Simultaneous voltammetric determination of three herbicides in food and water samples with the aid of chemometrics

Differential pulse stripping voltammetry method(DPSV) was applied to the determination of three herbicides, ametryn, cyanatryn, and dimethametryn. It was found that their voltammograms overlapped strongly, and it is difficult to determine these compounds individually from their mixtures. With the aid of chemometrics, classical least squares(CLS), principal component regression(PCR) and partial least squares(PLS), voltammogram resolution and quantitative analysis of the synthetic mixtures of the three compounds were successfully performed. The proposed method was also applied to the analysis of some real samples with satisfactory results.

Monte Carlo verification of gel dosimetry measurements for stereotactic radiotherapy

The quality assurance of stereotactic radiotherapy and radiosurgery treatments requires the use of small-field dose measurements that can be experimentally challenging. This study used Monte Carlo simulations to establish that PAGAT dosimetry gel can be used to provide accurate, high resolution, three-dimensional dose measurements of stereotactic radiotherapy fields. A small cylindrical container (4 cm height, 4.2 cm diameter) was filled with PAGAT gel, placed in the parietal region inside a CIRS head phantom, and irradiated with a 12 field stereotactic radiotherapy plan. The resulting three-dimensional dose measurement was read out using an optical CT scanner and compared with the treatment planning prediction of the dose delivered to the gel during the treatment. A BEAMnrc DOSXYZnrc simulation of this treatment was completed, to provide a standard against which the accuracy of the gel measurement could be gauged. The three dimensional dose distributions obtained from Monte Carlo and from the gel measurement were found to be in better agreement with each other than with the dose distribution provided by the treatment planning system's pencil beam calculation. Both sets of data showed close agreement with the treatment planning system's dose distribution through the centre of the irradiated volume and substantial disagreement with the treatment planning system at the penumbrae. The Monte Carlo calculations and gel measurements both indicated that the treated volume was up to 3 mm narrower, with steeper penumbrae and more variable out-of-field dose, than predicted by the treatment planning system. The Monte Carlo simulations allowed the accuracy of the PAGAT gel dosimeter to be verified in this case, allowing PAGAT gel to be utilised in the measurement of dose from stereotactic and other radiotherapy treatments, with greater confidence in the future.

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.

Strategies to engage academics in assuring graduate attributes

Assurance of learning (AoL) is a predominant feature in both quality assurance and quality enhancement in higher education. The process may be used for program development, and to inform external accreditation and evaluation bodies. However, there is an obvious challenge in trying to get academic staff to buy into the benefits of the AoL process. This project conducted an audit across 25 Australian Business Schools. The majority of those interviewed stated that academic staff considered AoL to be extra work and viewed the process as a box ticking exercise for external bodies rather than sound educational practice. A change management process is required to promote the necessary cultural change to embed AoL into practice. This paper showcases some of the educational leadership strategies that have been successfully implemented across Australia to foster staff engagement in the AoL process. These include: strong senior management commitment and leadership demonstrating a constant and high level drive for staff engagement until AoL becomes an institutional norm; developing leadership and champions among unit and program level staff, to share practices and promote the benefits that come from engaging in the process; providing professional development opportunities to discuss and resolve difficulties and tensions around AoL; demonstrating success and effectiveness by selling staff on the evidence that AoL makes a difference; and making the process inclusive with academics collaborating in the development and implementation of the process.

Managing distraction and attention in diverse cohorts : 21st century challenges to law student engagement

It is imperative that we consider the use of current and emerging technologies in terms of the nature of our learners, the physical environment of the lecture theatre, and how technology may help to support appropriate pedagogies that facilitate the capturing of student attention in active engaging learning experiences. It is argued that a re-evaluation of pedagogy is required to address the tech-savy traits of the 21st century learner and the extent to which their mobile devices are capable of not only distracting them from learning but also enhancing face-to-face learning experiences.

