Identifying discourses of moderation in higher education

Moderation of student assessment is a critical component of teaching and learning in contemporary universities. Yet, despite this, it tends to be marked by idiosyncratic and sporadic processes informed by liminal understanding. This paper, in the light of forthcoming radical national requirements for the declaration of moderation processes in tertiary curricula in Australia, will present four discourses of moderation we identified in a recent study in a Faculty of Education in a large metropolitan university. The discourses are equity, justification, community building and accountability. Together, they will act as a starting point for academics to review their beliefs and attitudes towards the moderation of student assessment.

Analysis of moderation practices in a large STEM-focused faculty

Moderation of assessment constitutes a crucial element of the learning and teaching process at the university. Yet, despite its importance, many academics have confusing beliefs and attitudes towards moderation practices, processes and procedures. This paper reports on a qualitative study conducted in a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-focused faculty at a large Australian higher education institution. The findings of the study revealed a strong need for further investigation on the ways moderation is understood and enacted by academics within a STEM-specific context and informed redevelopment of the faculty’s internal moderation policy.

Quality assurance of assessment and moderation discourses involving sessional staff

Quality assurance is a major agenda in tertiary education. The casualisation of academic work, especially in teaching, is also a quality assurance issue. Casual or sessional staff members teach and assess more than 50% of all university courses in Australia, and yet the research in relation to the role sessional staff play in quality assurance of student assessment outcomes is scarce. Moderation processes are a pivotal part of robust quality assurance measures. Drawing upon previous work surrounding four discourses of moderation, this pilot project reports the results of research into the role and impact of sessional staff in moderation processes at tertiary level. Qualitative data were gathered through focus interviews. Results, in the form of various moderation discourses, indicate that sessional staff impact the formal quality assurance processes in numerous ways.

Moderation practices in a faculty of education : the four discourse model

Moderation of student assessment is a critical component of teaching and learning in contemporary universities. In Australia, moderation is mandated through university policies and through the new national university accreditation authority, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency which began operations in late January 2012 (TEQSA, 2012). The TEQSA requirement to declare details of moderation and any other arrangements used to support consistency and reliability of assessment and grading across each subject in the course of study is a radical step intended to move toward heightened accountability and greater transparency in the tertiary sector as well as entrenching evidence-based practice in the management of Australian academic programs. In light of this reform, the purpose of this project was to investigate and analyse current moderation practices operating within a faculty of education at a large urban university in Queensland, Australia. This qualitative study involved interviews with the unit coordinators (n=21) and tutors (n=8) of core undergraduate education units and graduate diploma units within the faculty. Four distinct discourses of moderation that academics drew on to discuss their practices were identified in the study. These were: equity, justification, community building, and accountability. These discourses, together with recommendations for changes to moderation practices are discussed in this paper.

Moderation in higher education: Four discourses

Across the globe, higher education institutions are working in environments of increasing accountability with little sign of this trend abating. This heightened focus on accountability has placed greater demands on institutions to provide evidence of quality and the achievement of standards that assure that quality. Moderation is one quality assurance process that plays a central role in the teaching, learning and assessment cycle in higher education institutions. While there is a growing body of research globally on teaching, learning and , to a lesser degree, assessment in higher education, the process of moderation has received even less attention (Watty, Freeman, Howieson, Hancock, O'Connell, et al. 2013). Until recently, moderation processes in Australian universities have been typically located within individual institutions, with universities given the responsibility for developing their own specific policies and practices. However, in 2009 the Australian Government announced that an independent national quality and regulatory body for higher education institutions would be established. With the introduction of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Authority (TEQSA), more formalised requirements for moderation of assessment are being mandated. In light of these reforms, the purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and investigate current moderation practices operating within one faculty, the Faculty of Education, in a large urban university in eastern Australia. The findings of this study revealed four discourses of moderation: equity, justification, community building and accountability. These discourses provide a starting point for academics to engage in substantive conversations around assessment and to further critique the processes of moderation.

