This is achieved through the perspective of program evaluation and the methodology of illuminative evaluation. The findings suggest that the three national initiatives of that time, Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF), Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), and Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), were successful in repositioning learning and teaching as a core activity in universities. However, there were unintended consequences brought about by international policy borrowing, when the short-lived nature of LTPF suggests a legacy of quality compliance rather than one of quality enrichment.

The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) Report : A national scoping study [Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Final report]

This report provides an account of the first large-scale scoping study of work integrated learning (WIL) in contemporary Australian higher education. The explicit aim of the project was to identify issues and map a broad and growing picture of WIL across Australia and to identify ways of improving the student learning experience in relation to WIL. The project was undertaken in response to high levels of interest in WIL, which is seen by universities both as a valid pedagogy and as a means to respond to demands by employers for work-ready graduates, and demands by students for employable knowledge and skills. Over a period of eight months of rapid data collection, 35 universities and almost 600 participants contributed to the project. Participants consistently reported the positive benefits of WIL and provided evidence of commitment and innovative practice in relation to enhancing student learning experiences. Participants provided evidence of strong partnerships between stakeholders and highlighted the importance of these relationships in facilitating effective learning outcomes for students. They also identified a range of issues and challenges that face the sector in growing WIL opportunities; these issues and challenges will shape the quality of WIL experiences. While the majority of comments focused on issues involved in ensuring quality placements, it was recognised that placements are just one way to ensure the integration of work with learning. Also, the WIL experience is highly contextualised and impacted by the expectations of students, employers, the professions, the university and government policy.

Diversity in the Early Years: Intercultural Learning and Teaching

"New global contexts are presenting new challenges and new possibilities for young children and those around them. Climate change, armed conflict and poverty combine with new frontiers of discovery in science and technology to create a paradoxical picture of both threat and opportunity for our world and our children. On the one hand, children are experiencing unprecedented patterns of disparity and inequity; yet, on the other hand, they have seemingly limitless possibilities to engage with new technologies and social processes. Seismic shifts such as these are inviting new questions about the conditions that young children need to learn and thrive. Diversity in the Early Years: Intercultural Learning and Teaching explores significant aspects of working with children and adults from diverse backgrounds. It is a valuable resource for teaching early childhood pre-service teachers to raise awareness about issues of diversity - whether diversity of culture, language, education and/or gender - and for helping them to develop their own pedagogical approaches to working with diverse populations."--Publisher website