Industry school partnerships : real world learning through the Gateway Schools Projects

In the last decade, a gradual but significant shift in education has taken place. Schools have transformed from hermetically sealed, impermeable bureaucracies to dynamic and flexible organisations characterised by openness to local communities and connectedness to global issues and cultures. They are also more responsive to the aspirations of students and parents. A central feature of what Christian Maroy (2009) has described as the post bureaucratic era of education has been the relationships formed between schools and other organisations through formalised partnerships. Partnerships have been a significant feature of schooling in Queensland since the 1980s when schools developed Vocational Education Programs (VET) providing alternative pathways from schooling to post school training or employment. However, partnerships that have emerged in recent times have been more structured in their organisation and more targeted in terms of the outcomes they aim to achieve. Examples here have included Queensland’s District Youth Achievement plans that linked schools, business, industry bodies, training organisations and community groups to improve transition outcomes, particularly for young people at risk in their transitions from school to post-school life.

HyperCard test engine using Rasch Analysis

This paper will focus on the development of an interactive test engine using Rasch analysis of item responses for question selection and reporting of results. The Rasch analysis is used to determine student ability and question difficulty. This model is widely used in the preparation of paper-based tests and has been the subject of particular use and development at the Australian Council for Education Research (ACER). This paper presents an overview of an interactive implementation of the Rasch analysis model in HyperCard, where student ability estimates are generated 'on the fly' and question difficulty values updated from time to time. The student ability estimates are used to determine question selection and are the basis of scoring and reporting schemes.

Coursework masters students' perspectives on career development learning

Coursework Masters’ students have been identified as a ‘forgotten’ cohort by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Careers and Employment (C&E) Service. Traditionally, these students have been included in undergraduate career development activities. However, coursework Masters’ students are arguably a specialised cohort due to the advanced learning implicit in many of their degrees. A brief survey was designed to better understand how to assist QUT coursework Masters students with career development activities. Students were emailed an invitation to complete a brief online survey asking for their assistance in planning appropriate career development activities for their cohort. Questions included reasons for undertaking a Masters degree and preferred topics and times for career development activities. 615 students completed the survey. This brief report will report the results of the survey and highlight suggestions for career development practitioners and services

Indigenous mathematics : creating an equitable learning environment

This chapter examines how a change in school leadership can successfully address competencies in complex situations and thus create a positive learning environment in which Indigenous students can excel in their learning rather than accept a culture that inhibits school improvement. Mathematics has long been an area that has failed to assist Indigenous students in improving their learning outcomes, as it is a Eurocentric subject (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake & Morelli, 2000, De Plevitz, 2007) and does not contextualize pedagogy with Indigenous culture and perspectives (Matthews, Cooper & Baturo, 2007). The chapter explores the work of a team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics from the YuMi Deadly Centre who are turning the tide on improving Indigenous mathematical outcomes in schools and in communities with high numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

External management of curriculum change

At a time of rapid curriculum reform, some schools are turning to external change agents for assistance, but what's the best way to initiate such an approach?

Strengthening Australia's schools through corporate federalism?

The federal policy document, 'Strengthening Australia's Schools' (SAS), signified a new approach to commonwealth-state relations in schooling policy making--corporate federalism. Corporate federalism extended the application of neocorporatist strategies for managing and responding to crisis (here, in particular, Australia's worsening national and international economic situation) from the private to the public sector. The paper documents and evaluates the rationale for corporate federalism in SAS. Some possible future developments within federalism and schooling policy are also considered.

