Search

Through an autoethnographic account of a university career journey, this paper addresses ten key themes in higher education. These are the ten principles which matter most in education. Attending to the quality of these elements will ensure that the vast majority of students have an excellent experience and that by virtue of completing their education, graduates will have the foundations they require to achieve their career goals. High quality universities keep the focus on their students, and students are welcomed and encouraged as agentic, contributing citizens, who will lead communities forward through graduate careers. The student experience is streamlined, minimising expectations of students beyond their coursework. Whereas the educators make or break the experience for the students, there are numerous other education-focussed staff roles in universities and staff must work in-concert. Universities must continue to apply digital innovation to improve processes such that student experience mechanisms, such as enrolment, are efficient and user-friendly, so that students can expend their cognitive energies on learning rather than navigating convoluted processes. One size does not fit all and university education must be delivered in ways which meet the needs and expectations of diverse student cohorts, and personalised in bespoke and supported ways for individual students. Universities seek to enhance and continuously improve student experience, engagement and retention.

Universities are both a source of employable graduates and careers. This paper examines universities as developers and employers of their own graduates from the perspective of employees and recruited positions. Research questions were: what do learning and teaching careers look like at universities, and; what are the occupational patterns, satisfactions and concerns of the staff in those careers? An autoethnographic account of employees’ career journeys (all of whom were employed in learning and teaching or closely related areas) from five different universities were shared, compared and contrasted. Two of these universities are profiled as having a large proportion of students from target equity groups and therefore have intentionally recruited learning and teaching staff to widen student participation. A desktop review of six months of university employment vacancies from these two universities was conducted. A consistent theme across the autoethnographic stories was a feeling of being an outsider. The authors’ hypothesis is that this is related to haphazard preparation for learning and teaching positions. Of the 322 university vacancies, 84% were for professional staff, 23% of which were in learning and teaching, with the most prevalent role being Coordinator. Fourteen per cent were for academic staff, 64% of which involved learning and teaching, and the most prevalent title was Lecturer/Senior Lecturer. Key takeaways include recommendations for universities to intentionally enhance the employability of graduates who pursue learning and teaching positions within universities, and for prospective university learning and teaching staff to enhance their employability.

This special issue was produced by the TEN-STARS network, an international network of tertiary staff, students, graduates and employers dedicated to furthering research and practice related to graduate employability. The Employability Network, was formed at the 2018 STARS conference (www.unistars.org) in response to shared interests that are very much aligned to those of the Journal of Learning and Teaching for Graduate Employability. It is therefore with great pleasure that we introduce the Journal’s first special issue, which is also the network’s first collaborative output.The first issue of the Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability was published in 2010, ‘as a forum for fostering interdisciplinary dialogue among researchers, teacher scholars, careers staff and industry and professional practitioners concerned about graduate employability’ (Quin, 2010). Almost ten years on, dialogue among those key stakeholders is no less important, and assuring graduate employability remains a challenge that spans international contexts. In fact, with growing global uncertainty related to rapid technological developments and the changing world of work, alongside other equally concerning social and political disruptions, the preparation of graduates to face uncertainty in and beyond the workforce is arguably more important than ever (Oliver & Jorre de St Jorre, 2018). Fortunately, thanks to the dedication of many, and platforms such as this Journal, there is now an expansive and growing body of research and evidence based practice that can be drawn upon - to design, question, and redesign - teaching and learning for graduate employability.Universities and academics are often at the centre of discourse about graduate employability, but in reality, concerns and responsibilities are shared more broadly amongst: leaders of tertiary institutions (university and non-university providers); academics in and beyond traditional faculty roles; and other staff who contribute to the student experience and graduate outcomes through diverse roles (such as those that contribute to career learning services, learning design, and student support, to name just a few). Students, graduates, employers and professional associations, as well as government and quality assurance agencies, are also key stakeholders, whose influence and perspectives are essential to developing effective strategies (Kinash, Crane, Judd, & Knight, 2015; Kinash, et al., 2015). With this in mind, the TEN-STARS network was convened by Professor Shelley Kinash, to encourage and support collaboration between all those interested in continuing to discuss, inform, and influence graduate employability. This special issue, was conceived as a way of sharing some of the network’s diverse and collective expertise with a broader audience, who are also invited to become part of our network (https://tenstars.graduateemployability.com/).All of the papers in this TEN STARS Special Issue are empirical, theoretically grounded and richly informed by the growing body of published employability literature. The roles and experience of our contributing authors are diverse, as are their research questions, methods and methodologies. However, all of the inquiries shared have been designed to impact graduate employability, so they are all contextualised to tertiary education, and provide recommendations for further research and efficacious practice related to learning and teaching for employability. Importantly, none of the approaches examined are bolt-ons (requiring already busy students to do more). Rather, authors have focussed on deeply considered approaches to designing and refining the tertiary educational experience, so that employability and careers perspectives are embedded in the student learning experience, and deeply contextualised to disciplines.

