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

Gaining a competitive edge in the area of the engagement, success and retention of commencing students is a significant issue in higher education, made more so currently because of the considerable and increasing pressure on teaching and learning from the new standards framework and performance funding. This paper introduces the concept of maturity models (MMs) and their application to assessing the capability of higher education institutions (HEIs) to address student engagement, success and retention (SESR). A concise description of the features of maturity models is presented with reference to an SESR-MM currently being developed. The SESR-MM is proposed as a viable instrument for assisting HEIs in the management and improvement of their SESR activities.

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?

While the engagement, success and retention of first year students are ongoing issues in higher education, they are currently of considerable and increasing importance as the pressures on teaching and learning from the new standards framework and performance funding intensifies. This Nuts & Bolts presentation introduces the concept of a maturity model and its application to the assessment of the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention. Participants will be provided with (a) a concise description of the concept and features of a maturity model; and (b) the opportunity to explore the potential application of maturity models (i) to the management of student engagement and retention programs and strategies within an institution and (ii) to the improvement of these features by benchmarking across the sector.

Establishing a framework for transforming student engagement, success and retention in higher education institutions [Final Report]

The perennial issues of student engagement, success and retention (SESR) in higher education continue to attract attention as key indicators of learning and teaching quality. This project aimed to establish and provide a holistic framework that would allow higher education institutions (HEIs) manage and improve their student engagement and retention strategies and programs. The framework and main project deliverable is a Maturity Model (MM) for Student Engagement, Success and Retention (SESR-MM). The project involved three Australian universities with experience and reputations in SESR activities: Queensland University of Technology (lead institution), the University of Queensland and Griffith University, working cooperatively to develop and trial the project deliverables. Project findings suggest that the SESR-MM has the potential to positively transform the holistic—academic, social and personal—engagement experiences of students in Australian universities, and that the SESR-MM is a useful mechanism for sharing good practice and improving programs designed to enhance the student experience.

An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence, leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes in Australian educational institutions

In the field of leadership studies transformational leadership theory (e.g., Bass, 1985; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995) has received much attention from researchers in recent years (Hughes, Ginnet, & Curphy, 2009; Hunt, 1999). Many previous studies have found that transformational leadership is related to positive outcomes such as the satisfaction, motivation and performance of followers in organisations (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), including in educational institutions (Chin, 2007; Leithwoood & Jantzi, 2005). Hence, it is important to explore constructs that may predict leadership style in order to identify potential transformational leaders in leadership assessment and selection procedures. Several researchers have proposed that emotional intelligence (EI) is one construct that may account for hitherto unexplained variance in transformational leadership (Mayer, 2001; Watkin, 2000). Different models of EI exist (e.g., Goleman, 1995, 2001; Bar-On, 1997; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) but momentum is growing for the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model to be considered the most useful (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005). Studies in non-educational settings claim to have found that EI is a useful predictor of leadership style and leader effectiveness (Harms & Crede, 2010; Mills, 2009) but there is a paucity of studies which have examined the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of EI in educational settings. Furthermore, other predictor variables have rarely been controlled in previous studies and only self-ratings of leadership behaviours, rather than multiple ratings, have usually been obtained. Therefore, more research is required in educational settings to answer the question: to what extent is the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of EI a useful predictor of leadership style and leadership outcomes? This project, set in Australian educational institutions, was designed to move research in the field forward by: using valid and reliable instruments, controlling for other predictors, obtaining an adequately sized sample of real leaders as participants and obtaining multiple ratings of leadership behaviours. Other variables commonly used to predict leadership behaviours (personality factors and general mental ability) were assessed and controlled in the project. Additionally, integrity was included as another potential predictor of leadership behaviours as it has previously been found to be related to transformational leadership (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002). Multiple ratings of leadership behaviours were obtained from each leader and their supervisors, peers and followers. The following valid and reliable psychological tests were used to operationalise the variables of interest: leadership styles and perceived leadership outcomes (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Avolio et al., 1995), EI (Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), personality factors (The Big Five Inventory, John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), general mental ability (Wonderlic Personnel Test-Quicktest, Wonderlic, 2003) and integrity (Integrity Express, Vangent, 2002). A Pilot Study (N = 25 leaders and 75 raters) made a preliminary examination of the relationship between the variables included in the project. Total EI, the experiential area, and the managing emotions and perceiving emotions branches of EI, were found to be related to transformational leadership which indicated that further research was warranted. In the Main Study, 144 leaders and 432 raters were recruited as participants to assess the discriminant validity of the instruments and examine the usefulness of EI as a predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes. Scores for each leadership scale across the four rating levels (leaders, supervisors, peers and followers) were aggregated with the exception of the management-by-exception active scale of transactional leadership which had an inadequate level of interrater agreement. In the descriptive and measurement component of the Main Study, the instruments were found to demonstrate adequate discriminant validity. The impact of role and gender on leadership style and EI were also examined, and females were found to be more transformational as leaders than males. Females also engaged in more contingent reward (transactional leadership) behaviours than males, whilst males engaged in more passive/avoidant leadership behaviours than females. In the inferential component of the Main Study, multiple regression procedures were used to examine the usefulness of EI as a predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes. None of the EI branches were found to be related to transformational leadership or the perceived leadership outcomes variables included in the study. Openness, emotional stability (the inverse of neuroticism) and general mental ability (inversely) each predicted a small amount of variance in transformational leadership. Passive/avoidant leadership was inversely predicted by the understanding emotions branch of EI. Overall, EI was not found to be a useful predictor of leadership style and leadership outcomes in the Main Study of this project. Implications for researchers and human resource practitioners are discussed.

