Vol. 4 No. 1 (2023)

Are higher education researchers at war – with each other? In this invited article, I introduce a keynote manuscript, which I presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia’s (HERDSA) 2023 conference

Are higher education researchers at war – with each other? In this invited article, I introduce a keynote manuscript, which I presented at the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia’s (HERDSA) 2023 conference. Through it, I argue that despite over 30 years of a wealth of qualitative and mixed methods data arising in the field of higher education, quantitative data continues to play an outsized role in university decision-making. This speaks to a hierarchy of epistemologies in our sector, which, ultimately, may limit the sector’s ability to prepare for change or navigate in troubled times. Alternatively, I present an ‘integrated approach’ which would encourage researchers and university decision-makers to equally respect and value the various epistemologies that exist in the study of higher education. Critically, this includes those epistemologies and methodologies that harness the nuanced, complicated data that draws on students’ voices and their lived experiences. I conclude by reflecting on Associate Professor Barbara’s Grant’s concept of “a thousand tiny universities” to consider how each of us, researchers, practitioners, senior leaders, has a role to play in addressing, and correcting, the existing epistemic biases that continue to thwart progress in higher education.

The aim of this pilot study was to develop structured online vivas as authentic assessments for capstone students enrolled in the medical sonography program in an Australian university. The objective was to evaluate the professional

The aim of this pilot study was to develop structured online vivas as authentic assessments for capstone students enrolled in the medical sonography program in an Australian university. The objective was to evaluate the professional competency of trainee students who were transitioning to graduate as accredited sonographers. Prior to 2020, capstone students, located all over Australia, travelled to South Australia to undertake an on-campus, objective structured clinical examination for practical skills assessment. The interstate travel restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the need for this examination to be conducted in an online mode. The emergency adaptation model employed in 2020 did not assess conceptual understanding and communication skills. To address this gap, structured online vivas were created and implemented through action research with 71 students in November 2021. A response rate of 51% from student feedback and 100% from external examiner feedback helped to enhance future iterations. Structuring of online vivas enabled assessment of professional competency skills, reduced both examiner bias and student anxiety, and promoted academic integrity. Our study discusses the action research process of developing and implementing structured online vivas, student performance, and evaluating student and examiner experiences with online vivas.

Much of the world switched to emergency remote teaching (ERT) as the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded and deciding which learnings to integrate into the return to normative practice, if any at all, is worthy of investigation. Opportunistic

Much of the world switched to emergency remote teaching (ERT) as the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded and deciding which learnings to integrate into the return to normative practice, if any at all, is worthy of investigation. Opportunistic observation and inquiry into student behaviour in response to ERT can provide depth to our current understanding of pedagogical practice and theory. Here, we consider our students’ perception of workload, which dropped consistently between 2019-2022, alongside our students experiences and their self-regulation styles as defined by self-determination theory (SDT). Using SDT to consider how different self-regulation styles interacted with factors internal and external to the course allowed us to reflect on the impact of changes made to the teaching environment, and effects of the global pandemic. We found students preference asynchronous engagement with content that was designed to be synchronous, but issues with time management and pressure to work contributed to an imbalance that resulted in an increased perception of workload. Interestingly, how students reacted to and adapted to this imbalance differed depending on their self-regulation style. Understanding the changing needs of students is imperative to designing education effectively in our changing social climate. Evaluating course design to ensure delivery methods offer value to students and communicating the purpose of these design decisions is critical in an environment where education is competing with paid work. Ensuring students and teachers are aligned through the education process will be key to navigating the changing external pressures students are facing, helping to improve the student experience overall.

Higher Education (HE) institutions recognise that Work Integrated Learning (WIL) activities make important contributions to student employability. Despite the growing appetite for understanding the extent and nature of WIL’s impact, there

Higher Education (HE) institutions recognise that Work Integrated Learning (WIL) activities make important contributions to student employability. Despite the growing appetite for understanding the extent and nature of WIL’s impact, there are limited reviews of WIL evaluation (WE) theory and a there is a paucity of clear guidance on the practical steps involved in sector-wide, or even institution-specific, evaluations of WIL. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of how a Faculty at an Australian University embarked upon an action-research project to design a fit-for-purpose Faculty-wide WIL Evaluation Framework (WEF). An outline of the set of six guiding questions, referred to as the 6W’s of WE – the ‘Why’, ‘Who’, ‘Where’, ‘What’, ‘When’ and ‘hoW’ – is provided. A detailed examination of the first of the 6W’s – the why evaluate WIL question – enlivens our theory-to-practice approach of WE. This research proposes that unpacking the ‘why’ of WIL evaluation (enabled by an action-research approach) is a fundamental first step for probing what is valued and what then should be evaluated. The paper concludes with recommendations for those contemplating designing an institutional-specific WIL evaluation, particularly so that context-specific whys of WIL and WIL evaluation can be galvanised, thus enriching our collective understandings of sector-wide impact.