Postgraduate students are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape for their future careers. In this context, higher education providers are responsible for supporting and monitoring postgraduate (masters and doctoral) students’ development for both education and employability contexts. This empirical research provides a rich analysis of feedback breakfasts, focus groups and interviews with 319 postgraduate student participants from 26 universities. Emergent themes highlight widespread lack of confidence in university-mediated student experiences, particularly in the context of employability, and pessimism regarding career outcomes. Students expressed a view that higher education providers need to direct further attention and relevant supports toward postgraduate education. Future career despondency was particularly prevalent among students with academic aspirations. The findings are discussed using the theoretical framework of eudemonia and flourishing as an approach to revitalising and improving both the process and outcomes of postgraduate education. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for universities to improve the postgraduate student experience in the context of employability.

Within higher education literature, assessment and graduate employability are linked and co-presented, in that quality student assessment is purported to enhance employability. This research was designed to query the extent to which these same conceptual links are perceived by those actively involved in higher education. Four stakeholder groups from multiple disciplines and eight Australian states and territories (students, alumni, educators and employers) were interviewed about graduate employability (n s= 127). Interviewers intentionally omitted any mention of assessment to determine whether the various stakeholders would bring it up themselves when asked questions such as what is and is not effective for nurturing employability. The results indicated that among the educators, assessment emerged as a dominant theme. While the three other stakeholder groups infrequently used the term assessment, they did discuss related educational concepts and practices in the context of enhanced employability. All stakeholder groups identified a missing link between theory and practice, with educators specifying that link as assessment. Recommendations to improve employability through assessment are the key takeaways from this research. © 2017 HERDSA

Depending on the rhetorician’s perspective, university graduate employability and outcomes in India might be described as the perfect storm or the opportune reclamation. India is experiencing a youth explosion and many of these young people are pursuing degrees (Gupta, 2014). Compared to Australia, India has 18 times the annual university graduates. The total number of graduates from tertiary education1 in India and Australia in 2014 were 7.7 million and 0.42 million respectively (UNESCO, 2017).2 However, whereas an overall average of 70 per cent of Australian youth secure full‐time discipline‐related careers four‐month post‐graduation (Australian Government Department of Education & Training, 2016), only 33.5 per cent of Indian youth secure the same outcomes (Thakur, 2016). One commonly cited explanatory factor is degree‐choice. In the contemporary knowledge economy, employability tends to be higher from degrees in the disciplinary areas of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) (Langdon, McKittrick, Beede, Khan, & Doms, 2011). Whereas 73% of Australian graduates enrol in these degrees, STEM disciplines are chosen by just over half (52%) of Indian graduates (MHRD, 2016; UNESCO, 2017). Thereby, one ameliorative active to improve employment outcomes in India would be to encourage students to enrol in STEM disciplines and then focus employability strategies and supports in these degrees.

