It really is black and white when you look at it like this : reporting on a study into Australian professors' research and teaching priorities

Despite optimistic claims about the research-teaching nexus, Australian academics still face tension between research and teaching. The teaching and research priorities, beliefs and behaviours of 70 Professorial and Associate Professorial academics in Science, Information Technology and Engineering were examined in this study. The academics from 4 faculties in 3 Australian universities, were asked to rank 16 research activities and 16 matched learning and teaching (L&T) activities from each of three perspectives: job satisfaction, leadership behaviour, and perceptions of professional importance. The findings, which were remarkably consistent across the three universities, were unequivocally in favour of Research. The only L&T activity that was ranked consistently well was “Improving student satisfaction ratings for Teaching”. The data demonstrates that Australian government and university initiatives to raise the status of L&T activity are not impacting significantly on Australia’s future leaders of university learning.

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.

Conceptualising and teaching discursive and performative reflection in higher education

The importance of reflection in higher education, and across disciplinary fields is widely recognised. It is generally embedded in university graduate attributes, professional standards and course objectives. Furthermore, reflection is commonly included in assessment requirements in higher education subjects, often without necessary scaffolding or clear expectations for students. It is essential that academic staff have substantive knowledge and clear expectations about the aims of reflective activities, the most effective mode of representation, and appropriate teaching strategies to support students in deep, critical reflection. The paper argues the case for reflection to be represented in different modes, using discursive (language) or performative (symbolic practice) forms of expression according to disciplinary context and individual communicative strengths. It introduces key discursive and expressive elements that constitute different modes of representation in reflective tasks. This functional analysis of textual elements provides explicit knowledge for teaching and assessing multiple modes of reflection in higher education.

The flammability of metallic materials in normal and reduced gravity

Metallic materials exposed to oxygen-enriched atmospheres – as commonly used in the medical, aerospace, aviation and numerous chemical processing industries – represent a significant fire hazard which must be addressed during design, maintenance and operation. Hence, accurate knowledge of metallic materials flammability is required. Reduced gravity (i.e. space-based) operations present additional unique concerns, where the absence of gravity must also be taken into account. The flammability of metallic materials has historically been quantified using three standardised test methods developed by NASA, ASTM and ISO. These tests typically involve the forceful (promoted) ignition of a test sample (typically a 3.2 mm diameter cylindrical rod) in pressurised oxygen. A test sample is defined as flammable when it undergoes burning that is independent of the ignition process utilised. In the standardised tests, this is indicated by the propagation of burning further than a defined amount, or „burn criterion.. The burn criterion in use at the onset of this project was arbitrarily selected, and did not accurately reflect the length a sample must burn in order to be burning independent of the ignition event and, in some cases, required complete consumption of the test sample for a metallic material to be considered flammable. It has been demonstrated that a) a metallic material.s propensity to support burning is altered by any increase in test sample temperature greater than ~250-300 oC and b) promoted ignition causes an increase in temperature of the test sample in the region closest to the igniter, a region referred to as the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). If a test sample continues to burn past the HAZ (where the HAZ is defined as the region of the test sample above the igniter that undergoes an increase in temperature of greater than or equal to 250 oC by the end of the ignition event), it is burning independent of the igniter, and should be considered flammable. The extent of the HAZ, therefore, can be used to justify the selection of the burn criterion. A two dimensional mathematical model was developed in order to predict the extent of the HAZ created in a standard test sample by a typical igniter. The model was validated against previous theoretical and experimental work performed in collaboration with NASA, and then used to predict the extent of the HAZ for different metallic materials in several configurations. The extent of HAZ predicted varied significantly, ranging from ~2-27 mm depending on the test sample thermal properties and test conditions (i.e. pressure). The magnitude of the HAZ was found to increase with increasing thermal diffusivity, and decreasing pressure (due to slower ignition times). Based upon the findings of this work, a new burn criterion requiring 30 mm of the test sample to be consumed (from the top of the ignition promoter) was recommended and validated. This new burn criterion was subsequently included in the latest revision of the ASTM G124 and NASA 6001B international test standards that are used to evaluate metallic material flammability in oxygen. These revisions also have the added benefit of enabling the conduct of reduced gravity metallic material flammability testing in strict accordance with the ASTM G124 standard, allowing measurement and comparison of the relative flammability (i.e. Lowest Burn Pressure (LBP), Highest No-Burn Pressure (HNBP) and average Regression Rate of the Melting Interface(RRMI)) of metallic materials in normal and reduced gravity, as well as determination of the applicability of normal gravity test results to reduced gravity use environments. This is important, as currently most space-based applications will typically use normal gravity information in order to qualify systems and/or components for reduced gravity use. This is shown here to be non-conservative for metallic materials which are more flammable in reduced gravity. The flammability of two metallic materials, Inconel® 718 and 316 stainless steel (both commonly used to manufacture components for oxygen service in both terrestrial and space-based systems) was evaluated in normal and reduced gravity using the new ASTM G124-10 test standard. This allowed direct comparison of the flammability of the two metallic materials in normal gravity and reduced gravity respectively. The results of this work clearly show, for the first time, that metallic materials are more flammable in reduced gravity than in normal gravity when testing is conducted as described in the ASTM G124-10 test standard. This was shown to be the case in terms of both higher regression rates (i.e. faster consumption of the test sample – fuel), and burning at lower pressures in reduced gravity. Specifically, it was found that the LBP for 3.2 mm diameter Inconel® 718 and 316 stainless steel test samples decreased by 50% from 3.45 MPa (500 psia) in normal gravity to 1.72 MPa (250 psia) in reduced gravity for the Inconel® 718, and 25% from 3.45 MPa (500 psia) in normal gravity to 2.76 MPa (400 psia) in reduced gravity for the 316 stainless steel. The average RRMI increased by factors of 2.2 (27.2 mm/s in 2.24 MPa (325 psia) oxygen in reduced gravity compared to 12.8 mm/s in 4.48 MPa (650 psia) oxygen in normal gravity) for the Inconel® 718 and 1.6 (15.0 mm/s in 2.76 MPa (400 psia) oxygen in reduced gravity compared to 9.5 mm/s in 5.17 MPa (750 psia) oxygen in normal gravity) for the 316 stainless steel. Reasons for the increased flammability of metallic materials in reduced gravity compared to normal gravity are discussed, based upon the observations made during reduced gravity testing and previous work. Finally, the implications (for fire safety and engineering applications) of these results are presented and discussed, in particular, examining methods for mitigating the risk of a fire in reduced gravity.

