Search

Taking a gap year--a break between high school and university--is becoming increasingly popular with Australian students. In terms of length and purpose, the traditional notion of a gap year being a year off between school and university has expanded considerably over time. For the purposes of the analysis reported in this paper, a person who takes a gap year is defined as "an individual who commenced university one to two years after completing Year 12. This includes those who accept and defer their university placement for one to two years" (Curtis, Mlotkowski & Lumsden 2012). Highlights of this report include: (1) In Australia the incidence of taking a gap year has increased from 10% in the period 1999-2000 to 24% in 2009-10; (2) The top four primary activities undertaken by gap students in 2009-10 were work (51%), full-time study leading to a non-university qualification (10%), other study (6%), and travel (6%); (3) Characteristics of gap-takers include: (a) being academically less inclined than non-gap-takers; (b) living in regional locations when at school; (c) having English speaking backgrounds; (d) being employed when in Year 12 at school; and (e) being less likely to receive Youth Allowance payments while at school; (4) In their first year of university, gap-takers are more likely to study in the areas of education and creative arts; and (5) Those who don't take a gap year are substantially more likely at age 24 to be employed full-time and to work in professional occupations than gap-takers. Much of this difference can be attributed to the fact that, in terms of their careers, gap-takers are a year or two behind those who don't take a gap year. The data do not allow the authors to measure the longer-term outcomes of both groups because the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) stops at age 25. Appended are: (1) Gap year definitions; and (2) LSAY cohorts sample sizes and durations. (Contains 13 tables.) [For "Bridging the Gap: Who Takes a Gap Year and Why? Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth. Research Report," see ED533077.]

This report reviews the use of loans for learning in 33 European countries and analyses the schemes in eight selected Member States: France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden and the UK. The analysis shows that loan schemes vary considerably across Europe in terms of types and levels of learning covered, conditions of access, repayment and governance. Some loans aim to increase participation in learning in general, while others are designed to promote equity. The report attempts to assess the selected loans and discusses their strengths and weaknesses and determinants of performance, while considering if a given scheme operates on a large scale or targets niche groups. The evaluation results provide a basis for identifying good practice principles for designing and implementing loans. Policy recommendations are formulated based on these findings. Annexed are: (1) Methodology; (2) Key terms and definitions; (3) Information on countries/schemes selected for in-depth analysis; (4) Proposed typologies of VET loan schemes; (5) Tables and figures; (6) Tosmana truth tables; (7) Questionnaires; (8) Basic characteristics of non-European loan schemes. (Contains 37 tables, 5 figures, 20 boxes and 33 footnotes.)

This paper outlines a framework for analyzing existing quality initiatives and for planning and implementing new ones particularly designed for colleges in Great Britain in their new status as independent, incorporated entities. It is designed to assist colleges in managing quality and in using quality management as a means of institutional development. The framework's starting premise is that each institution must find its own route to quality and that externally prescribed approaches are usually the least effective. Following a discussion of the purpose of a quality framework and of the difference between procedural and transformational notions of quality, the following framework components are listed: (1) leadership and strategy, (2) teamwork, (3) customer requirements, and (4) systems and procedures. Each of these is then discussed in detail with the use of a diagram that shows the relations between different elements and specific types of tasks. A section on evaluation looks at immediate, short-term and long-term evaluation. An exploration of the management of quality compares a quality college with a college managed along traditional lines and describes the quality college as having a flatter structure with strong, integrating horizontal links. A conclusion reviews linking the framework in this paper with the European Quality Award. (Contains 24 references.) (JB)

This publication offers practical support to those in British higher education implementing the Observation of Teaching governmental directives. It provides discussion of key issues as well as a range of materials on how to carry out teaching observation including 23 checklists. The materials are grouped in four main areas: general issues, self assessment, peer assessment, and student observation. The chapters are as follows: (1) "Editorial" (Sally Brown and Gareth Jones); (2) "Observing Teaching" (Stewart Rawnsley); (3) "Ways of Observing: Comment" (Gareth Jones); (4) "Observing Teaching: Issues and Outcomes" (Sally Brown, Clive Colling); (5) "Observing Teaching in Other Contexts" (George Brown); (6) "What To Do Before the Session: Some Guidance on Observation of Teaching in Higher Education" (Gareth Jones); (7) "Self Assessment: Reflecting on Your Own Teaching: Observation Checklists 2-6" (Graham Gibbs); (8) "Watching Yourself Teach and Learning from It" (Tony Claydon and Liz McDowell); (9) "Observing Teaching in Higher Education" (Sally Brown); (10) "Peer Assessment: Checklists 7-20, Giving and Receiving Feedback, Developing an Observation Schedule"; (11) "Observation of Teaching: Guidelines for Observers and Observed, Observation Checklist 21" (Hazel Fullerton); and (12) "Student Observation: Checklists 22 and 23." The thirteenth chapter is an annotated bibliography containing nine references. (JB)

