Search

This paper explores the notion of a ‘just imaginary’ for social inclusion in higher education. It responds to the current strategy of OECD nations to expand higher education and increase graduate numbers, as a way of securing a competitive advantage in the global knowledge economy. The Australian higher education system provides the case for analysis. Three dilemmas for social inclusion policy in this context are identified: questions of sustainability, aspiration and opportunity. The paper argues that while social inclusion policy has ‘first-order’ effects in higher education, ajustimaginary is required for more inclusive ‘second-order’ effects to be realized. It concludes that transformation of the current imaginary will require a more robust theorization of relations between social inclusion and higher education, to give new and unifying meaning to existing practices and to generate new ones. Short of this, social inclusion may be little more than justimaginary. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Mobile learning is a relatively new phenomenon and the theoretical basis is currently under development. The paper presents a pedagogical perspective of mobile learning which highlights three central features of mobile learning: authenticity, collaboration and personalisation, embedded in the unique timespace contexts of mobile learning. A pedagogical framework was developed and tested through activities in two mobile learning projects located in teacher education communities: Mobagogy, a project in which faculty staff in an Australian university developed understanding of mobile learning; and The Bird in the Hand Project, which explored the use of smartphones by student teachers and their mentors in the United Kingdom. The framework is used to critique the pedagogy in a selection of reported mobile learning scenarios, enabling an assessment of mobile activities and pedagogical approaches, and consideration of their contributions to learning from a socio-cultural perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attempts to make higher education more equitable more readily succeed at the aggregate (sector) level than at the institutional, with students from disadvantaged groups being overrepresented in low-status institutions. It is suggested that this is because policies of ‘fairness’ (i.e. proportional representation) dominate the contemporary policy framework and are strongly resisted by elite universities. However, using the Australian higher education sector as an example, this paper argues that equity policy is actually a mix of ‘proportional fairness’ and ‘inclusion’ and elite institutions resist not because the policy is deficient but because it might actually work. An alternative approach to higher education equity policy is proposed; one which requires elite institutions to engage meaningfully with disadvantaged students but allows them to retain their status advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education provided a timely reminder of the dismal performance of the nation and its higher education system in terms of the proportional representation of certain groups of Australians within the university student population. While the Australian Government has taken on the challenge of creating more university places for people from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, this article makes the case for creating spaces in higher education for marginalised Australians. Specifically, we argue that the most strategic place to begin this is with the pedagogic work of higher education, because of its positioning as a central message system in education. And it is from the centre that the greatest pedagogic authority is derived. In this paper we conceive of the pedagogic work involved in terms of belief, design and action. From these constitutive elements are derived three principles on which to build a socially inclusive pedagogy and to open up spaces for currently marginalised groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universities put considerable resources into developing learning and teaching plans. In this paper, we examine the purpose of these plans in the context of legislative requirements, public accountability and the quality agenda. We analyse a sample of Australian university learning and teaching plans using a framework we have developed based on theory and research on strategic planning and core themes in learning and teaching. Analysis reveals considerable variation in plans' form and format, planning characteristics and learning and teaching themes addressed and omissions of key characteristics and themes. We consider the ability of such plans to meet the needs of internal and external readers, we discuss implications for their capacity to direct and motivate changes aimed at improving learning and teaching and we challenge the higher education sector to determine more clearly the role of learning and teaching plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is based on nationally funded research into the role, capabilities, challenges and professional development needs of subject coordinators in Australian higher education. The second of three data collection phases involved a multi-institutional survey of staff in the role of subject coordinator with the aim of understanding the role through the experiences of those who undertake it. In particular the conceptualization of this lowest level in academe as one of ‘leadership’, and as being the first rung on the academic leadership ladder, formed the underpinning logic for data collection. Results allow for a contemporary picture of leadership responsibilities to be drawn and also highlights some of the challenges which confront staff in this role. The vast majority of staff consider themselves as demonstrating leadership, although they have varying views about how others higher in the management hierarchy understand and appreciate their role. Most see themselves as performing effectively with the key challenges they face highlighted in the article. Outcomes suggest the need to undertake substantial capacity building of leadership for new and incumbent subject coordinators in response to the ever-changing nature of the higher education environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]