Vol. 2 No. 1 (2021)

The use of learning outcome statements underpins contemporary university course design, yet their impact in practice is unclear. Threshold learning outcomes (TLOs) for Australian bachelor degrees in science were published in the Science

The use of learning outcome statements underpins contemporary university course design, yet their impact in practice is unclear. Threshold learning outcomes (TLOs) for Australian bachelor degrees in science were published in the Science Standards Statement in 2011. This paper reports how and where the Science TLOs have been adopted by science faculties across Australian universities as a case study in the broad-scale application of discipline learning outcomes in generalist degrees. The analysis draws on four data sources: a desktop survey of published course learning outcomes for science degrees; an online survey of learning and teaching leaders; semi-structured interviews with a sub-set of those leaders; and a citation analysis. The results show that the majority of Australian science faculties have embraced the Science TLOs both as a reference point for quality assurance and as the basis of curriculum design or redevelopment. The TLOs are perceived as a trusted external reference point, endorsed by the Australian Council of Deans of Science, and aligned to national legislative requirements. Some challenges remain, including staff resistance to change and a perception of curriculum reform as a ‘top-down’ process. Positional leaders clearly have a pivotal role as active brokers to lead positive change. However, in terms of national standards and quality assurance, we conclude that disciplinary learning outcome statements such as the Science TLOs build a bridge between intent and practice in curriculum reform.

Many academic faculties found themselves unexpectedly thrown into the online teaching context during the COVID-19 pandemic. In our context, online tutorial attendances ranged from 20 to 150 students per session, necessitating the creation

Many academic faculties found themselves unexpectedly thrown into the online teaching context during the COVID-19 pandemic. In our context, online tutorial attendances ranged from 20 to 150 students per session, necessitating the creation of a virtual teaching team. This article offers a perspective on developing collaborative team-teaching from the lived experiences of three academics who suddenly found themselves team-teaching online. We reflected on our experiences of collaborative online teaching over the year and shared our stories with each other. Our analysis drew from elements of Appreciative Inquiry and collaborative autoethnography. Based on the five principles of Appreciative Inquiry, we constructed positive and supportive conceptions of our experiences and opened positive possibilities for course delivery and our ongoing relationships. Important outcomes from this study included the development of our online teaching skills and strategies necessary for effective collaboration in online team-teaching. Our findings will be of interest to educational staff transitioning to online team-teaching.

This ‘Research in Progress’ article explores how to build on self-determination theory (SDT) in the context of first year university course evaluations. It suggests the use of an established SDT scale, Balanced Measure of Psychological

This ‘Research in Progress’ article explores how to build on self-determination theory (SDT) in the context of first year university course evaluations. It suggests the use of an established SDT scale, Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs (BMPN), plus two course specific scales on course design features and perceived knowledge gains. The scales form a conceptual design linking course design, needs fulfilment and knowledge gains. Two information technology courses have been examined and findings indicate the usefulness of the conceptual design for course evaluation. Per course, data from the three scales combine to coherent pictures; across courses differences show up that might be explained via course maturity. While approaches for a combined statistical analysis for the three scales are indicated, participant numbers were too small for testing of models. Several areas for follow up research are suggested and include refinement of the scales, application to other courses for comparison regarding course maturity or subject specifics, examination of SDT for application in modern technology-supported and blended course environments, as well as combination with qualitative data for a deeper understanding.

This book review illuminates Pollock’s (2021) text ‘How to use storytelling in your academic writing’. In the longstanding discipline of literary criticism/study, a book review is often the work of a single author and written to expose the

This book review illuminates Pollock’s (2021) text ‘How to use storytelling in your academic writing’. In the longstanding discipline of literary criticism/study, a book review is often the work of a single author and written to expose the reader/audience to the contents of the book under investigation (Campbell & Jamieson, 1978). The review we have offered here adopts a writing style of a conversation about the book between two academics, and thus posits a new mode of book-review writing. The intent of the article is to challenge expectations of what counts as a book review. The review itself recommends the book as a valuable contribution to the collection of academic books on academic writing.