The "Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education" were developed and adopted to support and encourage international cooperation and enhance the understanding of the importance of quality provision in cross-border higher education. The purposes of the "Guidelines" are to protect students and other stakeholders from low-quality provision and disreputable providers (that is, degree and accreditation mills) as well as to encourage the development of quality cross-border higher education that meets human, social, economic and cultural needs. The "Guidelines" are not legally binding and member countries are expected to implement them as appropriate in their national context. Based on a survey about the main recommendations of the "Guidelines", this report monitors the extent to which Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and a few non-member countries comply with its recommendations. The Survey was sent out in June 2010 to all OECD countries. The main conclusion of the survey is that (responding) countries report a high level of compliance with the Guidelines recommendations. On average, responding OECD countries conform to 72% of the main recommendations made to governments, tertiary education institutions, and quality assurance and accreditation agencies. The level of compliance decreases to 67% when recommendations to student bodies are included, but the level of missing information, and thus uncertainty about actual compliance, increases significantly. Appended are: (1) Country Overview of Compliance Levels with the Guidelines for Different Stakeholders; (2) Country Overview of Compliance Levels with Six Key Objectives of the Guidelines; (3) Methodology; (4) Country Answers to the Survey; (5) Overview of National Contact Points; and (6) Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education. (Contains 2 tables, 12 figures and 1 footnote.)

This collection of articles, based on the 1993 annual consultations between the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and The Staff College (Bristol, England), examines the nature of franchising (partnerships) between further education (vocational and continuing education) and higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. The articles are: (1) "Introduction" (Sue Brownlow and Heather Eggins); (2) "Setting the Scene" (Susanne Haselgrove); (3) "The Nature of the Higher Education Experience" (John Kingman); (4) "Second Generation Franchising: Widening the Partnership Network" (David Morris); (5) "The Validating University and Associated Colleges: The Evolution of a Relationship" (Jennifer Bone and others); and (6) "HE/FE Partnerships: Redrawing the Boundaries" (Jean Bocock and Peter Scott). Three workshop sessions are summarized These focused on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of partnerships; learning support, resources, and quality; and recommendations for future further education/higher education partnerships. (MDM)

This paper looks at the state of education in knowledge management (KM). It reports findings from a study of knowledge management courses included in the curriculum of academic disciplines of business, computing, and information that was conducted at the Nanyang Technological University (Singapore). Based on a review of course descriptions selected from Web sites of universities in Australia, Canada, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the paper describes levels of courses, curriculum areas and topics, and differences in emphasis in teaching KM courses in different departments and schools. A table presents data on the details of KM courses for each university, including the school/department, course title, level, and academic program. A second table lists topics in KM courses for several curriculum areas, including foundations, technology, process (codification), applications, and strategies. (MES)

Learning outcomes and their assessment has given rise to considerable debate as to whether outcomes should be graded or just pass/fail. Assessment models employing learning outcomes have been used for some time in the United Kingdom (UK) in further education programs for example National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) and General National Vocational Qualification (GNVQs), however, they have only recently been introduced into Higher Education study programs for example Higher National Certificates and Diplomas (HNCs/HNDs). Learning outcome assessment models have not found favor in degree level programs in the university sector but this situation is likely to change as a result of the publication by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education in October 1998 entitled'The Way Ahead'. The new framework they have proposed will now be developed and implemented over the next few years and one of the key four areas is the program specification which will be outcome based. This paper reflects on the experience gained at the University of Derby where a learning outcomes model has been in operation since 1995. Where traditional grading systems and assessment regulations are in force the implementation of a learning outcomes model needs careful thought not only at program level, but also at institutional level. From the working experience a number of the pitfalls are examined at program level, for example, is the traditional end of module examination acceptable in this type of model? Should learning outcomes be tested on more than one occasion? Should referral work be similar to that set using the traditional model? At institutional level the purpose of the assessment boards needs to be re-examined as well as the appropriate method to present the assessment information. The author has joined a University working party whose remit is to reconsider the existing model and regulations and in addition has the responsibility as Programs Manager in the Division of Electronic Systems. Principles in the application of learning outcomes are proposed together with some thoughts on the necessary changes in assessment regulations. Requirements for the various levels of professional status are defined in terms of competencies and when coupled with the QAA's requirements offers a major challenge in curriculum design. (Author)

