Search

As part of its regulatory roles, the Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is required to assess evidence of 'scholarship' that is put forward by providers, whether evidence of scholarship by individuals, such as teaching staff within the provider, or for the provider as a whole. TEQSA is seeking to review whether its current approach to assessing claims of scholarship and scholarly activity (as described in the Guidance Note on Scholarship) is adequate, or if the approach needs to be reconceptualised. The purpose of this discussion paper is to set out, for consideration by the sector and other stakeholders, draft principles that are proposed to guide providers in making claims related to scholarship, and to inform TEQSA's assessments of such claims. TEQSA's Guidance Note describes 'scholarship' as 'activities concerned with gaining new or improved understanding, appreciation and insights into a field of knowledge, and engaging with and keeping up to date with advances in the field.' This includes advances in ways of teaching and learning in the field and advances in professional practice, as well as advances in disciplinary knowledge through original research.' This discussion paper proposes a set of principles that would guide providers when offering evidence of their capacity to meet the requirements of the Higher Education Standards (HES) Framework in relation to scholarship. [For "Guidance Note: Scholarship. Version 2.5," see ED610488.]

A number of national and international organizations have compiled lists of grand challenges to unify the efforts of scholars and practitioners in a field. Unified efforts increase the possibility of creating meaningful and lasting progress. In this paper we share ten grand challenges that were identified through an examination of the assessment literature and a national survey. Each of the grand challenges are described. The four challenges which were identified as being of greatest concern to the assessment community are currently being addressed by the Grand Challenges in Assessment Project for possible collective solutions.

In today's business world, change and disruption are the new normal. It's not uncommon for companies, industries, and even the world at large to be turned upside down seemingly overnight. With the fast pace of change, adaptable leadership is no longer just an asset, it's a necessity. Executives who display adaptable leadership seek new and innovative ways to solve problems, master new skills, and view disruption as a challenge rather than a threat -- skills needed to prevail through uncertain times. Adaptable leadership is a term that's used often without a concrete definition or understanding of what it is. In this white paper we'll clarify what it means to be adaptable, and the 3 behaviors that our research at CCL has identified as critical. As a result, you'll be able to approach adaptable leadership in a more practical way and establish a foundation for recognizing and developing the skill in yourself and others on your team.

A growing number of U.S. companies across a range of industries are designing apprenticeship programs to give workers access to on-the-job learning opportunities that allow them to transition into in-demand jobs and careers. This discussion paper provides a snapshot of the current state of apprenticeship in the United States based on interviews with national experts and key stakeholders engaged in apprenticeship implementation, including employers, community colleges, unions, and intermediaries. It explores what is needed to build successful programs and highlights current federal and state policy efforts to encourage registered apprenticeship expansion, noting barriers and lessons learned. Four recommendations for how to grow registered apprenticeship opportunities in the United States are: (1) Provide standardized models; (2) Reduce complexity; (3) Measure Value; and (4) Learn from Innovative Models. A sidebar presents examples of state incentives and supports for apprenticeship programs in Colorado, Maryland, and South Carolina. [This paper was produced with funding from the Nestlé USA corporation.]

Does innovation matter? In a 2015 survey, the authors asked the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL®) clients about innovation. Not surprisingly, nearly all of them--94%--said that innovation is important. People are living in a time when technology is advancing at a blistering pace, creating new possibilities for individuals and organizations that could hardly have been imagined a generation ago. The global political and economic environment is also shifting faster than ever, often moving in unpredictable directions. It seems clear that innovation will be a defining trait--perhaps the defining trait--of those organizations that thrive over the next few decades. In this white paper, the authors lay out the essential leadership behaviors that are required to successfully lead innovation. To better understand those behaviors, the authors interviewed people on the front lines of innovation work and interviewed their bosses. The authors looked closely at the interactions between bosses and those responsible for driving innovation, investigating which boss behaviors encouraged their direct reports and which discouraged them. The interview subjects came from various industries, and all had been involved in multiple, successful initiative projects. From those interviews, the authors identified the critical leadership behaviors exhibited during successful innovation efforts, as well as behaviors that worked against innovation. The lessons from these interviews are broadly applicable to managers at multiple levels. But the authors are especially focused on the leaders charged with overseeing innovation projects--often in addition to other responsibilities--and those working on and directing innovation projects on a day-to-day basis. The actual job titles these individuals hold vary widely from one organization to the next, so for simplicity the authors are calling leaders who oversee innovation projects "leaders." Those working in and directing that innovation work on a day-to-day basis and reporting to those leaders are labeled as "innovation managers."

