Search

While higher education (HE) is entrenched as a context for scholarly inquiry in Australian universities, there remains contest about it as a research field. Unlike other forms of 'Education', in Australia there is no undergraduate programme inducting students into HE's key questions, scholars, and inquiry modes. For new doctoral students, learning to make an original contribution to a field described as a practice, a discipline, and context is a persistent challenge. In this paper, we 'think with' the concepts of borders, paths and orientations to interrogate our practices as doctoral students and supervisors in the field of HE research, under the formation #thesisthinkers. We offer multiple accounts of how #thesisthinkers invites us to confront HE as a field, and in particular, how #thesisthinkers has invigorated us to build a useable landscape of the HE research field that sustains multiple pathways for doctoral researchers, leaving behind traces for others to tread.

Including the perspectives of scientists about the nature and process of science is important for an authentic and nuanced portrayal of science in science education. The small number of studies that have explored scientists' worldviews about science has thus far generated contradictory findings, with recent studies claiming that scientists simultaneously hold contradictory sophisticated and naïve views. This article reports on an exploratory study that uses the framework of Bhaskar's critical realism to elicit and separately analyse academic scientists' ontological and epistemological views about science in semi-structured interviews. When the views of scientists are analysed through the lens of critical realism, it is clear that it is possible to hold a realist ontological commitment about what knowledge is "of," simultaneously with a fallibilist epistemological commitment about knowledge itself. The apparent incongruence of scientists' so-called naïve and sophisticated views about science is resolved when analysed using a critical realist framework. Critical realism offers a simple and coherent framework for science educators that avoids many of the problems of positivism and social constructivism by finding a middle ground between them. The three pillars of critical realism: ontological realism, epistemological fallibilism and judgmental rationality help to make sense of how socially constructed scientific knowledge can be anchored in an independent reality.

The Science Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) are a consensus set of academic standards for Australian university Science education. They were developed by Prof. Brian Yates and Prof. Sue Jones, supported by Dr Jo-Anne Kelder, during 2010-2011. The co-authors of this paper are key figures in Australian Science education, and in this manuscript, we have used a reflective semi-structured interview approach to describe the process of developing the Science TLOs and consider their subsequent effect on tertiary science education in Australia. This manuscript documents Sue and Brian's impact on science curriculum through the lenses of leadership, community and practice. We have a twofold aim: first to draw lessons for harnessing consensus in scientific communities on the value and purpose of a tertiary science education, and second to celebrate the success of these influential and impactful leaders in our community. We demonstrate how work to develop the TLOs has transformed tertiary science education in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective feedback can build self-assessment skills in students so that they become more competent and confident to identify and self-correct weaknesses in their work. In this study, we trialled a feedback code as part of an integrated programme of formative and summative assessment tasks, which provided feedback to first-year students on their initial attempt at a scientific biology report. We investigated the students' perceptions of the feedback code and associated action plan exercise, and found that the code provided the majority of students with clear feedback, whilst the action plan provided a tool for decoding and interpreting the feedback and ensuring errors were not repeated in a subsequent report. We argue that a feedback code can be a valuable inclusion in a wider programme of feedback provision particularly when it is supported by activities that require students to engage with the codes and feed that learning forward to subsequent tasks.

Lack of clarity about assessment criteria and standards is a source of anxiety for many first-year university students. The Developing Understanding of Assessment for Learning (DUAL) programme was designed as a staged approach to gradually familiarise students with expectations, and to provide opportunities for the development of the skills required to successfully complete assessment tasks. This paper investigated the students' perceptions of the first two components of the DUAL programme, which assist first-year biology students to engage with stated assessment criteria and standards in order to develop their capacity to make judgements about scientific report exemplars, their peers' scientific reports and ultimately their own. The study found strong evidence (96% of responses) that the marking and discussion of exemplar reports with peers and demonstrators clarified expectations of scientific report writing. A key feature of this element of DUAL was the opportunity for structured discussion about assessment criteria and standards between peers and markers (demonstrators). During these discussions, students can clarify explicit statements and develop a tacit knowledge base to enhance their ability to judge the quality of others' work and their own. The peer review exercise (the second element of DUAL) was not rated as highly, with 65% of students finding the process helpful for improving their report. The negative reactions by a sizeable minority of students highlight the need to clearly communicate the expectations and benefits of peer review, with a focus on how the process of giving feedback to peers might benefit a student as much as receiving feedback on their own report.

Effective feedback can build self-assessment skills in students so that they become more competent and confident to identify and self-correct weaknesses in their work. In this study, we trialled a feedback code as part of an integrated programme of formative and summative assessment tasks, which provided feedback to first-year students on their initial attempt at a scientific biology report. We investigated the students’ perceptions of the feedback code and associated action plan exercise, and found that the code provided the majority of students with clear feedback, whilst the action plan provided a tool for decoding and interpreting the feedback and ensuring errors were not repeated in a subsequent report. We argue that a feedback code can be a valuable inclusion in a wider programme of feedback provision particularly when it is supported by activities that require students to engage with the codes and feed that learning forward to subsequent tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]