Multimodal and monomodal discourses of marketization in higher education : power, ideology, and the absence of the image

The ubiquity of multimodality in hypermedia environments is undeniable. Bezemer and Kress (2008) have argued that writing has been displaced by image as the central mode for representation. Given the current technical affordances of digital technology and user-friendly interfaces that enable the ease of multimodal design, the conspicuous absence of images in certain domains of cyberspace is deserving of critical analysis. In this presentation, I examine the politics of discourses implicit within hypertextual spaces, drawing textual examples from a higher education website. I critically examine the role of writing and other modes of production used in what Fairclough (1993) refers to as discourses of marketisation in higher education, tracing four pervasive discourses of teaching and learning in the current economy: i) materialization, ii) personalization, iii) technologisation, and iv) commodification (Fairclough, 1999). Each of these arguments is supported by the critical analysis of multimodal texts. The first is a podcast highlighting the new architectonic features of a university learning space. The second is a podcast and transcript of a university Open Day interview with prospective students. The third is a time-lapse video showing the construction of a new science and engineering precinct. These three multimodal texts contrast a final web-based text that exhibits a predominance of writing and the powerful absence or silencing of the image. I connect the weightiness of words and the function of monomodality in the commodification of discourses, and its resistance to the multimodal affordances of web-based technologies, and how this is used to establish particular sets of subject positions and ideologies through which readers are constrained to occupy. Applying principles of critical language study by theorists that include Fairclough, Kress, Lemke, and others whose semiotic analysis of texts focuses on the connections between language, power, and ideology, I demonstrate how the denial of image and the privileging of written words in the multimodality of cyberspace is an ideological effect to accentuate the dominance of the institution.

Reflexive professionalism : reclaiming the voice of authority in shaping the discourses of education policy

The nature and value of ‘professionalism’ has long been contested by both producers and consumers of policy. Most recently, governments have rewritten and redefined professionalism as compliance with externally imposed ‘standards’. This has been achieved by silencing the voices of those who inhabit the professional field of education. This paper uses Foucauldian archaeology to excavate the enunciative field of professionalism by digging through the academic and institutional (political) archive, and in doing so identifies two key policy documents for further analysis. The excavation shows that while the voices of (academic) authority speak of competing discourses emerging, with professional standards promulgated as the mechanism to enhance professionalism, an alternative regime of truth identifies the privileged use of (managerial) voices from outside the field of education to create a discourse of compliance. There has long been a mismatch between the voices of authority on discourses around professionalism from the academic archive and those that count in contemporary and emerging Australian educational policy. In this paper, we counter this mismatch and argue that reflexive educators’ regimes of truth are worthy of attention and should be heard and amplified.

An investigation of moderation practices within a faculty of education

Moderation of student assessment is a critical component of teaching and learning in contemporary universities. In higher education, moderation is usually governed by university-wide policies and practices. However, in Australia, moderation processes will now be guided by the new national university accreditation authority, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). In light of this reform, the purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and analyse current moderation practices operating within a faculty of education at a large urban university in eastern Australia.

The politics of open-access publishing : M/C Journal, Public Intellectualism, and Academic Discourses of Legitimacy

This article investigates the discourses of academic legitimacy that surround the production, consumption, and accreditation of online scholarship. Using the web-based media and cultural studies journal (http://journal.media-culture.org.au) as a case study, it examines how online scholarly journals often position themselves as occupying a space between the academic and the popular and as having a functional advantage over print-based media in promoting a spirit of public intellectualism. The current research agenda of both government and academe prioritises academic research that is efficient, self-promoting, and relevant to the public. Yet, although the cost-effectiveness and public-intellectual focus of online scholarship speak to these research priorities, online journals such as M/C Journal have occupied, and continue to occupy, an unstable position in relation to the perceived academic legitimacy of their content. Although some online scholarly journals have achieved a limited form of recognition within a system of accreditation that still privileges print-based scholarship, I argue that this, nevertheless, points to the fact that traditional textual notions of legitimate academic work continue to pervade the research agenda of an academe that increasingly promotes flexible delivery of teaching and online research initiatives.

“Well, hang on, they’re actually much better than that!” : disrupting dominant discourses of deficit about English language learners in senior high school English

This paper explores how four English teachers position their English language learners for critical literacy within senior high school curriculum in Queensland, Australia. Such learners are often positioned, even by their teachers, within a broader “deficit discourse” that claims they are inherently lacking the requisite knowledge and skills to engage with intransigent school curricula. As such, English language learners’ identity formation is often constrained by deficit views that can ultimately see limited kinds of literacy teaching offered to them. Using Fairclough’s (2003) critical discourse analysis method, analysis of 16 interviews with the teachers was conducted as part of a larger, critical instrumental case study in two state high schools during 2010. Five competing discourses were identified: deficit as lack; deficit as need; learner “difference” as a resource; conceptual capacity for critical literacy; and linguistic, cultural and conceptual difficulty with critical literacy. While a deficit view is present, counter-hegemonic discourses also exist in their talk. The combination of discourses challenges monolithic deficit views of English language learners, and opens up generative discursive territory to position English language learners in ways other than “problematic”. This has important implications for how teachers view and teach English language learners and their capacity for critical literacy work in senior high school classrooms.