A transition pedagogy for student engagement and first-year learning, success and retention

This chapter argues that higher education institutions (HEIs) must direct coordinated, whole-of-institution attention to changing, both culturally and structurally, the fundamental and prevailing character of the first-year experience (FYE). It leverages evidence from the sector(Nelson, Kift and Clarke, 2011), from research-led practice in our institution (for example, Kift, Nelson and Clarke, 2010; Nelson et al.,in press) and from research conducted under an Australian Learning and Teaching Council Senior Fellowship (Kift, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c) to assert that student engagement and success should not be left to chance, particularly those aspects such as curriculum design and enactment that are within our institutional control.

Repeat speeding offenders : time to stop thinking of them as just ‘unlucky normal’ drivers

- Speeding and crash involvement in Australia - Speeding recidivist research in Queensland - Challenges from an Australian perspective - Defining speeding - Community attitudes to speeding - Auditor-General reviews of speed camera programs - Implications for future speed management

Repeat speeding offenders : results from research in Queensland, Australia

- Speeding and crash involvement in Australia - Speeding recidivist research in Queensland - Challenges from an Australian perspective - Auditor-General reviews of speed camera programs - Implications for future speed management

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?

While the engagement, success and retention of first year students are ongoing issues in higher education, they are currently of considerable and increasing importance as the pressures on teaching and learning from the new standards framework and performance funding intensifies. This Nuts & Bolts presentation introduces the concept of a maturity model and its application to the assessment of the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention. Participants will be provided with (a) a concise description of the concept and features of a maturity model; and (b) the opportunity to explore the potential application of maturity models (i) to the management of student engagement and retention programs and strategies within an institution and (ii) to the improvement of these features by benchmarking across the sector.

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.

Evaluating the success of large-scale, integrated information systems through the lens of IS-impact and IS-support

This study proceeds from a central interest in the importance of systematically evaluating operational large-scale integrated information systems (IS) in organisations. The study is conducted within the IS-Impact Research Track at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The goal of the IS-Impact Track is, "to develop the most widely employed model for benchmarking information systems in organizations for the joint benefit of both research and practice" (Gable et al, 2009). The track espouses programmatic research having the principles of incrementalism, tenacity, holism and generalisability through replication and extension research strategies. Track efforts have yielded the bicameral IS-Impact measurement model; the ‘impact’ half includes Organisational-Impact and Individual-Impact dimensions; the ‘quality’ half includes System-Quality and Information-Quality dimensions. Akin to Gregor’s (2006) analytic theory, the ISImpact model is conceptualised as a formative, multidimensional index and is defined as "a measure at a point in time, of the stream of net benefits from the IS, to date and anticipated, as perceived by all key-user-groups" (Gable et al., 2008, p: 381). The study adopts the IS-Impact model (Gable, et al., 2008) as its core theory base. Prior work within the IS-Impact track has been consciously constrained to Financial IS for their homogeneity. This study adopts a context-extension strategy (Berthon et al., 2002) with the aim "to further validate and extend the IS-Impact measurement model in a new context - i.e. a different IS - Human Resources (HR)". The overarching research question is: "How can the impacts of large-scale integrated HR applications be effectively and efficiently benchmarked?" This managerial question (Cooper & Emory, 1995) decomposes into two more specific research questions – In the new HR context: (RQ1): "Is the IS-Impact model complete?" (RQ2): "Is the ISImpact model valid as a 1st-order formative, 2nd-order formative multidimensional construct?" The study adhered to the two-phase approach of Gable et al. (2008) to hypothesise and validate a measurement model. The initial ‘exploratory phase’ employed a zero base qualitative approach to re-instantiating the IS-Impact model in the HR context. The subsequent ‘confirmatory phase’ sought to validate the resultant hypothesised measurement model against newly gathered quantitative data. The unit of analysis for the study is the application, ‘ALESCO’, an integrated large-scale HR application implemented at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), a large Australian university (with approximately 40,000 students and 5000 staff). Target respondents of both study phases were ALESCO key-user-groups: strategic users, management users, operational users and technical users, who directly use ALESCO or its outputs. An open-ended, qualitative survey was employed in the exploratory phase, with the objective of exploring the completeness and applicability of the IS-Impact model’s dimensions and measures in the new context, and to conceptualise any resultant model changes to be operationalised in the confirmatory phase. Responses from 134 ALESCO users to the main survey question, "What do you consider have been the impacts of the ALESCO (HR) system in your division/department since its implementation?" were decomposed into 425 ‘impact citations.’ Citation mapping using a deductive (top-down) content analysis approach instantiated all dimensions and measures of the IS-Impact model, evidencing its content validity in the new context. Seeking to probe additional (perhaps negative) impacts; the survey included the additional open question "In your opinion, what can be done better to improve the ALESCO (HR) system?" Responses to this question decomposed into a further 107 citations which in the main did not map to IS-Impact, but rather coalesced around the concept of IS-Support. Deductively drawing from relevant literature, and working inductively from the unmapped citations, the new ‘IS-Support’ construct, including the four formative dimensions (i) training, (ii) documentation, (iii) assistance, and (iv) authorisation (each having reflective measures), was defined as: "a measure at a point in time, of the support, the [HR] information system key-user groups receive to increase their capabilities in utilising the system." Thus, a further goal of the study became validation of the IS-Support construct, suggesting the research question (RQ3): "Is IS-Support valid as a 1st-order reflective, 2nd-order formative multidimensional construct?" With the aim of validating IS-Impact within its nomological net (identification through structural relations), as in prior work, Satisfaction was hypothesised as its immediate consequence. The IS-Support construct having derived from a question intended to probe IS-Impacts, too was hypothesised as antecedent to Satisfaction, thereby suggesting the research question (RQ4): "What is the relative contribution of IS-Impact and IS-Support to Satisfaction?" With the goal of testing the above research questions, IS-Impact, IS-Support and Satisfaction were operationalised in a quantitative survey instrument. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling employing 221 valid responses largely evidenced the validity of the commencing IS-Impact model in the HR context. ISSupport too was validated as operationalised (including 11 reflective measures of its 4 formative dimensions). IS-Support alone explained 36% of Satisfaction; IS-Impact alone 70%; in combination both explaining 71% with virtually all influence of ISSupport subsumed by IS-Impact. Key study contributions to research include: (1) validation of IS-Impact in the HR context, (2) validation of a newly conceptualised IS-Support construct as important antecedent of Satisfaction, and (3) validation of the redundancy of IS-Support when gauging IS-Impact. The study also makes valuable contributions to practice, the research track and the sponsoring organisation.

