Applying a social justice framework to ensure good practice in monitoring student learning engagement

A current Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) funded action research project aims to provide a set of practical resources founded on a social justice framework, to guide good practice for monitoring student learning engagement (MSLE) in higher education. The project involves ten Australasian institutions, eight of which are engaged in various MSLE type projects. A draft framework, consisting of six social justice principles which emerged from the literature has been examined with reference to the eight institutional approaches for MSLE in conjunction with the personnel working on these initiatives during the first action research cycle. The cycle will examine the strategic and operational implications of the framework in each of the participating institutions. Cycle 2 will also build capacity to embed the principles within the institutional MSLE program and will identify and collect examples and resources that exemplify the principles in practice. The final cycle will seek to pilot the framework to guide new MSLE initiatives. In its entirety, the project will deliver significant resources to the sector in the form of a social justice framework for MSLE, guidelines and sector exemplars for MSLE. As well as increasing the awareness amongst staff around the criticality of transition to university (thereby preventing attrition) and the significance of the learning and teaching agenda in enhancing student engagement, the project will build leadership capacity within the participating institutions and provide a knowledge base and institutional capacity for the Australasian HE sector to deploy the deliverables that will safeguard student learning engagement At this early stage of the project the workshop session provides an opportunity to discuss and examine the draft set of social justice principles and to discuss their potential value for the participants’ institutional contexts. Specifically, the workshop will explore critical questions associated with the principles.

Developing a social justice framework to ensure good practice in higher education

The concept of student engagement is a key factor in student achievement and retention and Australasian universities have a range of initiatives aimed at monitoring and intervening with students who are at risk of disengaging. Given the aspirations about widening participation, it is absolutely critical that these initiatives are designed to enable success for all students, particularly those for whom social and cultural disadvantage have been a barrier. Consequently, these types of initiatives must be consistent with the concept of social justice and a set of principles would provide this philosophical foundation for the sector. An Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project that involves ten Australasian universities, is designing of a suite of resources for the sector which will include: (1) a set of principles for good practice in MSLE, (2) a good practice guide for the design and implementation of institutional MSLE policy and practice, and (3) a collection of resources for and exemplars of good practice to be taken up by the sector. This workshop session will provide an opportunity for participants to examine the draft set of principles and to discuss their potential value for the participants’ institutional contexts. Australian Learning and Teaching Council Competitive Grant CG10-1730 2010-2012: Good practice for safeguarding student learning engagement in higher education institutions.

Human rights and environmental wrongs : achieving environmental justice through human rights law

The links between the environment and human rights are well established internationally. It is accepted that environmental problems impact on individuals’ and communities’ enjoyment of rights which are guaranteed to them under international human rights law. Environmental issues also impact on governments’ capacity to protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens. In addition to these links between the environment and human rights, it is argued that human rights principles offer a strategy for addressing environmental injustice. The justice implications of environmental problems are well documented, with many examples where pollution, deforestation or other degradation disproportionately impacts upon poorer neighbourhoods or areas populated by minority groups. On the international level, there are environmental injustices which exist between developed and developing states. Further, there are also potential injustices for future generations. This paper investigates the role of human rights principles in addressing these instances of environmental injustice, and argues that the framework of human rights norms provides an approach to environmental governance which can help to minimise injustice and promote the interests of those groups who are most adversely affected. Further, it suggests that the human rights enforcement mechanisms which exist at international law could be utilised to lend more weight to claims for more equitable environmental policies.