Good practice for safeguarding student learning engagement in higher education institutions : Final Report 2012

The project 'Good practice for safeguarding student learning engagement in higher education institutions' commenced in late 2010 as a Competitive Grant with funding provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. The project is now overseen by the Office for Learning and Teaching within the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. The project was completed in December 2012. The project was lead by QUT and comprised of the project team: Professor Karen Nelson, (project leader), Ms Tracy Creagh, (project manager) and Adjunct Professor John Clarke. Commencing in late 2010 the project invited a total of eight institutions across Australia and New Zealand (including QUT) who had either: existing programs and activities that monitored student learning engagement (MSLE); were in the early stages of implementing MSLE programs, or; who were piloting MSLE activities. As well, the project involved an advisory group and project evaluator comprising of academic and professional staff across two additional universities.

The place of higher education institutions in assessing student engagement, success and retention : a maturity model to guide practice

The perennial issues of student engagement, success and retention in higher education continue to attract attention as the salience of teaching and learning funding and performance measures has increased. This paper addresses the question of the responsibility or place of higher education institutions (HEIs) for initiating, planning, managing and evaluating their student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. An evaluation of the current situation indicates the need for a sophisticated approach to assessing the ability of HEIs to proactively design programs and practices that enhance student engagement. An approach—the Student Engagement Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM)—is proposed and its development, current status, and relationship with and possible use in benchmarking are discussed.

To what extent is the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of emotional intelligence a useful predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes in Australian educational institutions?

Researchers have found that transformational leadership is related to positive outcomes in educational institutions. Hence, it is important to explore constructs that may predict leadership style in order to identify potential transformational leaders in assessment and selection procedures. Several studies in non-educational settings have found that emotional intelligence is a useful predictor of transformational leadership, but these studies have generally lacked methodological rigor and contextual relevance. This project, set in Australian educational institutions, employed a more rigorous methodology to answer the question: to what extent is the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of emotional intelligence a useful predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes? The project was designed to move research in the field forward by using valid and reliable instruments, controlling for other predictors, obtaining an adequately sized sample of current leaders and collecting multiple ratings of their leadership behaviours. The study (N = 144 leaders and 432 raters) results indicated that emotional intelligence was not a useful predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes. In contrast, several of the other predictors in the study were found to predict leadership style.

Establishing a framework for transforming student engagement, success and retention in higher education institutions

This poster summarises the outcomes of a national project to develop and provide a holistic framework consisting of a series of sequential and increasingly sophisticated stages that will allow higher education institutions (HEIs) to manage and improve their student engagement and retention strategies/programs.