Nonprofits and the GST : don't sign anything until you've read the fine print, (if you can find it to read!)

On 13 August, 1997 Prime Minister Mr Howard announced five principles as a foundation for a Tax Reform Package to revitalise the Australian economy. They were that: 1. there should be no overall increase in the overall tax burden; 2. any new taxation system should involve major reductions in personal income tax with special regard to the taxation treatment of families; 3. consideration should be given to a broad-based indirect tax to replace some or all of the existing indirect taxes; 4. there would be appropriate compensation for those deserving of special consideration; and 5. reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations must be addressed...

Repeat speeding offenders from an Australian perspective

Overview -Speeding and crash involvement in Australia -Speeding recidivist research in Queensland -Implications for future speed management

Forecasting success on large projects : developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames

Our aim is to develop a set of leading performance indicators to enable managers of large projects to forecast during project execution how various stakeholders will perceive success months or even years into the operation of the output. Large projects have many stakeholders who have different objectives for the project, its output, and the business objectives they will deliver. The output of a large project may have a lifetime that lasts for years, or even decades, and ultimate impacts that go beyond its immediate operation. How different stakeholders perceive success can change with time, and so the project manager needs leading performance indicators that go beyond the traditional triple constraint to forecast how key stakeholders will perceive success months or even years later. In this article, we develop a model for project success that identifies how project stakeholders might perceive success in the months and years following a project. We identify success or failure factors that will facilitate or mitigate against achievement of those success criteria, and a set of potential leading performance indicators that forecast how stakeholders will perceive success during the life of the project's output. We conducted a scale development study with 152 managers of large projects and identified two project success factor scales and seven stakeholder satisfaction scales that can be used by project managers to predict stakeholder satisfaction on projects and so may be used by the managers of large projects for the basis of project control.

The evolution of QUT’s Student Success Program : 20,000 students later

“The Student Success Program (SSP) is a monitoring and early intervention program in operation at QUT designed to identify and support those students deemed to be at risk of disengaging for their learning and their institution” (Nelson, Quinn, Marrington & Clarke, 2011, p. 83). This report reflects on the development of the program since its inception in 2007. In acknowledging similar initiatives within the sector that monitor student learning engagement, the Nuts & Bolts session allows for identification and discussion of the critical success factors for these intervention and support programs.

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