Automated symbolic and numeric procedure for manipulator rigid-body dynamic significance analysis and simplification

This paper describes an automated procedure for analysing the significance of each of the many terms in the equations of motion for a serial-link robot manipulator. Significance analysis provides insight into the rigid-body dynamic effects that are significant locally or globally in the manipulator's state space. Deleting those terms that do not contribute significantly to the total joint torque can greatly reduce the computational burden for online control, and a Monte-Carlo style simulation is used to investigate the errors thus introduced. The procedures described are a hybrid of symbolic and numeric techniques, and can be readily implemented using standard computer algebra packages.

Integrating a sustainable academic career around scholarly learning and teaching activities

To be scholarly in learning and teaching is rigorous academic work. It demands: currency and command of both discipline subject matter and educational theory; inquiring, methodical, and reflective approaches; the collection, evaluation and documentation of evidence of learning and teaching efficacy; and, optimally, entails participation in and communication among a community of teaching professionals. This chapter examines the author’s own practice in this regard to explicate the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of scholarly and scholarship approaches, as much as the ‘what’ and ‘where’ of that endeavour. In doing so, this meta‐analysis is made ‘community property’, in the same way that Shulman (1993: 6) exhorted we ‘change the status of teaching from private to community property’ so that teaching might be more greatly valued in the academy.

Moral and social development : teachers’ knowledge of learning and teaching strategies in the early years

The intention of the analysis in this paper was to determine, from interviews with eleven early years’ teachers, what knowledge guided their teaching of moral behaviour. Six of the teachers defined moral behaviour in terms of social conventions only. Children’s learning was attributed by five of the teachers to incidental/contextual issues. Nine of the teachers used discussion of issues, in various contexts, as a way of teaching about social and moral issues. The majority of the teachers (n=7) gave the source of their knowledge of pedagogy as practical as opposed to theoretically informed. There was no clear relationship between their definitions, understanding of children’s learning, pedagogy or source of knowledge. Most of the teachers were using discussion, negotiation and reflection to develop the children’s moral and social behaviour. This is probably effective; however, it suggests a strong need for teaching of moral development to be given more prominence and addressed directly in in-service courses so that teachers are clear about their intentions and the most effective ways of achieving them.

Moral and social development: teachers’ knowledge of children’s learning and teaching strategies in the early years

The intention of the analysis in this paper was to determine, from interviews with 11 early years’ teachers, what informed their knowledge of children’s learning and teaching strategies regarding moral development. Overall, the analysis revealed four main categories: definitions of moral behaviour, understanding of children’s learning, pedagogy for moral learning, and the source of knowledge for moral pedagogy. Children’s learning was attributed by five of the teachers to incidental/contextual issues. Nine of the teachers reported using pedagogies that involved discussion of issues, in various contexts, as a way of teaching about social and moral issues. The majority of the teachers (n = 7) described the source of their knowledge of pedagogy as practical/observed as opposed to being theoretically informed. There was no clear relationship between teachers’ definitions, understanding of children’s learning, pedagogy or source of knowledge. These results suggests a strong need for the teaching of moral development to be given more prominence and addressed directly in in-service courses so that teachers are clear about their intentions and the most effective ways of achieving them.

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.

Reframing evaluation of learning and teaching: An approach to change

Evaluation practices in the Higher Education sector have been criticised for having unclear purpose and principles; ignoring the complexity and changing nature of learning and teaching and the environments in which they occur; relying almost exclusively on student ratings of teachers working in classroom settings; lacking reliability and validity; using data for inappropriate purposes; and focusing on accountability and marketing rather than the improvement of learning and teaching. In response to similar criticism from stakeholders, in 2011 Queensland University of Technology (QUT) began a project which aims to reframe the organisation’s approach to the evaluation of learning and teaching. This paper describes the existing evaluation system; the emergence and early development of the project; and formulation of a conceptual framework identifying key dimensions of evaluation. It then compares the draft framework with other conceptualisations and models of evaluation identified in the literature, to determine its validity and suitability for supporting QUT’s plans for the future. Overall, the paper represents a structured evaluation of the REFRAME project at a particular point in its lifecycle. Given that the project follows an evidence based, practice-led process and applies an ongoing action research cycle, the findings are presented in the belief that QUT’s experience is broadly applicable to other institutions which may be contemplating change in relation to evaluation of learning and teaching.