Standards that we can 'own' : Threshold Learning Outcomes for Journalism, Public Relations, and Media & Communication Studies

This paper outlines the progress by the JoMeC (Journalism, Media & Communication) Network in developing TLO (Threshold Learning Outcome) statements for Bachelor-level university programs in the disciplines of Journalism, Public Relations and Media & Communications Studies. The paper presents the finalised TLO statement for Journalism, and outlines moves to engage discipline-based groups to further develop preliminary TLOs for Public Relations and Media & Communication Studies. The JoMeC Network was formed in 2011, in response to requirements that from 2014 all degrees and qualifications at Australian universities would be able to demonstrate that they comply with the threshold learning standards set by the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). The AQF’s threshold standards define the minimum types and levels of knowledge, skills and capabilities that a student must demonstrate in order to graduate. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) will use the AQF’s threshold standards as a key tool in recording and assessing the performance of higher educational institutions, and determining whether they should be registered as Australian Higher Education Providers under the Higher Education Standards Framework. The Office of Learning & Teaching (OLT) places the onus on discipline communities to collaborate in order to develop and ‘own’ the threshold learning standards that can be considered the minimum learning outcomes of university-level programs in that field. With the support of an OLT Grant, the JoMeC Network’s prime goal has been to develop three sets of discipline-specific TLOs – one each for the Journalism, Public Relations, and Media & Communications Studies disciplines. This paper describes the processes of research, consultation, drafting and ongoing revision of the TLO for Journalism. It outlines the processes that the JoMeC Network has taken in developing a preliminary TLO draft to initiate discussion of Public Relations and Media & Communication Studies. The JoMeC Network plans to hand management of further development of these TLOs to scholars within the discipline who will engage with academics and other stakeholders to develop statements that the respective disciplines can embrace and ‘own’.

ERP systems in the higher education sector : a descriptive study

In response to a range of contextual drivers, the worldwide adoption of ERP Systems in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) has increased substantially over the past decade. Though this demand continues to grow, with HEIs now a main target market for ERP vendors, little has been published on the topic. This paper reports a sub-study of a larger research effort that aims to contribute to understanding the phenomenon of ERP adoption and evaluation in HEIs in the Australasian region. It presents a descriptive case study conducted at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Australia, with emphasis on challenges with ERP adoption. The case study provides rich contextual details about ERP system selection, customisation, integration and evaluation, and insights into the role of consultants in the HE sector. Through this analysis, the paper (a) provides evidence of the dearth of ERP literature pertaining to the HE sector; (b) yields insights into differentiating factors in the HE sector that warrants specific research attention, and (c) offers evidence of how key ERP decisions such as systems selection, customisation, integration, evaluation, and consultant engagement are influenced by the specificities of the HE sector.

Developing a social justice framework to ensure good practice in higher education

As higher education institutions respond to government targets to widen participation, their student populations will become increasingly diverse, and the mechanisms in place to support student success and retention will be more closely scrutinised.

Developing a social justice framework to ensure good practice in higher education

The concept of student engagement is a key factor in student achievement and retention and Australasian universities have a range of initiatives aimed at monitoring and intervening with students who are at risk of disengaging. Given the aspirations about widening participation, it is absolutely critical that these initiatives are designed to enable success for all students, particularly those for whom social and cultural disadvantage have been a barrier. Consequently, these types of initiatives must be consistent with the concept of social justice and a set of principles would provide this philosophical foundation for the sector. An Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project that involves ten Australasian universities, is designing of a suite of resources for the sector which will include: (1) a set of principles for good practice in MSLE, (2) a good practice guide for the design and implementation of institutional MSLE policy and practice, and (3) a collection of resources for and exemplars of good practice to be taken up by the sector. This workshop session will provide an opportunity for participants to examine the draft set of principles and to discuss their potential value for the participants’ institutional contexts. Australian Learning and Teaching Council Competitive Grant CG10-1730 2010-2012: Good practice for safeguarding student learning engagement in higher education institutions.

‘It's the end of the university as we know it (and I feel fine)’: the Generation Y student in higher education discourse

This paper examines discussions of Generation Y within higher education discourse, arguing the sector’s use of the term to describe students is misguided for three reasons. First, portraying students as belonging to Generation Y homogenises people undertaking higher education as young, middle-class and technologically literate. Second, speaking of Generation Y students allows constructivism to be reinvented as a ‘new’ learning and teaching philosophy. Third, the Generation Y university student has become a central figure in concerns about technology’s role in learning and teaching. While the notion of the ‘Generation Y student’ creates the illusion that higher education institutions understand their constituents, ultimately, it is of little value in explaining young adults’ educational experiences.