Student equity's starring role in Australian higher education : not yet centre field

The field of Australian higher education has changed, is changing and is about to change, repositioned in relation to other ‘‘fields of power’’. It is a sector now well defined by its institutional groupings and by their relative claims to selectivity and exclusivity, with every suggestion of their differentiation growing. The potential of a ‘‘joined-up’’ tertiary education system, of vocational education and training (VET) and universities, has the potential to further rework these relations within Australian higher education, as will lifting the volume caps on university student enrolments. Moreover, Australian universities now compete within an international higher education marketplace, ranked by THES and Shanghai Jiao Tiong league tables. ‘‘Catchment areas’’ and knowledge production have become global. In sum, Australian universities (and agents within them) are positioned differently in the field. And being so variously and variably placed, institutions and agents have different stances available to them, including the positions they can take on student equity. In this paper I begin from the premise that our current stance on equity has been out-positioned, as much by a changing higher education field as by entrenched representations of social groups across regions, institutions, disciplines and degrees. In taking a new stance on equity, the paper is also concerned with the positioning in the field of a new national research centre with a focus on student equity in higher education. In particular, the paper asks what stance this new centre can take on student equity that will resonate on a national and even international scale. And, given a global field of higher education, what definitions of equity and propositions for policy and practice can it offer? What will work in the pursuit of equity?

Towards a theory and practice of policy engagement : higher education research policy in the making

Academic engagement with higher education research policy in Australia, and with education policy more generally, is in crisis. This time around, it is not just that our theoretical tools are blunt and irrelevant (Ball 1990), so are our politics. It seems our attention has been so consumed by ‘what is policy’ (Ball 1994a) and with challenging its claims to authority, that we have missed or ignored imperatives to engage with its production. Even though some have attempted contributions, for the most part we have been ‘coerced into an era of cooperation’. Getting ourselves out of this mess will take more than just better theories and new politics. It will require a degree of cooperation, to advance a theory and practice of policy engagement and to re-establish a field of education that resists the tendency to fragment and/or the temptation to defend itself ‘against’ policy. In this paper I attempt an assessment of where we are theoretically and politically with regard to education policy and where we need to look to find new forms of policy engagement. By way of illustration, I draw on examples from AARE (the Australian Association for Research in Education) and the Australian RQF (Research Quality Framework) although the analysis is by no means restricted to these.

Social justice in Australian education : rethinking what we know for contemporary times

In this paper I attempt two things. First I canvass the history of social justice policy in schooling and higher education in Australia, with a view to drawing out ten principles to inform a rejuvenated social justice agenda in education, facilitated at this political moment by the current Australian Government’s financial and education commitments to/for people in low socioeconomic status communities, schools and higher education. I draw primarily on what we have learned from the 1973 Karmel Report and the Disadvantaged Schools Program to which it gave rise, and on the 1990 higher education policy statement, A Fair Chance for All. I then propose three new concepts for rethinking social justice in education, which reflect a new ‘structure of feeling’ (Williams 1961) and new social capacities in contemporary times.

Has equity's time come for VET? Observations and principles for equity policy and practice in Australian education

Equity has a long history in education. When compulsory schooling was first introduced in industrialising nations in the mid 1800s, many advocates saw it as a way of improving the circumstances of the poorest and most disadvantaged in their communities. But access to schooling did not prove to be the great equaliser that some had hoped. Instead, it became central in the reproduction of social and economic inequalities (Bourdieu & Passeron 1977). High academic achievement became highly correlated with high socioeconomic status, and vice versa (Teese & Polesel 2003). In Australia, the Karmel Report (1973) proved to be a watershed moment in naming the equity problem in schooling and, among other things, gave rise to the Disadvantaged Schools Program (DSP): an attempt to level the playing field albeit by ‘running twice as hard’ (Connell at al. 1991). Almost two decades later, A Fair Chance for All (1990) signalled official concern for equity in Australian higher education. While access to university was not to be universal, it was to be equitable; all social groups in the Australian population were to be proportionally represented among its university students. Today, Australia is still grappling with the inequities in its schooling and higher education systems, highlighted by renewed interest by governments to address the issues. Although not of the same order of magnitude, there now appears to be an emerging policy agenda around equity in VET. Has equity’s time come for VET? This paper canvasses the history of equity in Australian schooling and higher education, with a view to drawing out principles to inform a rejuvenated equity agenda in vocational education and training.

