Faculty mentoring, evidence-based assessment, and student learning : an Australian exploration of American initiatives

There have been many improvements in Australian engineering education since the 1990s. However, given the recent drive for assuring the achievement of identified academic standards, more progress needs to be made, particularly in the area of evidence-based assessment. This paper reports on initiatives gathered from the literature and engineering academics in the USA, through an Australian National Teaching Fellowship program. The program aims to establish a process to help academics in designing and implementing evidence-based assessments that meet the needs of not only students and the staff that teach them, but also industry as well as accreditation bodies. The paper also examines the kinds and levels of support necessary for engineering academics, especially early career ones, to help meet the expectations of the current drive for assured quality and standards of both research and teaching. Academics are experiencing competing demands on their time and energy with very high expectations in research performance and increased teaching responsibilities, although many are researchers who have not had much pedagogic training. Based on the literature and investigation of relevant initiatives in the USA, we conducted interviews with several identified experts and change agents who have wrought effective academic cultural change within their institutions and beyond. These reveal that assuring the standards and quality of student learning outcomes through evidence-based assessments cannot be appropriately addressed without also addressing the issue of pedagogic training for academic staff. To be sustainable, such training needs to be complemented by a culture of on-going mentoring support from senior academics, formalised through the university administration, so that mentors are afforded resources, time, and appropriate recognition.

A model for enhancing assessment and teaching practice at the coalface : Insights from a Fellow-In-Residence engagement program

Australian universities are currently engaging with new governmental policies and regulations that require them to demonstrate enhanced quality and accountability in teaching and research. The development of national academic standards for learning outcomes in higher education is one such instance of this drive for excellence. These discipline-specific standards articulate the minimum, or Threshold Learning Outcomes, to be addressed by higher education institutions so that graduating students can demonstrate their achievement to their institutions, accreditation agencies, and industry recruiters. This impacts not only on the design of Engineering courses (with particular emphasis on pedagogy and assessment), but also on the preparation of academics to engage with these standards and implement them in their day-to-day teaching practice on a micro level. This imperative for enhanced quality and accountability in teaching is also significant at a meso level, for according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, about 25 per cent of teachers in Australian universities are aged 55 and above and more than 54 per cent are aged 45 and above (ABS, 2006). A number of institutions have undertaken recruitment drives to regenerate and enrich their academic workforce by appointing capacity-building research professors and increasing the numbers of early- and mid-career academics. This nationally driven agenda for quality and accountability in teaching permeates also the micro level of engineering education, since the demand for enhanced academic standards and learning outcomes requires both a strong advocacy for a shift to an authentic, collaborative, outcomes-focused education and the mechanisms to support academics in transforming their professional thinking and practice. Outcomes-focused education means giving greater attention to the ways in which the curriculum design, pedagogy, assessment approaches and teaching activities can most effectively make a positive, verifiable difference to students’ learning. Such education is authentic when it is couched firmly in the realities of learning environments, student and academic staff characteristics, and trustworthy educational research. That education will be richer and more efficient when staff works collaboratively, contributing their knowledge, experience and skills to achieve learning outcomes based on agreed objectives. We know that the school or departmental levels of universities are the most effective loci of changes in approaches to teaching and learning practices in higher education (Knight & Trowler, 2000). Heads of Schools are being increasingly entrusted with more responsibilities - in addition to setting strategic directions and managing the operational and sometimes financial aspects of their school, they are also expected to lead the development and delivery of the teaching, research and other academic activities. Guiding and mentoring individuals and groups of academics is one critical aspect of the Head of School’s role. Yet they do not always have the resources or support to help them mentor staff, especially the more junior academics. In summary, the international trend in undergraduate engineering course accreditation towards the demonstration of attainment of graduate attributes poses new challenges in addressing academic staff development needs and the assessment of learning. This paper will give some insights into the conceptual design, implementation and empirical effectiveness to date, of a Fellow-In-Residence Engagement (FIRE) program. The program is proposed as a model for achieving better engagement of academics with contemporary issues and effectively enhancing their teaching and assessment practices. It will also report on the program’s collaborative approach to working with Heads of Schools to better support academics, especially early-career ones, by utilizing formal and informal mentoring. Further, the paper will discuss possible factors that may assist the achievement of the intended outcomes of such a model, and will examine its contributions to engendering an outcomes-focussed thinking in engineering education.