Enduring documents : improving the forms, improving the outcomes

Most Australian states have introduced legislation to provide for enduring documents for financial, personal and health care decision making in the event of incapacity. Since the introduction of Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) and Advance Health Directives (AHDs) in Queensland in 1998, concerns have continued to be raised by service providers, professionals and individuals about the uptake, understanding and appropriate use of these documents. In response to these concerns, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (DJAG) convened a Practical Guardianship Initiatives Working Party. This group identified the limited evidence base available to address these concerns. In 2009, a multidisciplinary research team from the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology was awarded $90,000 from the Legal Practitioners Interest on Trust Account Fund to undertake a review of the current EPA and AHD forms. The goal of the research was to gather data on the content and useability of the forms from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders, particularly those completing the EPA and AHD, witnesses of these documents, attorneys appointed under an EPA, and health professionals involved in the completion of an AHD or dealing with it in a clinical context. The researchers also sought to gather information from the perspective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) individuals as well people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups. Although the focus of the research was on the forms and the extent to which the current design, content and format represents a barrier to uptake, in the course of the research, some broader issues were identified which have an impact on the effectiveness of the EPA and AHD in achieving the goals of planning for financial and personal and health care in advance of losing capacity. The data gathered enabled the researchers to achieve the primary goal of the research: to make recommendations to improve the content and useability of the forms which hopefully will lead to an increased uptake and appropriate use of the forms. However, the researchers thought it was important not to ignore broader policy issues that were identified in the course of the research. These broader issues have been highlighted in this Report, and the researchers have responded to them in a variety of ways. For some issues, the researchers have suggested alterations that could be made to the forms to address the particular concerns. For other issues, the researchers have suggested that Government may need to take specific action such as educating the broader community with some attention to strategies that engage particular groups within communities. Other concerns raised can only be dealt with by legislative reform and, in some of these cases, the researchers have identified issues that Government may wish to consider further. We do note, however, that it is beyond the scope of this Report to recommend changes to the law. This three stage mixed methods project aimed to provide systematic evidence from a broad range of stakeholders in regard to: (i) which groups use and do not use these documents and why, (ii) the contribution of the length/complexity/format/language of the forms as barriers to their completion and/or effective use, and (iii) the issues raised by the current documents for witnesses and attorneys. Understanding and use of EPAs and AHDs were generally explored in separate but parallel processes. A purposive sampling strategy included users of the documents as principals and attorneys, and professionals, witnesses and service providers who assist others to execute or use the forms. The first component of this study built on existing knowledge using a Critical Reference Group and material provided by the DJAG Practical Guardianship Initiatives Working Party. This assisted in the development of the data collection tools for subsequent stages. The second component comprised semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a targeted sample of current users of the forms, potential users, witnesses and other professionals to provide in-depth information on critical issues. Outreach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders and individuals and workers with CALD groups ensured a broad sample of potential users of the two documents. Fifty individual interviews and three focus groups were completed. Most interviews and focus groups focused on perceptions of, and experiences with, either the EPA or the AHD form. In the interviews with Indigenous people and the CALD focus groups, however, respondents provided their perceptions and experiences of both documents. In general, these respondents had not used the forms and were responding to the documents made available in the interview or focus group. In total, seventy-seven individuals were involved in interviews or focus groups. The final component comprised on-line surveys for EPA principals, EPA attorneys, AHD principals, witnesses of EPAs and AHDs and medical practitioners with experience of AHDs as nominated and/or treating doctors. The surveys were developed from the initial component and the qualitative analysis of the interview and focus group data. A total of 116 surveys were returned from major cities and regional Queensland. The survey data was analysed descriptively for patterns and trends. It is important to note that the aim of the survey was to gain insight into issues and concerns relating to the documents and not to make generalisations to the broader population.

Improving self organizing capabilities of local communities for sustainable development in decentralized Indonesia : the roles of procedural justice and social learning