Why is invention strongly positively correlated with parental income not only in the US but also in Finland which displays low income inequality and high social mobility? Using data on 1.45M Finnish individuals and their parents, we find that: (i) the positive association between parental income and off-spring probability of inventing is greatly reduced when controlling for parental education; (ii) instrumenting for the parents having a MSc-degree using distance to nearest university reveals a large causal effect of parental education on offspring probability of inventing; and (iii) the causal effect of parental education has been markedly weakened by the introduction in the early 1970s of a comprehensive schooling reform. [Funding for this report was provided by the ERC, the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation, and FORTE.]

The acceptance of new growth theory relates, in part, to a number of highly touted regional success stories--or what I term "Knowledge Based Economic Areas" (KBEAs) in this and past essays. The United States, and California in particular, is viewed as perhaps the most robust creators of KBEAs, providing an influential model that is visited and revisited by business and government leaders, and other Flagship (or leading national) universities, that wish to replicate their strengths within their own cultural and political terms. While California has a number of unique characteristics, including a robust University of California system with a strong internal academic culture and devotion to public service, the story of its historical and contemporary success as an agent of economic development is closely linked to a number of key contextual factors. These relate to the internal culture, governance and management capacity of major universities in the United States, national investment patterns in R&D, the business environment, including the concentration of Knowledge Based Businesses, the acceptance of risk, and the availability of venture capital, legal variables related to Intellectual Property (IP) and tax policies, the quality of regional workforces, and quality of life factors that are important components for attracting and retaining talent. In most of these KBEAs variables, California has enjoyed an advantage that helps to partially explain the success of the University of California (UC) and other major research universities as agents of economic development. This study focuses on seven contextual variables common to all KBEAs in the United States and much of the world, and with particular attention to the UC system--a network of ten research-intensive campuses. General Principles for a University Governing Board Association of Governing Boards (AGB) are appended.

The Transforming Learning for the Third Century (TLTC) initiative funds projects that seek to promote students' self-agency and their ability to innovate and take risks. The Provost Task Teams on Engaged Learning and Digital Instruction define this learning goal as follows: "Students must know how to observe the opportunities and capacities of human communities, understand where new or existing ideas or systems could bring value within those communities, and be able to act effectively in order to drive sustained and positive change to provide that value" (Third Century Initiative Student Learning, http://thirdcentury.umich.edu/ student-learning/). This paper begins by defining the interrelated concepts of self-agency, innovation, and risk-taking. After discussing the relevance of these capacities for student development, effective approaches to fostering them will be offered. The paper concludes with a selection of appropriate measures for assessing these outcomes.

Students need to develop a variety of critical thinking and interpersonal skills in order to contribute successfully to today's increasingly globalized world. The Office of the Provost at the University of Michigan has implemented a plan known as Transforming Learning for a Third Century (TLTC) as part of its broader Third Century Initiative. This plan aims to foster development of such skills, with special emphasis on five distinct learning goals: (1) Creativity; (2) Intercultural engagement; (3) Social/civic responsibility and ethical reasoning; (4) Communication, collaboration, and teamwork; and (5) Self-agency, and the ability to innovate and take risks. The intercultural engagement goal is focused on fostering students' understanding of the role of values and culture in driving decisions, and supporting students as they develop the flexibility to work with others who have different values. More so than any previous generation, it is important for the University of Michigan to offer students opportunities to practice communicating and working with others from many different cultures and background experiences in intelligent, productive, and respectful ways. Aligned with previous TLTC Occasional Papers, this paper begins with a discussion of what intercultural engagement means and how it is conceptualized in the literature, followed by a discussion of the importance of this goal for student development. A summary of different approaches to promote intercultural engagement will then be offered. This paper concludes with an examination of how to assess these skills with an emphasis on choosing appropriate measures.

