Search

This paper reappraises the view of John McPeck that critical thinking can only be taught within rather than across the disciplines. In particular the paper explores one aspect of McPeck’s position: his resistance to teaching informal logic as a means of teaching critical thinking. The paper draws upon the author’s experience of teaching critical thinking in the USA, Britain and Australia to outline some of the challenges and issues arising in devising and teaching courses in reasoning and informal logic and seeks to show that McPeck’s misgivings are not entirely well-founded. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

The massification and globalization of higher education, combined with the widespread adoption of processes underpinning accreditation and quality control of university programs, have tended to result in learning contexts that are increasingly narrowly conceived and tightly controlled. Underlying many quality control measures is a 'one size fits all' presumption that all qualifying students will receive the same standardized package of resources, teaching, assessment and learning opportunities in each location where a program is offered. This 'metro-centric' view gives little regard to the challenges faced by regionally-based institutions and remote campuses in striving to achieve student learning outcomes that are comparable with city-based experiences. Metro-centrically imposed standards for the student learning experience ignore greater delivery costs faced by regional campuses due to thin markets and diseconomies of scale, plus higher costs for regional construction and for ongoing supply of information technology. In addition to these economic constraints, procedural inflexibilities within 'mother' campuses linked to quality control procedures, combined with accreditation requirements imposed by professional bodies, provide additional layers of control inhibiting regional campuses from responding to local needs and conditions with adaptations that would enhance the richness of regional and rural student learning experiences. Bureaucratic inflexibility as described here sits in tension with current government policies aspiring to increase participation and retention rates for rural students. This paper outlines and critiques some of the ways in which quality controls in higher education serve to damage regional student learning through the imposition of inflexible curriculum design and contextually incongruent Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, Vol. 23 (1) 2013 76 teaching standards. The paper theorizes how greater operational flexibility can be achieved whilst assuring the quality of rural learning experiences. While the importance of professional accreditation and other proxy measures for quality learning are not denied, it should be possible to adopt some context-sensitive measures whilst maintaining standards in regional education. For example, the types of assessment tasks, class engagement activities and regionally relevant case studies tailored to the smaller class sizes typical of regional and remote campuses could be embraced as an opportunity rather than viewed as a deviation from standard. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Using recent discussions of Isaiah Berlin‟s two concepts of freedom as a starting point, this paper poses and attempts to answer the question, to what extent are those living in rural and remote communities „free‟ to pursue their dreams of higher education? What would count as adequate educational opportunity for those embracing regional and rural lifestyles? Freedom conceived as the ability to pursue options (option-freedom) is sensitive to a variety of factors, including the number of options available, the character of those options, and the nature of an actor‟s access to options (Pettit 2003). Many factors in a rural context compromise the number and character of educational options. Sparse populations restrict the number of programs and courses that can be offered sustainably. Distance education is not always an attractive option for those from low SES backgrounds who lack already-formed academic habits. All too often the local university becomes the only possible provider of face-to-face higher education for rural communities. To treat regional and rural campuses as providers responding to sustainable local demand, assumes that local communities stand ready to articulate their educational requirements. Yet individuals and communities previously excluded from educational opportunity tend not to know what they don‟t know. The perceived rewards of holding a qualification may be remote to students who are the first members of their family to attend university. Individuals committed to rural lifestyles may be unable or unwilling to relocate in order to reap the full benefits of their educational investments. All of this suggests that rural campuses must act not only as brokers between rural populations and higher education institutions, but as educators of public opinion and shapers of local educational aspirations. This paper explores some creative ways in which small university campuses might interact with local communities to shape aspirations and flexibly deliver sustainable academic programs (face-to-face and through blended learning) for all members of the local populace, from low SES students to rural practitioners seeking local opportunities for continuing professional development. It is argued that regional and rural campuses need to demonstrate critical self-awareness as they responsibly model higher education and its benefits to local populations. Refereed/Peer-reviewed