Outcomes of the Chemistry Discipline Network Mapping Exercises: Are the Threshold Learning Outcomes met?

The Chemistry Discipline Network has recently completed two distinct mapping exercises. The first is a snapshot of chemistry taught at 12 institutions around Australia in 2011. There were many similarities but also important differences in the content taught and assessed at different institutions. There were also significant differences in delivery, particularly laboratory contact hours, as well as forms and weightings of assessment. The second mapping exercise mapped the chemistry degrees at three institutions to the Threshold Learning Outcomes for chemistry. Importantly, some of the TLOs were addressed by multiple units at all institutions, while others were not met, or were met at an introductory level only. The exercise also exposed some challenges in using the TLOs as currently written.

Creative entrepreneurship education for graduate employability in the creative arts

The higher education sector in Australia is under increasing pressure to prove quality and efficacy of education provision, including graduate outcomes. One of the central tasks of higher education has become to prepare nascent professionals as far as possible for initial employment and future working lives beyond this (Boden & Nedeva, 2010). Tertiary educators in the creative arts face significant and distinctive challenges in demonstrating graduate employability, and creative graduates consistently have the poorest outcomes of any subject grouping. In part, this is because the national graduate destinations survey (Graduate Careers Council of Australia, 2012) does not cater to the distinctive ‘portfolio’ nature of creative careers, or take account of the fact that creative careers can take concerted effort over several years to establish (e.g., McCowan & Wyganowska, 2010). However, it is worth asking whether we as tertiary arts educators are doing enough to prepare creative arts students for the world of work, particularly given that the majority of them will be self-employed to some degree (Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2011, Throsby & Zednik, 2010), and will be challenged to build their own careers without recourse to the support of HR departments or intra-firm promotion schemes. It has been demonstrated empirically that career management and creative enterprise skills are among the most important graduate capabilities in determining early creative career success (Bridgstock, 2011), although these skills do not appear in the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for the Creative and Performing Arts (2010). This paper explores the nature and development of enterprise capabilities for creative arts students (as distinct from students of the business school), examines best practice in the field internationally, and proposes a theoretically-driven creative arts-specific enterprise curriculum model which commences in first year, for demonstrable impact on student enterprise behaviours (such as grant seeking, professional networking and intention to start an enterprise) and employability.

Implementing the self-management threshold learning outcome for law : some intentional design strategies from the current curriculum toolbox

There is a growing awareness of the high levels of psychological distress being experienced by law students and the practising profession in Australia. In this context, a Threshold Learning Outcome (TLO) on self-management has been included in the six TLOs recently articulated as minimum learning outcomes for all Australian graduates of the Bachelor of Laws degree (LLB). The TLOs were developed during 2010 as part of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s (ALTC’s) project funded by the Australian Government to articulate ‘Learning and Teaching Academic Standards’. The TLOs are the result of a comprehensive national consultation process led by the ALTC’s Discipline Scholars: Law, Professors Sally Kift and Mark Israel.1 The TLOs have been endorsed by the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD) and have received broad support from members of the judiciary and practising profession, representative bodies of the legal profession, law students and recent graduates, Legal Services Commissioners and the Law Admissions Consultative Committee. At the time of writing, TLOs for the Juris Doctor (JD) are also being developed, utilising the TLOs articulated for the LLB as their starting point but restating the JD requirements as the higher order outcomes expected of graduates of a ‘Masters Degree (Extended)’, this being the award level designation for the JD now set out in the new Australian Qualifications Framework.2 As Australian law schools begin embedding the learning, teaching and assessment of the TLOs in their curricula, and seek to assure graduates’ achievement of them, guidance on the implementation of the self-management TLO is salient and timely.