Creating spaces in higher education for marginalised Australians : principles for socially inclusive pedagogies

The Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education provided a timely reminder of the dismal performance of the nation and its higher education system in terms of the proportional representation of certain groups of Australians within the university student population. While the Australian Government has taken on the challenge of creating more university places for people from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, this article makes the case for creating spaces in higher education for marginalised Australians. Specifically, we argue that the most strategic place to begin this is with the pedagogic work of higher education, because of its positioning as a central message system in education. And it is from the centre that the greatest pedagogic authority is derived. In this paper we conceive of the pedagogic work involved in terms of belief, design and action. From these constitutive elements are derived three principles on which to build a socially inclusive pedagogy and to open up spaces for currently marginalised groups.  

Back to the future : building future mentoring capacity in physical education teacher education students

For Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) graduates returning to rural and regional areas early in their career, opportunities to move into leadership positions often exist despite their limited experience. Considering this, the provision of learning and assessment initiatives that prepare graduates for futures beyond the boundaries of a subject teacher, in this case, a pre-service teacher mentor, are warranted in regional teacher education programs.

The teacher education evolution : the shift from online to mobile learning in curriculum, assessment and delivery

Most teacher education programs have online applications. Increasingly teacher education programs are expanding their distance education applications with mobile learning, or m-learning. Although related to online learning, m-learning focuses on the learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies. Mobile learning is a big step towards providing flexible teacher education; it has brought about a new forum for learning, decreased limitations of learning location, and provided learners with choices about how and when they access learning materials. Universities are finding themselves grappling with how best to utilize mobile technologies for learning, while staying within their educational missions and resources. In this paper the mobile devices used in higher education and the current status of mobile technologies as learning tools at universities are described. The background of approaches and methods which are currently in use are also discussed, plus universities and teacher readiness for this transformation are also reviewed. Affordances and constraints are considered.

Virtual worlds in Australian and New Zealand higher education: Remembering the past, understanding the present and imagining the future

3D virtual reality, including the current generation of multi-user virtual worlds, has had a long history of use in education and training, and it experienced a surge of renewed interest with the advent of Second Life in 2003. What followed shortly after were several years marked by considerable hype around the use of virtual worlds for teaching, learning and research in higher education. For the moment, uptake of the technology seems to have plateaued, with academics either maintaining the status quo and continuing to use virtual worlds as they have previously done or choosing to opt out altogether. This paper presents a brief review of the use of virtual worlds in the Australian and New Zealand higher education sector in the past and reports on its use in the sector at the present time, based on input from members of the Australian and New Zealand Virtual Worlds Working Group. It then adopts a forward-looking perspective amid the current climate of uncertainty, musing on future directions and offering suggestions for potential new applications in light of recent technological developments and innovations in the area.

Ways in which theory and practice are integrated in the pre-service teacher education practicum

This paper reports on a study into pre-service teachers’ perceptions about their professional development during practicum. The study examined to what extent, and how effectively, one group of pre-service teachers was able to integrate theory and practice during a three-week practicum in the first year of their degree. Data for this mixed methods study were drawn from one cohort of first-year students undertaking the Master of Teaching (MTeach), a graduate-level entry program in the Faculty of Education at an urban Australian university. Although there is a strong field of literature around the practicum in pre-service teacher education, there has been a limited focus on how pre-service teachers themselves perceive their development during this learning period. Further, despite widespread and longstanding acknowledgement of the “gap” between theory and practice in teacher education, there is still more to learn about how well the practicum enables an integration of these two dimensions of teacher preparation. In presenting three major findings of the study, this paper goes some way in addressing these shortcomings in the literature. First, opportunities to integrate theory and practice were varied, with many participants reporting supervision and scheduling issues as impacting on their capacity to effectively enact theory in practice. Second, participants’ privileging of theory over practice, identified previously in the literature as commonly characteristic of the pre-service teacher, was found in this study to be particularly prevalent during practicum. Third, participants overwhelmingly supported the notion of linking university coursework assessment to the practicum as a means of bridging the gap between, on the one hand, the university and the school and, on the other hand, theory and practice. The discussion and consideration of findings such as those reported in this paper are pertinent and timely, given the ratification of both the National Professional Standards for Teachers and the Initial Teacher Education Program Standards by the Australian Federal Government earlier this year. Within a number of the seven Professional Standards, graduate teachers are required to demonstrate knowledge and skills associated with both the theory and practice of teaching and with their effective integration in the classroom. To be nationally accredited, pre-service teacher education programs must provide evidence of enabling pre-service teachers to acquire such knowledge and skills.