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

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

Knowing and teaching the indigenous other : teachers’ engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures

This is the first empirical study of teacher knowledge and classroom practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. It describes the construction of a survey instrument to measure non-Indigenous Australian teachers’ knowledge of Indigenous culture and place, frequency of everyday intercultural exchanges, and attempts to integrate Indigenous knowledge into classroom practice. Many teachers reported low levels of knowledge of Indigenous cultures, and limited encounters outside of school. While the cohort expressed dissatisfaction with pre-service training, exposure to pre- and in-service courses in Indigenous education correlated with higher levels of cultural knowledge and cultural engagement. Teachers with higher levels of cultural engagement were more likely to attempt to integrate Indigenous knowledges in curriculum and pedagogy.

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.

Benchmarking potential factors leading to education quality : a study of Cambodian higher education

Purpose To study the quality in higher education in Cambodia and explore the potential factors leading to quality in Cambodian higher education. Design/methodology/approach Five main factors that were deemed relevant in providing quality in Cambodian higher education were proposed: academic curriculum and extra-curricular activities, teachers' qualification and methods, funding and tuition, school facilities, and interactive network. These five propositions were used to compare Shu-Te University, Taiwan with the top five universities in Cambodia. The data came in the forms of questionnaire and desk research. Descriptive analytical approach is then carried out to describe these five factors. Findings Only 6 per cent of lecturers hold PhD degree and about 85 per cent never published any papers; some private universities charge as low as USD200 per academic year, there is almost no donation from international organizations, and annual government funding on higher education sector nationwide in 2005 was only about USD3.67 million; even though there is a library at each university, books, study materials etc. are not up-to-date and inadequate; 90 per cent of the lecturers never have technical discussion or meeting and about 60 per cent of students felt that their teachers did not have time for them to consult with. Originality/value A useful insight was gained into the perceived importance of quality in higher education that can stimulate debate and discussion on the role of government in building the standard quality in higher education. Also, the findings from this research can assist in the development of a framework of developing human resource.

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.

The paradox of creative uncertainty in learning and teaching

In an ever-changing and globalised world there is a need for higher education to adapt and evolve its models of learning and teaching. The old industrial model has lost traction, and new patterns of creative engagement are required. These new models potentially increase relevancy and better equip students for the future. Although creativity is recognised as an attribute that can contribute much to the development of these pedagogies, and creativity is valued by universities as a graduate capability, some educators understandably struggle to translate this vision into practice. This paper reports on selected survey findings from a mixed methods research project which aimed to shed light on how creativity can be designed for in higher education learning and teaching settings. A social constructivist epistemology underpinned the research and data was gathered using survey and case study methods. Descriptive statistical methods and informed grounded theory were employed for the analysis reported here. The findings confirm that creativity is valued for its contribution to the development of students’ academic work, employment opportunities and life in general; however, tensions arise between individual educator’s creative pedagogical goals and the provision of institutional support for implementation of those objectives. Designing for creativity becomes, paradoxically, a matter of navigating and limiting complexity and uncertainty, while simultaneously designing for those same states or qualities.

A case study of teaching English and multimodality with ICTs: Constraints and possibilities

Current Australian policies and curricular frameworks demand that teachers and students use technology creatively and meaningfully in classrooms to develop students into 21C technological citizens. English teachers and students also have to learn new metalanguage around visual grammar since multimodal tasks often combine creative with critical General Capabilities (GC) with that of the of ICTs and literacy in the Australian Curriculum: English (AC:E). Both teachers and learners come to these tasks with varying degrees of techno-literacy, skills and access to technologies. This paper reports on case-study research following a technology based collaborative professional development (PD) program between a university Lecturer facilitator and English Teachers in a secondary Catholic school. The study found that the possibilities for creative and critical engagement are rich, but there are real grounded constraints such as lack of time, impeding teachers’ ability to master and teach new technologies in classrooms. Furthermore, pedagogical approaches are affected by technical skill levels and school infrastructure concerns which can militate against effective use of ICTs in school settings. The research project was funded by the Brisbane Catholic Education Office and focused on how teachers can be supported in these endeavours in educational contexts as they prepare students of English to be creative global citizens who use technology creatively.

The gradual release of responsibility: A case study of teaching science inquiry skills

This thesis investigated how a year-4 teacher used a pedagogical approach referred to as the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model of instruction for teaching Science Inquiry Skills in a primary classroom. Through scaffolding her students' learning using the GRR, the teacher guided her students towards developing an understanding about Scientific Inquiry leading to the foundations of scientific literacy. A learning environment was established in which students engaged in rich conversations, designed and conducted experiments using fair testing procedures, analysed and offered justifications for results, and negotiated knowledge claims in ways similar to some of those in the scientific community.