The development planning process introduced under Law No. 25/2004 is said to be a better approach to increase public participation in decentralised Indonesia. This Law has introduced planning mechanisms, called Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan (musrenbang), to provide a forum for development planning. In spite of the expressed intention of these mechanisms to improve public participation, some empirical observations have cast doubt on the outcomes. As a result, some local governments have tried to provide alternative mechanisms for participatory local development planning processes. Since planning constitutes one of the most effective ways to improve community empowerment, this paper aims to examine the extent to which the alternative local development planning process in Indonesia provides sufficient opportunities to improve the self organising capabilities of communities to sustain development programs to meet local needs. In so doing, this paper explores the key elements and approaches of the concept of community empowerment and shows how they can be incorporated within planning processes. Based on this, it then examines the problems encountered by musrenbang in increasing community empowerment. Having done this, it is argued that to change current unfavourable outcomes, procedural justice and social learning approaches need to be incorporated as pathways to community empowerment. Lastly the capacity of an alternative local planning process, called Sistem Dukungan (SISDUK), introduced in South Sulawesi, offering scope to incorporate procedural justice and social learning is explored as a means to improve the self organizing capabilities of local communities.

An evaluation of the sustainability of agreements reached through mediations conducted by the dispute resolution centres of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland between 1999 to 2003

In 1990 the Dispute Resolution Centres Act, 1990 (Qld) (the Act) was passed by the Queensland Parliament. In the second reading speech for the Dispute Resolution Centres Bill on May 1990 the Hon Dean Wells stated that the proposed legislation would make mediation services available “in a non-coercive, voluntary forum where, with the help of trained mediators, the disputants will be assisted towards their own solutions to their disputes, thereby ensuring that the result is acceptable to the parties” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). It was recognised at that time that a method for resolving disputes was necessary for which “the conventional court system is not always equipped to provide lasting resolution” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). In particular, the lasting resolution of “disputes between people in continuing relationships” was seen as made possible through the new legislation; for example, “domestic disputes, disputes between employees, and neighbourhood disputes relating to such issues as overhanging tree branches, dividing fences, barking dogs, smoke, noise and other nuisances are occurring continually in the community” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). The key features of the proposed form of mediation in the Act were articulated as follows: “attendance of both parties at mediation sessions is voluntary; a party may withdraw at any time; mediation sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible; the rules of evidence will not apply; any agreement reached is not enforceable in any court; although it could be made so if the parties chose to proceed that way; and the provisions of the Act do not affect any rights or remedies that a party to a dispute has apart from the Act” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). Since the introduction of the Act, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General has offered mediation services through, first the Community Justice Program (CJP), and then the Dispute Resolution Centres (DRCs) for a range of family, neighbourhood, workplace and community disputes. These services have mirrored those available through similar government agencies in other states such as the Community Justice Centres of NSW and the Victorian Dispute Resolution Centres. Since 1990, mediation has become one of the fastest growing forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Sourdin has commented that "In addition to the growth in court-based and community-based dispute resolution schemes, ADR has been institutionalised and has grown within Australia and overseas” (2005, 14). In Australia, in particular, the development of ADR service provision “has been assisted by the creation and growth of professional organisations such as the Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR), the Australian Commercial Dispute Centres (ACDC), Australian Disputes Resolution Association (ADRA), Conflict Resolution Network, and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA)” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). The increased emphasis on the use of ADR within education contexts (particularly secondary and tertiary contexts) has “also led to an increasing acceptance and understanding of (ADR) processes” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). Proponents of the mediation process, in particular, argue that much of its success derives from the inherent flexibility and creativity of the agreements reached through the mediation process and that it is a relatively low cost option in many cases (Menkel-Meadow, 1997, 417). It is also accepted that one of the main reasons for the success of mediation can be attributed to the high level of participation by the parties involved and thus creating a sense of ownership of, and commitment to, the terms of the agreement (Boulle, 2005, 65). These characteristics are associated with some of the core values of mediation, particularly as practised in community-based models as found at the DRCs. These core values include voluntary participation, party self-determination and party empowerment (Boulle, 2005, 65). For this reason mediation is argued as being an effective approach to resolving disputes, that creates a lasting resolution of the issues. Evaluation of the mediation process, particularly in the context of the growth of ADR, has been an important aspect of the development of the process (Sourdin, 2008). Writing in 2005 for example, Boulle, states that “although there is a constant refrain for more research into mediation practice, there has been a not insignificant amount of mediation measurement, both in Australia and overseas” (Boulle, 2005, 575). The positive claims of mediation have been supported to a significant degree by evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. A common indicator of the effectiveness of mediation is the settlement rate achieved. High settlement rates for mediated disputes have been found for Australia (Altobelli, 2003) and internationally (Alexander, 2003). Boulle notes that mediation agreement rates claimed by service providers range from 55% to 92% (Boulle, 2005, 590). The annual reports for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General considered prior to the commencement of this study indicated generally achievement of an approximate settlement figure of 86% by the Queensland Dispute Resolution Centres. More recently, the 2008-2009 annual report states that of the 2291 civil dispute mediated in 2007-2008, 86% reached an agreement. Further, of the 2693 civil disputes mediated in 2008-2009, 73% reached an agreement. These results are noted in the report as indicating “the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes” and as reflecting “the high level of agreement achieved for voluntary mediations” (Annual Report, 2008-2009, online). Whilst the settlement rates for the DRCs are strong, parties are rarely contacted for long term follow-up to assess whether agreements reached during mediation lasted to the satisfaction of each party. It has certainly been the case that the Dispute Resolution Centres of Queensland have not been resourced to conduct long-term follow-up assessments of mediation agreements. As Wade notes, "it is very difficult to compare "success" rates” and whilst “politicians want the comparison studies (they) usually do not want the delay and expense of accurate studies" (1998, 114). To date, therefore, it is fair to say that the efficiency of the mediation process has been evaluated but not necessarily its effectiveness. Rather, the practice at the Queensland DRCs has been to evaluate the quality of mediation service provision and of the practice of the mediation process. This has occurred, for example, through follow-up surveys of parties' satisfaction rates with the mediation service. In most other respects it is fair to say that the Centres have relied on the high settlement rates of the mediation process as a sign of the effectiveness of mediation (Annual Reports 1991 - 2010). Research of the mediation literature conducted for the purpose of this thesis has also indicated that there is little evaluative literature that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the longevity of mediated agreements. Instead evaluative studies of mediation tend to assess how mediation is conducted, or compare mediation with other conflict resolution options, or assess the agreement rate of mediations, including parties' levels of satisfaction with the service provision of the dispute resolution service provider (Boulle, 2005, Chapter 16).