The α5 neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits plays an important role in the sedative effects of ethanol but does not modulate consumption in mice

Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are a major public health problem, and the few treatment options available to those seeking treatment offer only modest success rates. There remains a need to identify novel targets for the treatment of AUDs. The neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) represent a potential therapeutic target in the brain, as recent human genetic studies have implicated gene variants in the α5 nAChR subunit as high risk factors for developing alcohol dependence. Here, we evaluate the role of 5* nAChR for ethanol-mediated behaviors using α5+/+ and α5-/- mice. We characterized the effect of hypnotic doses of ethanol and investigated drinking behavior using an adapted Drinking-in-the Dark (DID) paradigm that has been shown to induce high ethanol consumption in mice. We found the α5 subunit to be critical in mediating the sedative effects of ethanol. The α5-/- mice showed slower recovery from ethanol-induced sleep, as measured by loss of righting reflex. Additionally the α5-/- mice showed enhanced impairment to ethanol-induced ataxia. We found the initial sensitivity to ethanol and ethanol metabolism to be similar in both α5+/+ and α5-/- mice. Hence the enhanced sedation is likely due to a difference in the acute tolerance of ethanol in mice deficient of the α5 subunit. However the α5 subunit did not play a role in ethanol consumption for ethanol concentrations ranging from 5% to 30% in the DID paradigm. Additionally, varenicline (Chantix®) was effective in reducing ethanol intake in α5-/- mice. Together, our data suggest that the α5 nAChR subunit is important for the sedative hypnotic doses of ethanol but does not play a role in ethanol consumption. Varenicline can be a treatment option even when there is loss of function of the α5 nAChR subunit.

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

Professional practice research : ensuring teacher development through a critical approach to professional learning

Currently the development of a national system for the ongoing enhancement of teacher professionalism across Australia is underway. The initiative led by Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) on behalf of the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (now SCSEEC) is progressing rapidly with a finalised set of Professional Standards for Teachers and a set of Professional Standards for Principals approved by Ministers in 2011. It is clear that there is an inextricable link between the newly proposed professional standards and the professional education of teachers and principals across Australia. Further, it is imperative that the education sector will need to work in a unified manner through ongoing consultations to ensure the standards truly reflect what teachers and principals desire of the profession, in terms of teacher preparation, professional learning and training, and professional recognition.

Why Not the Best Schools?

Why Not the Best Schools is drawn from a major research project undertaken by Brain Caldwell and Jessica Harris involving studies of successful schools in six countries (Finland, Wales, Australia, USA, China, England). It compares a total of 30 schools and examines the conditions necessary for schools anywhere to improve and attain high standards for students.

Why not the best schools? The Australia Report

"The Australia Report is part of a set of six country reports that support Why not the best schools? It contains seven case studies of successful schools in Australia and examines the reasons for their success. Through interviews with principals, other school leaders and analysis of school reports, the reports examine how these schools achieved transformation and success by actively developing and building strength in four kinds of capital: intellectual, social, financial and spiritual ? and aligning them to their mission through outstanding governance. Why Not the Best Schools?: The Australia Report is part of a set of six country reports that support Why Not the Best Schools? by Brian Caldwell and Jessica Harris (ACER Press 2008). Why Not the Best Schools? draws on the findings of the International Project to Frame the Transformation of Schools conducted in Australia, China, England, Finland."--Libraries Australia

Why not the best schools? What we have learned from outstanding schools around the world

Why not the Best Schools? offers a ten-point, ten-year plan for an education revolution that will result in the transformation of Australia’s schools. Expectations have been raised in Australia and comparable countries for an ‘education revolution’ that will secure success for all students in all settings. Such a revolution must ensure the alignment of educational outcomes, the skills required for a strong economy, and the needs of a harmonious society. Why not the Best Schools? goes beyond system characteristics to provide an in-depth account of how transformation occurs in schools. Fifty indicators are provided to help shape strategies for policy makers and practitioners in schools and school systems. Guidelines for leadership and governance ensure a future-focus for those who are determined to ensure that all students will succeed in the twentieth-first century. This book draws on a five-year study culminating in the International Project to Frame the Transformation of Schools conducted in Australia, China, England, Finland, the United States and Wales. The findings are consistent with the McKinsey & Company report on the world’s best performing school systems and those arising from OECD’s PISA.