The Threshold Learning Outcome on self-management for the Bachelor of Laws degree : a proposed focus for teaching strategies in the first year law curriculum

The Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Discipline Scholars for Law, Professors Sally Kift and Mark Israel, articulated six Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) for the Bachelor of Laws degree as part of the ALTC’s 2010 project on Learning and Teaching Academic Standards. One of these TLOs promotes the learning, teaching and assessment of self-management skills in Australian law schools. This paper explores the concept of self-management and how it can be relevantly applied in the first year of legal education. Recent literature from the United States (US) and Australia provides insights into the types of issues facing law students, as well as potential antidotes to these problems. Based on these findings, I argue that designing a pedagogical framework for the first year law curriculum that promotes students’ connection with their intrinsic interests, values, motivations and purposes will facilitate student success in terms of their personal well-being, ethical dispositions and academic engagement.

Journalism, media & communication network: Final report 2015

The JoMeC Network project had three key objectives. These were to: 1. Benchmark the pedagogical elements of journalism, media and communication (JoMeC) programs at Australian universities in order to develop a set of minimum academic standards, to be known as Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs), which would applicable to the disciplines of Journalism, Communication and/or Media Studies, and Public Relations; 2. Build a learning and teaching network of scholars across the JoMeC disciplines to support collaboration, develop leadership potential among educators, and progress shared priorities; 3. Create an online resources hub to support learning and teaching excellence and foster leadership in learning and teaching in the JoMeC disciplines. In order to benchmark the pedagogical elements of the JoMeC disciplines, the project started with a comprehensive review of the disciplinary settings of journalism, media and communication-related programs within Higher Education in Australia plus an analysis of capstone units (or subjects) offered in JoMeC-related degrees. This audit revealed a diversity of degree titles, disciplinary foci, projected career outcomes and pedagogical styles in the 36 universities that offered JoMeC-related degrees in 2012, highlighting the difficulties of classifying the JoMeC disciplines collectively or singularly. Instead of attempting to map all disciplines related to journalism, media and communication, the project team opted to create generalised TLOs for these fields, coupled with detailed TLOs for bachelor-level qualifications in three selected JoMeC disciplines: Journalism, Communication and/or Media Studies, and Public Relations. The initial review’s outcomes shaped the methodology that was used to develop the TLOs. Given the complexity of the JoMeC disciplines and the diversity of degrees across the network, the project team deployed an issue-framing process to create TLO statements. This involved several phases, including discussions with an issue-framing team (an advisory group of representatives from different disciplinary areas); research into accreditation requirements and industry-produced materials about employment expectations; evaluation of learning outcomes from universities across Australia; reviews of scholarly literature; as well as input from disciplinary leaders in a variety of forms. Draft TLOs were refined after further consultation with industry stakeholders and the academic community via email, telephone interviews, and meetings and public forums at conferences. This process was used to create a set of common TLOs for JoMeC disciplines in general and extended TLO statements for the specific disciplines of Journalism and Public Relations. A TLO statement for Communication and/or Media Studies remains in draft form. The Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) and Journalism Education and Research Association of Australian (JERAA) have agreed to host meetings to review, revise and further develop the TLOs. The aim is to support the JoMeC Network’s sustainability and the TLOs’ future development and use.