Cracking the code : a checklist to complement CRAs for first year Justice students

It is well recognised in the literature on first year higher education that there is a need for Universities to provide further support and development in student learning skills and engagement. Assessment and feedback is an area with differing expectations and understandings among academics and students (e.g. AUSSE, CEQ). Consistency and explicitness in academic feedback is fundamental in assisting students in their transition to university education and learning. This poster captures the progress of an 18 month funded by the Faculty of Law Teaching and Learning Grant scheme (QUT). The project sought to develop and trial an assessment checklist/diagnostic tool to accompany Criteria Referenced Assessment sheets for students within the School of Justice, Law Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT).The checklist was trialled across four units in the School of Justice (Law faculty) amongst an estimated cohort of over 600 students undertaking single and dual degrees.

Self-Government and the fashioning of resilient personae : legal education, criminal justice, and the government of mental health

This paper explores attempts to shape resilient personae through relations of self-government, and highlights the way that this features as part of advanced liberal forms of rule. As an example of this process, it focuses on the way that undergraduate law students are encouraged to fashion resilient personae throughout their legal studies, so as to avoid, or effectively respond to, experiences that may have a detrimental effect on their mental health. This paper argues that the production of such resilience relies on students being encouraged to take up psychologically- and biomedically-infused subject positions, becoming well-disciplined subjects, entrepreneurs of the self, and even virtuous persons. It highlights that the fashioning of resilient personae in this way involves extensions to the targets and practices of self-government and reinforces advanced liberal government. The paper then suggests how insights into fashioning resilience in this context can inform further research on resilience, particularly resilience produced within criminal justice professionals.