The challenge of funding a high quality higher education system, ensuring it has the capacity to help meet the increasing demand for high level skills in our economy and the aspirations of our students, has been an ongoing concern for successive Australian governments over many years. This paper reviews the findings and recommendations of significant reviews of Australia's higher education funding system from the 1988 Dawkins white paper through to the 2014 "Review of the Demand Driven Funding System." It summarises the challenges identified and responses proposed across that period as well as some recent international literature about higher education reform. What is clear from the survey of major reviews from 1988 to the present is the similarity of issues that were of concern to governments of the day. Successive governments have sought to build and fund a higher education system to meet the need for high level skills and innovative research for the Australian economy. The challenge for all governments has been how to enable greater numbers of students to access the benefits higher education offers--in terms of employment, earnings, social and cultural opportunities--while ensuring the system remains fair, high quality and affordable for both individuals and taxpayers. The number of domestic higher education students has more than doubled since 1989, reaching just over a million in 2014. International students comprised another 350,000 students in 2014. As student numbers have grown, they have come from more diverse social, economic and academic backgrounds. The number of providers and their diversity has also grown, with around 20 new public universities since the late 1980s and the emergence of significant numbers of non-university providers. The proportion of the Australian working age population with a bachelor degree or higher qualification has tripled since 1989 to just over 25 per cent. Direct Australian Government funding for teaching, learning and research has grown both in absolute and real terms, rising from $3.2 billion in 1989 to $15.4 billion in 2014, more than doubling when adjusted for inflation. Australia is not unique in facing this growth and higher education systems around the world are increasingly moving from elite to mass systems, and beyond to universal systems.

This paper presents facts and figures of the international higher education. Facts reveal that the UK sells more brainpower per capita than anywhere else in the world. The UK has 1% of the world's population but undertakes 5% of the world's scientific research and produces 14% of the world's most highly cited papers (Universities UK 2010). More than 2.8 million students were enrolled in higher education institutions outside their countries of citizenship in 2007. This represented 123,400 more students than in 2006, an increase of 4.6%. Eleven countries hosted 71% of the world's mobile students, led by the United States with 21.3% (UNESCO 2009). In 2008/09, there were 388,000 students studying for a UK qualification outside of the UK. Of this number, 83% were non-EU students (HESA 2010). In 2009, there were 162 higher education branch campuses operating globally, an increase of 43% from 2006. More than half were American, 11% were Australian, and 10% were from the UK. The number of countries hosting international branch campuses also grew in those three years, from 36 to 51. There were 11 Indian campuses operating, all but one in the UAE. The UAE remains the most popular host country (Observatory on Borderless Higher Education 2009).

Taking a break between completing high school and entering university is common overseas, and is becoming more popular in Australia. There are many reasons why young people take a gap year. It may be to travel, to take a break, to study, or to work. The authors' definition of a "gapper" is a young person who commenced university one to two years after completing Year 12. While the concept of a gap year is related to the deferral of a university offer, it is different. Some gappers have deferred, others decide to enrol during their gap year, not beforehand. Similarly, some who defer a university offer subsequently do not take up a place and are thus not defined as gappers. This report was prepared for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in 2009 prior to the Australian Government's announcement of proposed changes to Youth Allowance as an initiative in the 2009-10 Budget and the subsequent reforms based on recommendations from the "Review of Student Income Support Reforms" (Dow 2011). The research uses data from three cohorts of the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) to throw light on the incidence of gap-taking, the characteristics of those taking a gap year, the activities undertaken in the gap years, and subsequent study and employment outcomes. The report also looks at whether there is any evidence that young people were taking a gap year in order to qualify for Youth Allowance payments. This report reveals that: (1) The incidence of gap-taking has increased and it is estimated that around 20% of Australian students who complete high school will take a gap year; (2) Gap-takers tend to be weaker academically, with lower-than-average tertiary entrance rank (TER) scores, lower than average Year 9 mathematics achievement, and less favourable attitudes to school. In addition to academic factors, young people from English speaking backgrounds and from regional locations are more likely to take a gap year. Students who do not receive Youth Allowance payments while at school (and thus who were from higher socioeconomic status families) are also more likely to take a gap year; (3) The most common activities of Australian gap students are work (40%) and study or training (33%), with only 3% reporting travel as their main activity; (4) It appears that relatively few took a gap year principally to qualify for Youth Allowance: four out of 69 who deferred a university place gave "needing to qualify for Youth Allowance" as a reason for their deferral; and (5) The university completion rates of "gappers" are a little lower than "non-gappers". Appended are: (1) Variables and methods; and (2) Supplementary tables. (Contains 25 tables and 15 footnotes.) [For "Who Takes a Gap Year and Why? Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth. Briefing Paper 28," see ED533076.]