1994-2006年《水土保持研究》载文被引定量分析

利用中国知识资源总库的中国引文数据库检索《水土保持研究》在1994-2006年所载论文的被引用情况,采用文献计量学方法对该刊1994-2006年载文被《中国期刊文献引证数据库》来源期刊引用的情况进行统计分析及评价。从文献引证的角度透视《水土保持研究》的学术水平。该刊1994-2006年共载文2098篇,被引用2018篇,占载文总数的96.62%。2001-2006年该刊影响因子、即年指标等文献计量指标逐年上升,分析表明:《水土保持研究》载文质量较高,在该学科有较大的学术影响力。

The differences in the social competence of children who attend integrated junior infant classes and children who attend segregated learning environments

There are a number of reasons why this researcher has decided to undertake this study into the differences in the social competence of children who attend integrated Junior Infant classes and children who attend segregated learning environments. Theses reasons are both personal and professional. My personal reasons stem from having grown up in a family which included both an aunt who presented with Down Syndrome and an uncle who presented with hearing impairment. Both of these relatives' experiences in our education system are interesting. My aunt was considered ineducable while her brother - my uncle - was sent to Dublin (from Cork) at six years of age to be educated by a religious order. My professional reasons, on the other hand, stemmed from my teaching experience. Having taught in both special and integrated classrooms it became evident to me that there was somewhat 'suspicion' attached to integration. Parents of children without disabilities questioned whether this process would have a negative impact on their children's education. While parents of children with disabilities debated whether integrated settings met the specific needs of their children. On the other hand, I always questioned whether integration and inclusiveness meant the same thing. My research has enabled me to find many answers. Increasingly, children with special educational needs (SEN) are attending a variety of integrated and inclusive childcare and education settings. This contemporary practice of educating children who present with disabilities in mainstream classrooms has stimulated vast interest on the impact of such practices on children with identified disabilities. Indeed, children who present with disabilities "fare far better in mainstream education than in special schools" (Buckley, cited in Siggins, 2001,p.25). However, educators and practitioners in the field of early years education and care are concerned with meeting the needs of all children in their learning environments, while also upholding high academic standards (Putman, 1993). Fundamentally, therefore, integrated education must also produce questions about the impact of this practice on children without identified special educational needs. While these questions can be addressed from the various areas of child development (i.e. cognitive, physical, linguistic, emotional, moral, spiritual and creative), this research focused on the social domain. It investigates the development of social competence in junior infant class children without identified disabilities as they experience different educational settings.

On the governance of public education

Private schools in Australia receive significant public funding, but their determination to concentrate social and cultural capital and consolidate positional advantage ‘denies the possibility of their serving the public interest’. A 1998 study of Victorian private schools has confirmed that they produce above-average academic results and are also concentrated in high socioeconomic geographic areas. The few private schools outside this pattern serve mainly provincial areas or ethnic minority groups. High academic credentials depend at least in part on their scarcity, and ‘the selective function of schools, directed towards establishing a hierarchy of performance, overwhelms the pedagogical function of universal learning and social justice,’ especially at transition points in the education system. The governance procedures of schools typically encourage high academic standards ‘through mechanisms of exclusion’. Private schools in particular, at the secondary level, tend to ‘export failure’ through ‘predatory recruitment and selective dumping practices’, and by arrangements with universities for early placement of high performers into preferred tertiary courses. The broader education system reinforces the competitive processes within schools though competitive examinations. A range of steps can address these equity problems. Curriculum should be made more sensitive to disadvantaged social groups. Secondary schools should be aligned more closely to the social, cultural and economic development of their communities through mechanisms such as VET in schools, linkages with TAFE colleges, and a broadened curriculum that addresses community problems.

`Silly, soft and otherwise suspect`: doctoral education as risky business

This article investigates how certain doctoral practices come to count as scandalous and with what effects on universities. To do so, it engages with a number of recent media allegations that relate to doctoral practice in Australia and elsewhere. The analysis of these allegations is developed in terms of three broad categories, namely allegations of silliness in relation to thesis content, allegations of softness in relation to entry, rigour and assessment, and allegations of suspect conduct and/or credentials. The impact of such allegations on university governance is then addressed.