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

Verifying a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM): A reality check of the model using data derived from three universities

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). We have proposed 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 and we are currently articulating a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012). Our research aims to 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. Our research extends 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). Our research also moves 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. The issues explored in this workshop are (i) whether the maturity model concept can be usefully applied to provide a measure of institutional capability for SESR; (ii) whether the SESR-MM can be used to assess the maturity of a particular set of institutional practices; and (iii) whether a collective assessment of an institution’s SESR capabilities can provide an indication of the maturity of the institution’s SESR activities. The workshop will be approached in three stages. Firstly, participants will be introduced to the key characteristics of maturity models, followed by a discussion of the SESR-MM and the processes involved in its development. Secondly, participants will be provided with resources to facilitate the development of a maturity model and an assessment instrument for a range of institutional processes and related practices. In the final stage of the workshop, participants will “assess” the capability of these practices to provide a collective assessment of the maturity of these processes. 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. 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 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. 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

Understanding QC and EQA : an authentic learning model for undergraduate students (Conference Abstract)

Introduction QC and EQA are integral to good pathology laboratory practice. Medical Laboratory Science students undertake a project exploring internal QC and EQA procedures used in chemical pathology laboratories. Each student represents an individual lab and the class group represents the peer group of labs performing the same assay using the same method. Methods Using a manual BCG assay for serum albumin, normal and abnormal controls are run with a patient sample over 7 weeks. The QC results are assessed each week using calculated z-scores and both 2S & 3S control rules to determine whether a run is ‘in control’. At the end of the 7 weeks a completed LJ chart is assessed using the Westgard Multirules. Students investigate causes of error and the implications for both lab practice and patient care if runs are not ‘in control’. Twice in the 7 weeks two EQA samples (with target values unknown) are assayed alongside the weekly QC and patient samples. Results from each student are collated and form the basis of an EQA program. ALP are provided and students complete a Youden Plot, which is used to analyse the performance of each ‘lab’ and the method to identify bias. Students explore the concept of possible clinical implications of a biased method and address the actions that should be taken if a lab is not in consensus with the peer group. Conclusion This project is a model of ‘real world’ practice in which student demonstrate an understanding of the importance of QC procedures in a pathology laboratory, apply and interpret statistics and QC rules and charts, apply critical thinking and analytical skills to quality performance data to make recommendations for further practice and improve their technical competence and confidence.

Bringing the real world into university learning

Introduction: As part of ongoing quality assurance, all university programs must be regularly reviewed to ensure curriculum is current, meets university and national standards, and for medical science, criteria for AIMS Accreditation. With recent developments at the national and international level also signaling change, a course design team (CDT) was assembled and tasked with developing and implementing a new four year Bachelor of Medical Laboratory Science (BMLS) course at QUT. Method: A whole-of-course approach was adopted, incorporating inverted curriculum and Capstone experience. First, course vision and desired graduate profile are defined as course learning outcomes (CLO), i.e. skills, knowledge, behaviours and attributes graduates must demonstrate. CLO are then back-mapped into introductory, developmental and expected phases from fourth to first year on a course plan and assessment map. Unit learning outcomes (ULO) are then defined, and finally, each unit (subject) designed, directly aligned with assessment. Results: The resulting BMLS course represents a deliberate program of study across four years, which from day one, focuses on the professional aspects of MLS, clinical pathology disciplines, and incrementally developing and assessing the skills, knowledge, behaviours and attributes required to undertake the Work Integrated Learning Internship (WILI) and Capstone experience in final year, and subsequently, graduate from the program. Conclusions: At the start of the year, the BMLS commenced with higher than anticipated enrolments. To date, survey data and feedback is positive, with particular emphasis on the directed nature of the course. The method of course design also ensures university/national standards, and criteria for AIMS Accreditation have been met.

Sessional Academic Success : A distributed framework for academic support and development