Is the United States getting it wrong when it comes to educating tomorrow's innovators in critical fields? It has been known for years that the only way to compete globally in information technology, engineering, nanotechnology, robotics and other fields is to give students the best educational opportunities possible. But do individuals have a successful formula when it comes to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education? In this report, the authors challenge the nation's approach to STEM education and argue that reforms are urgently needed to better match the talents of students, the needs of employers, and its goals. (Contains 19 tables, 42 figures, and 623 endnotes.) [Funding for this paper was provided by the Intel Corporation. For "Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. Executive Summary," see ED521736.]

Discusses issues surrounding the enrollment of students from developing countries in educational programs in the United Kingdom. Student motivation and teacher expectations are examined; and the curriculum, course information packs, foreign students' expectations and perspectives, and tips for studying in the developing world are covered. (two references) (KRN)

Hardware for computer-assisted learning is discussed in three papers. Two papers report on projects using computer graphics, one for teaching structural analysis to university students and the other to teach graph concepts at the secondary level. Guidelines for selecting microcomputers focus on analyzing applications and matching them with available systems. (BBM)

This report presents an analysis of the diversity of income streams in UK higher education institutions (HEIs) at a time when the sector is facing considerable uncertainty. The research was conducted over a six-week period from March to April 2010 and, as such, it predated the establishment of the new Coalition Government in the UK. In the period since, both the Government's Emergency Budget of June 2010 and subsequent announcements have introduced a series of measures with important implications for higher education (HE) in the UK. With Lord Browne's "Independent review of higher education funding and student finance" due to report in the autumn, it is inevitable that there will be substantial changes across the HE sector. This report is intended to highlight some of the issues to be considered as the sector plans for the future. It is, however, important that it is read with its timing in mind. It is possible that the recent announcements by the new Government would elicit different responses if the research were to be repeated now. This notwithstanding, the report offers both an analysis of trends in HE income over time as well as a snapshot of the views of the sector at a time of great challenge and uncertainty. List of contributing institutions is appended. (Contains 17 figures and 9 endnotes.) [This paper was prepared by EKOS.]

This paper covers the whole of the UK higher education sector. It presents statistics relating to students, staff and finance. The data is derived from a variety of sources.

This paper presents the facts and figures of the whole UK higher education sector in 2009. The data is derived from a variety of sources, and is updated on a yearly basis.

One of the most important factors in successful entrepreneurship is for education to nurture the right mindset within students. To develop this mindset, the inclusion of entrepreneurship in a student's education is essential and therefore must be included on the curriculum. This short Learning and Skills Network (LSN) guide identifies areas of good practice and gives some practical advice on how to effectively introduce entrepreneurship into education. The recommendations and techniques shown on this paper help with encouraging the minds of learners to entrepreneurship, but individuals also require the drive and determination to succeed.

This paper presents the facts and figures of the whole UK higher education sector in 2007. The data is derived from a variety of sources, and is updated on a yearly basis.

This document reviews how performance indicators are currently being used in several Commonwealth countries the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, and identifies some of the issues associated with performance indicator development and application. It also examines whether there are any agreed upon "key", or common, indicators that can be applied universally. After briefly discussing the background of the study and defining the terminology of, the audiences for, and applications of performance indicators, the paper reviews sources of higher education data published by government, government agencies, or national university organizations, and discusses developments in the application of performance indicators. Case studies from the U.K., Australia, and Canada are used to examine five types of indicators: student indicators, such as population, progression/completion rates, destination and satiation; staff indicators; resource and financial indicators; research indicators; and estate management/physical resources indicators. The characteristics of "good" indicators and various concerns surrounding the use of indicators are also addressed. Findings suggest that performance indicators need to be related to institution objectives, should be used with other measures, and cannot presently be used to compare institutions in different countries. Appendices include lists of sources, publications, and contacts; a comprehensive list of possible indicators, and core indicators recommended by the Council of Ontario Universities. (BF)