Engaging University Students in Australia

Radloff, Ali; Coates, Hamish

doi:10.1007/978-981-4585-63-7_4

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The UES was originally intended for use as a means of allocating performancebased funds, but late in the development of this project, this was abandoned [13]. The UES has been in use since 2012, when it replaced the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) [8] as the Australian instrument of choice.…”

Section: Uesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, UES was initially intended as a tool for allocating performance based funds, with other functions such as public reporting regarded as secondary [13]. The Australian government later abandoned the funding link and the survey now continues to provide institutional information.…”

Section: Improving Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As noted by the UES 2011 Development Report [13]: "the availability of a student ID number provides incredible potential for tracking students over time and … requires an 'information model' to be established to support statistical analysis" (p.67). The divergence of different national instruments intended for similar purposes raises the question of how (and if) results can be compared internationally.…”

Section: Further Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measures of Student Engagement in Computer Science

Sinclair

Butler

Morgan

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data relating to university students' engagement is collected internationally via several large-scale student surveys such as the North American National Survey of Student Engagement. The instruments employed measure the extent to which students put their efforts into activities associated with effective learning. It is claimed that these process measures act as a reliable proxy for student attainment, and there appears to be some evidence to support this. So far, there has been little work done to investigate engagement instruments and the data they generate from a subject perspective. This paper brings together data relating to Computer Science (CS) across the range of major engagement surveys. The results of this meta-analysis appear to indicate that CS rates lower than average on many of the major engagement benchmarks and in some cases, considerably so. Particular benchmark areas giving cause for concern are identified prompting questions as to how these results should be interpreted and used in the context of a particular learning domain. We also critique aspects of the surveys themselves, suggesting that further research is needed to better understand their appropriateness for individual subjects or for groups of subjects with shared traits. The paper argues that more qualitative data is required and that other measures (such as student expectation and some subject-specific measures) are needed for a greater understanding of the CS student experience.

show abstract

Section: Uesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improving Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Further Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measures of Student Engagement in Computer Science

Sinclair

Butler

Morgan

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the establishment of the Advancing Quality in Higher Education initiative prompted specification of a revised suite of key performance measures in learning and teaching based on some new student and employer surveys. These include the University Experience Survey (Radloff, Coates, James, & Krause, 2012), the Employer Satisfaction Survey (Oliver, Freeman, Young, Yu, & Verma, 2014), and a Graduate Outcomes Survey, developed by the Australian National University's Social Research Centre. These are still surrogate measures of teaching and learning.…”

Section: Learning Outcomes Policy Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Australia

Martin

Mahat

2017

AERA Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2009 there has been increased interest in Australian universities’ ability to demonstrate that their students have acquired knowledge and skills as specified by them in the form of graduate attributes or institutional learning outcomes. This paper describes research undertaken in Australia to identify a comprehensive set of generalized learning outcomes for undergraduate study and a set of criterion-based standards to assist in grading of achievement of those outcomes. It was discovered that although Australian universities document institutional- and course-based learning outcomes for their programs, they generally do not assess students at this level. Instead, the majority of assessment of learning outcomes is at the subject level, and frequently these outcomes do not align well with the course- or institutional-based outcomes that have also been specified. In spite of this, it appears possible to identify generalized assessment tasks for subjects and use constructive alignment between subjects, course curriculum, and chosen course-based learning outcomes, which could be used to reliably measure course outcomes and compare results between universities. These developments are framed in terms of the assessment transparency framework, which provides insight into the current “as-is” situation as well as an indication of what is needed to move learning outcomes assessment toward a fully implemented “ideal” across the higher education sector.

show abstract

“…United States National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the AUSSE offers Australasian institutions international benchmarking options.Directed by Hamish Coates, the AUSSE is managed by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) and run in collaboration with Australian and New Zealand higher education institutions. Foundations were laid in late 2006 through conversations between ACER and interested institutions18 . The methodology and materials were developed in early 2007, and a pilot collection with 25 Australian and New Zealand universities followed later that year.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Student Engagement and Outcomes: Modelling Insights from Australia and Around the World

Coates

Mahat

2013

International Journal of Chinese Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing how students engage and what they know and can do are pressing change frontiers in contemporary higher education. This paper examines large-scale work that has sought to advance the capacity of higher education systems and institutions to engage students through to graduation and ensure they have capabilities required for future study or work. It reviews contexts fuelling the importance of engagement and learning outcomes, reviews two large-scale case studies, and advances a broad model for structuring assessment collaborations that create and deliver new value for higher education. We conclude by discussing implications and opportunities for Chinese higher education and collaborative international partnerships.

show abstract

Engaging University Students in Australia

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Measures of Student Engagement in Computer Science

Measures of Student Engagement in Computer Science

The Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Australia

Assessing Student Engagement and Outcomes: Modelling Insights from Australia and Around the World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About