Students are drawn to doctorates for both the intellectual journey and the aspirational destination. However, many contemporary doctoral students and graduates are feeling like battlers, in that victory does not assure a career. In this context, the weapons of choice are a clear vision, identity, and strategic choices. The aim of this chapter is to inform students, their supervisors, and university executive leaders how to achieve heightened graduate employability. As such, it has been written for four audiences: (1) PhD students, who want academic careers, and (2) those who want careers beyond universities; (3) PhD supervisors; and (4) university executive leaders. The key takeaways are practical recommendations for each of these four groups. The content is informed by an Australian national research study into postgraduate student experience, which included 319 postgraduate students as research participants. The first chapter author was one of two principal researchers leading the study, and the second chapter author was the project manager and researcher. The authors have added their reflections and personal experiences as supervisor and PhD student respectively.

Two ways in which 21st century higher education is substantially different are in the prevalence of online learning and increased student diversity, including students with disabling conditions. This chapter poses the question - Have online technologies levelled the playing field for students with disabling conditions or has the growing complexity of technology meant that more students have been shutout of education? This chapter argues that there are both metaphorical snakes and ladders at the intersection of technology and disability in the context of higher education. In other words, there are current forces that propel students with disabling conditions forward and there are slippery slopes that see students falling downwards and sometimes right out of the education system. The main contribution of this chapter to the literature is a Framework of Enabling and Disabling Effects of Technology for Diverse Learners Studying Online.

© 2014 HERDSA. Assurance of learning (AOL) is a quality enhancement and quality assurance process used in higher education. It involves a process of determining programme learning outcomes and standards, and systematically gathering evidence to measure students' performance on these. The systematic assessment of whole-of-programme outcomes provides a basis for curriculum development and management, continuous improvement, and accreditation. To better understand how AOL processes operate, a national study of university practices across one discipline area, business and management, was undertaken. To solicit data on AOL practice, interviews were undertaken with a sample of business school representatives (n = 25). Two key processes emerged: (1) mapping of graduate attributes and (2) collection of assurance data. External drivers such as professional accreditation and government legislation were the primary reasons for undertaking AOL outcomes but intrinsic motivators in relation to continuous improvement were also evident. The facilitation of academic commitment was achieved through an embedded approach to AOL by the majority of universities in the study. A sustainable and inclusive process of AOL was seen to support wider stakeholder engagement in the development of higher education learning outcomes.

There remains a lack of published empirical data on the substantive outcomes of higher learning and the establishment of quality processes for determining them. Studies that do exist are nationally focused with available rankings of institutions reflecting neither the quality of teaching and learning nor the diversity of institutions. This article describes two studies in which associate deans from Australian higher education institutions and focus groups of management and academics identify current issues and practices in the design, development and implementation of processes for assuring the quality of learning and teaching. Results indicate that developing graduate attributes and mapping assessments to measure outcomes across an entire programme necessitates knowledge creation strategies and systems as well as inclusive decision processes. Common elements supporting consistently superior outcomes include inclusivity of a range of teaching and support academics; embedded graduate attributes; consistent and appropriate assessment; digital collection mechanisms; and systematic analysis of outcomes used in programme review. © 2014 Taylor & Francis.

This paper explores academic developer identity by applying self-concept theory and appreciative inquiry to the personal journeys of two academic developers. Self-attribution, social comparison and reflected appraisals are presented and applied to explain how academic developers form their identities. Sociological principles are incorporated to describe the recursive informing of academic development and developer identities. The presentation of implications positions academic developers as higher education leaders.

This article presents and analyses a single pedagogic case of a small, rural primary state school in Queensland, Australia. The researchers spent one day per week for nineteen weeks serving the role of visiting teachers to the school. The goal of the research was to inquire into the pedagogical sustainability of this rural school and its relationship with community. Data was interpreted through Kilpatrick, Johns & Mulford’s (2003b) school–community partnership framework. The key research finding was that the impacts of school–community partnership initiated through an inquiry-based teaching and learning project extended beyond the scope and longevity of the project, thereby predicting pedagogical sustainability.