A doctorate by definition : exploring possibilities and opportunities in education

The author provides a diagram and table which reflect his conceptualisation of issues surrounding the definition of a doctorate. Two broad questions frame this characterisation: (i) what defines the doctorate? and (ii) where to now? In relation to the first question the author contends that the resources available to students, supervisors and institutions significantly influence what is regarded as a 'good' doctorate and the 'protection' of this standard. An overlapping set of issues is identified in response to the question 'where to now'? These are expressed as strategies in negotiating doctorate definitions and futures; some more reminiscent of times past and some cognisant of prevailing conditions, while others offer a qualitatively different strategy that explores (or generates) possibilities and opportunities within the parameters of the doctorate.

The underlying assumption in chemistry education

The underlying assumption in chemistry education is that chemistry is real, distinct discipline, clearly differentiable from other sciences. Chemistry is the study of matter and its interactions with other matter and with energy, but the aspects which distinguish chemistry are: macroscopic observations and descriptions of properties and change; understanding in terms of atoms and molecules; abstract representations to describe and communicate chemical concepts; and occupational health and safety. These aspects are not unique to chemistry, but their combination make chemistry unique. Over the last three years, there have been major reviews of school science education through the formulation of the Australian National Curriculum and of undergraduate education through the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project. In both cases, individual RACI members and chemistry professionals, including school teachers, and RACI working party and workshop, have articulated the unique nature of chemistry and the need for chemistry education as a separate subject.

The signature pedagogy in chemistry education

Laboratories are the signature pedagogy in chemistry education. The chemical sciences are based in investigations that are reproducible, and objectively testable. Some investigations might involve testing a hypothesis – does a carbonate produce carbon dioxide gas when reacted with acid? Other activities may not have an obvious hypothesis – how much salt is in this detergent package? Nevertheless, laboratory work is a distinctive part of science generally, and of chemistry in particular.

Laboratory work is a significant part of working in the chemistry profession. The best way for students to learn what scientists do, is to do what scientists do. The only way to conduct a laboratory investigation is to get into a laboratory and to do it!

Learning and doing chemistry in a laboratory is an important and irreplaceable part of a chemistry education.

Constructing knowledge

The most popular model of how students learn is known as the constructivist model of learning. There are variants of this model, but the main features are that learning occurs in the context of pre-existing experiences and ideas, that new concepts are transformed to fit or build on those existing ideas, and that learning occurs in a social or cultural context. Learners are not empty vessels, into which new knowledge can be injected. New concepts, which are consistent with and extend pre-existing experiences and ideas, are easily and effectively assimilated. Learning is difficult, when learners have pre-existing incorrect ideas or alternative conceptions, as they must first unlearn the misconceptions in order to incorporate the new information. In a different context, it is usually much harder and more expensive to retrofit an existing house than to build from scratch. Similarly, it is very hard to overcome bad habits. A previous column in Chemistry in Australia [July 2013, page 35], noted that we simplify ideas when teaching chemistry to younger students, but warned that over-simplication often results in misconceptions that will hinder future learning. Most chemistry educators favour constructivism, because there are similarities with the process of discovery in science. Firstly, the advancement of scientific knowledge builds on past experiences and knowledge: Isaac Newton famously acknowledged, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. Secondly, observations and data of themselves are not meaningful, until that information has been transformed to extend existing ideas: Nobel Laureate Lawrence Bragg wrote, “the important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them”. Science as a Human Endeavour (SHE) is one of the strands in the Australian Curriculum. Similarly, one of the learning outcomes in the Draft Chemistry Academic Standards is that graduates will be able to recognise the creative endeavour involved in the acquiring knowledge and to recognise the testable and contestable nature of chemistry. Science is practiced individually and collectively by people. Human beings, who have human virtues and fallibilities, are responsible for scientific advancements. New knowledge is constructed in the minds of learners and scientists. Just as discussions in work teams, workshops, conferences, and the scientific literature, help scientists to extend and improve scientific understanding, the important role of teachers is to guide students to refine, alter and improve their scientific understanding when extending their scientific boundaries.