Search

The last couple of years have witnessed a growing debate about online learning in higher education, notably in response to the global massive open online course (MOOC) phenomenon. This paper explores these developments from an institutional policy perspective, drawing on an analysis of the initial stages of different approaches to MOOCs and e-learning being taken up at three Australian universities. It points to four commonalities emerging from the institutional constructions of these initiatives including (1) the use of e-learning policy as a vehicle for curriculum redesign; (2) an emphasis on internal curriculum redesign as a core rationale for MOOCs; (3) a desire to capitalise on promotional opportunities but a reticence around wholly embracing the concept and structure of MOOCs and (4) the absence of access-driven concerns in university policy despite the prominence of such concerns in broader public debate. The approach is framed by a consideration of change dynamics in higher education and highlights the emphasis on internal university work within the policy narrative, suggesting this could represent an attempt to reframe the debate about MOOCs away from popular arguments about systemic disruption and instead use them to progress forms of change that align to broader strategic objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Honours undergraduate degree in Australia is unlike that in most other countries. It has taken on a particular significance as a qualification, as a pathway to and a pre-requisite for direct entry into doctoral programs. This paper explores the outcomes of a study that suggests that the aims, outcomes, curriculum, pedagogical practices, purposes and enrolment patterns of Honours vary substantially across disciplines and university types. It addresses the questions about the diverse nature of Honours programs and questions what this diversity means for Australian higher education in the context where global standardisation of awards is rapidly occurring. Honours is seen variously as a qualification, an experience, or a program. These variations are discussed and it is demonstrated that Honours globally has not one, but many meanings. These meanings are often poorly understood within, and outside the academy. These multiple meanings create confusion about what Honours stands for and inhibit communication about the role and purpose of Honours both within Australia and in a global context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One way in which universities have sought to articulate the outcomes of a university education is through a description of the attributes of their graduates. Recent calls for universities to demonstrate the quality of their outcomes and processes have prompted a re-examination of the generic graduate attribute outcomes many Australian universities have espoused for the past decade. As university communities struggle to identify what combination of skills, attributes and knowledge to include in these statements of graduate outcomes, and begin to come to terms with how to develop curricula to effectively achieve such outcomes, the fundamental nature of these is a vital preliminary question to address. What are these things that universities call generic graduate attributes? This is a more fundamental question than what combination of skills, attributes and knowledge should be included on the graduate ‘shopping-list’, it is about the nature of the things on the list, and the nature of the list itself. In seeking to further our understanding of the meaning of generic graduate attributes, the research described in this paper used phenomenographic analysis to explore academics’ conceptions of generic graduate attributes in the context of contemporary teaching and learning practices at one Australian university. A way of describing the key aspects of the variation in academics’ understandings of the concept of graduate attributes is presented. The contribution of discipline background to conceptions of generic attributes is considered and the implications of the observed variation for universities’ current curriculum reform initiatives discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]