Purpose – The paper aims to disseminate solutions to common problems in student evaluation processes. It proposes that student evaluation can be applied to quality assurance and improving learning and teaching. The paper presents solutions in the areas of: presenting outcomes as performance indicators, constructing appropriate surveys, improving response rates, reporting student feedback to students and student engagement as a feature of university quality assurance. Design/methodology/approach – The research approach of this paper is comparative case study, allowing in-depth exploration of multiple perspectives and practices at seven Australian universities. Process and outcome data were rigorously collected, analysed, compared and contrasted. Findings – The paper provides empirical evidence for student evaluation as an instrument of learning and teaching data analysis for quality improvement. It suggests that collecting data about student engagement and the student experience will yield more useful data about student learning. Furthermore, findings indicate that students benefit from more authentic inclusion in the evaluation process and outcomes. Research limitations/implications – Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further and apply to their own university contexts. Practical implications – The paper includes recommendations at the institution- and sector-wide levels to effectively use student evaluation as a university performance indicator and as a tool of change. Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified need to examine student evaluation processes across institutions and focuses on the role of student evaluation in quality assurance.

Many university academics disagree with the rationale that we should pursue mobile learning because 21st century students are apparently demanding it. We argue that the only defensible rationale for making mobile learning part of pedagogy is because it enhances student learning. This presentation shares results from research with 135 students engaged in mobile learning over two semesters. It addresses the question of whether Blackboard Mobile Learn made a perceived difference to their learning. Results revealed that in-class, students used their mobile devices for Blackboard Mobile Learn to the same extent as they used them for searching the web for study, accessing university web pages, email and making Facebook posts, but less than they used them for browsing the web for pleasure and Facebook reading. The majority of students were neutral when asked if they prefer Mobile Learn over PC access to Blackboard. Students were likewise neutral when asked whether they perceived iPads to improve their learning. There was higher frequency agreement that using iPads motivated them to learn. Qualitative feedback from focus groups was mixed, but largely positive. The overall interpretation was that it is a matter of course that students would access their subject site via mobile devices.

Mobile learning was an embedded component of the pedagogical design of an undergraduate course, Digital media and society. In the final semester of 2010 and the first semester of 2011, 135 students participated in an empirical study inquiring into their perceptual experience of mobile learning. To control for access to technology, an optional iPad student loan scheme was used. The iPads were loaded with an electronic textbook and a mobile application of the learning moderation system. Eighty students participated in ten-person focus groups. Feedback on mobility and the electronic text was positive and optimistic. However, the majority of students were not convinced that the trial made a difference to their learning. This result was interpreted to indicate that the presence or absence of mobile devices does not guarantee or preclude student learning.

This case depiction addresses the contentious issue of providing culturally and globally accessible teaching and learning to international students in universities in the Commonwealth nations of Australia and Canada. The chapter describes the university systems and cultures, the barriers to authentic higher education internationalization, and the problems frequently experienced by international students. Two university cases are presented and analysed to depict and detail blended learning approaches (face-to-face combined with e-learning) as exemplars of culturally and globally accessible higher education and thereby ideologically grounded internationalization. Lessons learned are presented at the systems level and as teaching and learning solutions designed to address pedagogical problems frequently experienced by international students in the areas of communication, academic skills, teaching and learning conceptualization, and moving from rote learning to critical thinking. The blended learning solutions are analysed through the lens of critical theory.

Mobile learning was an embedded component in the pedagogical design of an innovative undergraduate course, Digital Media and Society. This paper reports the experiences and perceptions of 189 students over three semesters in 2010 and 2011. Students were given the option of using their own devices or a university loaned iPad. The iPads were loaded with an electronic textbook and a mobile application of the learning management system. Feedback from students on mobility and the electronic text was positive and optimistic overall. However, the majority of these students were not convinced that the trial made a difference to their learning.