With approximately half of Australian university teaching now performed by sessional academics, there has been growing recognition of the contribution they make to student learning. At the same time, sector-wide research and institutional audits continue to raise concerns about academic development, quality assurance, recognition and belonging. In response, universities have increasingly begun to offer academic development programs for sessional academics. However, such programs may be centrally delivered, generic in nature, and contained within the moment of delivery, while the Faculty contexts and cultures that sessional academics work within are diverse, and the need for support unfolds in ad-hoc and often unpredictable ways. In this paper we present the Sessional Academic Success (SAS) program–a new framework that complements and extends the central academic development program for sessional academic staff at Queensland University of Technology. This program recognises that experienced sessional academics have much to contribute to the advancement of learning and teaching, and harnesses their expertise to provide school-based academic development opportunities, peer-to-peer support, and locally contextualized community building. We describe the program’s implementation and explain how Sessional Academic Success Advisors (SASAs) are employed, trained and supported to provide advice and mentorship and, through a co-design methodology, to develop local development opportunities and communities of teaching practice within their schools. Besides anticipated benefits to new sessional academics in terms of timely and contextual support and improved sense of belonging, we explain how SAS provides a pathway for building leadership capacity and academic advancement for experienced sessional academics. We take a collaborative, dialogic and reflective practice approach to this paper, interlacing insights from the Associate Director, Academic: Sessional Development who designed the program, and two Sessional Academic Success Advisors who have piloted it within their schools.

Ensuring sessional academic success by rethinking the place of academic development

There has been growing recognition of the contribution that Sessional Academics make to student learning in higher education; with recent studies concluding that around half Australian university teaching is now performed by casual staff [Red Report 2008; May, 2013]. However, sector-wide research and institutional audits continue to raise concerns about academic development and quality assurance, as well as the recognition and retention of Sessional Academics. In response, universities offer academic development programs. However, while such centrally offered programs are undoubtedly useful, they are necessarily generic and cannot address the local contexts of faculties or provide ‘on the ground’ support. This paper presents a new, distributed model of academic support and development for Sessional academics at Queensland University of Technology. Entitled the Sessional Academic Success program, it employs the principles of distributed leadership. Experienced Sessional academics are trained and supported to assume roles as Sessional Academic Success Advisors within their schools. Complementing our central programs, they design bespoke, locally situated, peer-to-peer academic development for new Sessional teachers; provide ‘just in time’, safe and reliable advice; and build supportive communities of teaching practice in their local contexts. This distributed model re-envisages the forms and places of academic development and support. It helps ensure that new Sessional Academics are embraced by faculty life. And, recognizing that experienced Sessional Academics have much to contribute to the advancement of learning and teaching, it builds their capacity through leadership opportunities. As the designer/facilitator of the program and a Sessional Academic Success Advisor, the authors take a dialogic approach and together describe the design, implementation and outcomes of the program.

New graduate occupational therapists' perceptions of near-misses and mistakes in the workplace

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of near-misses and mistakes among new graduate occupational therapists from Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ), and their knowledge of current incident reporting systems. Design/methodology/approach - New graduate occupational therapists in Australia and Aotearoa/NZ in their first year of practice (n=228) participated in an online electronic survey that examined five areas of work preparedness. Near-misses and mistakes was one focus area. Findings - The occurrence and disclosure of practice errors among new graduate occupational therapists are similar between Australian and Aotearoa/NZ participants. Rural location, structured supervision and registration status significantly influenced the perceptions and reporting of practice errors. Structured supervision significantly impacted on reporting procedure knowledge. Current registration status was strongly correlated with perceptions that the workplace encouraged event reporting. Research limitations/ implications - Areas for further investigation include investigating the perceptions and knowledge of practice errors within a broader profession and the need to explore definitional aspects and contextual factors of adverse events that occur in allied health settings. Selection bias may be a factor in this study. Practical implications - Findings have implications for university and workplace structures, such as clinical management, supervision, training about practice errors and reporting mechanisms in allied health. Originality/value - Findings may enable the development of better strategies for detecting, managing and preventing practice errors in the allied health professions.

Evaluating leadership development using the Most Significant Change technique

Course evaluations are now a serious matter for universities trying to meet stakeholder needs and expectations, quality assurance, improvements and strategic decision making. Typically, students are invited to participate in surveys on how well the design and delivery aspects meet predetermined learning objectives, quality of teaching, and the types of improvements needed for future deliveries. We used the Most Significant Change technique to gather data on the impact of a leadership course on 18 Pacific Islanders who completed a Master of Education (Educational Leadership). Participants' views highlighted impacts that were of significance to the students and their workplaces. The findings demonstrate that the Most Significant Change technique offers a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of leadership development courses.