Students need to develop a variety of critical thinking and interpersonal skills in order to contribute successfully to today's increasingly globalized world. The Office of the Provost at the University of Michigan has implemented a plan known as Transforming Learning for a Third Century (TLTC) as part of its broader Third Century Initiative. This plan aims to foster development of such skills, with special emphasis on five distinct learning goals: (1) creativity; (2) intercultural engagement; (3) social/civic responsibility and ethical reasoning; (4) communication, collaboration and teamwork; and (5) self-agency, and the ability to innovate and take risks. The TLTC learning goal, Creativity, focuses on developing educational opportunities to foster students' creative processes and capacities to create new works and ideas. This goal also seeks to promote an understanding that creativity is not a rare gift to the few, but a fundamental human trait that can be developed and expanded. This paper begins with a review of the various ways in which creativity has been conceptualized and a discussion of the importance of creativity. It then goes on to briefly summarize different approaches to fostering creativity among students and ends with a discussion on how to assess creativity, with an emphasis on choosing appropriate measures.

The global competition and related international academic mobility in science and research is rising. Within this context, Europe faces quantitative skills shortages, including an estimate of between 800,000 and one million researchers. Within Europe skills imbalances and mismatches increase, with a growing divergence between countries and regions, in particular between the North and South, in terms of their ability to invest and attract human and financial capital for R&D. As a result intra-European mobility is not only on the rise, but may easily turn from an intended brain circulation into a brain drain--brain gain situation. From a qualitative perspective solutions to the skills shortages and imbalances relevant to science and innovation require the training of a broad mix of skills, which is currently provided to only in a minority of students in European higher education institutions and programmes. Will the intra-European flows of human and financial capital for R&D result in a further concentration of the minds in a limited number of regions or hubs in Europe? Is this (un)avoidable or (un)desirable? The further concentration of talent appears to be Europe's fate. These forces play out quite differently across the various disciplinary fields. In general the "STEM fields" (including engineering, natural, life and medical sciences) are already most internationalized and especially their experimental branches require the highest concentration of financial and human resources for large-scale and high-tech research infrastructure. The current combination of mobility and funding flows and trends seems to cause an increasing concentration of especially high-tech research capacity (in the natural and life sciences) in a limited number of regional hubs, which is likely to the detriment of the broad comprehensive profile of universities in certain weaker regions and countries in Europe. Those institutions may have to choose more specialized profiles, focusing more on less (human and financial) capital intensive fields in the social sciences and the humanities.

This working paper is intended to provide an overview of the key concepts associated with an entrepreneurial-university ecosystem. It also briefly discusses the entrepreneurial-university ecosystem around London (UK) and potential data sources to analyse such an ecosystem. The main research method used for the working paper is a simplified form of literature review aimed at quickly understanding the concepts at a high-level. The intended audience is those interested in: (a) how universities can function entrepreneurially and (b) getting an overview of the relevant literature.

In this report, employment retention and advancement under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was examined by reviewing research findings regarding labor market development since 1996. According to the research, most of those moving from welfare to work have found employment in low-wage jobs and experienced frequent job losses and limited upward mobility. The following were among the factors deemed predictive of employment retention among welfare leavers: starting off in higher-paying jobs; working steadily, initially; and finding jobs with benefits. Factors predictive of job advancement included starting off with higher-paying jobs, changing jobs strategically and voluntarily (but not too often), and having or acquiring higher basic skills and postsecondary education or training. The following were among the recommendations offered for federal policymakers: (1) expand TANF to include reducing family poverty and promoting family economic well-being; (2) require that states' TANF plans describe how federal TANF funds and other resources will be used to promote employment retention and advancement; (3) if federal work participation rates are not replaced by outcome-based measures, give states broad flexibility to determine the nature of work activities; and (4) require that federal agencies vigorously monitor state and local implementation of civil rights and employment rights protections afforded under current law. (Contains 31 endnotes.) (MN)

Innovative financing is a growing prospect and priority in the education sector, where over 57 million children and youth do not have access to schools, and the funding gap for achieving basic education for all is estimated at $26 billion. It has made a significant difference in meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals, especially in health, by generating more than $7 billion in additional financial resources through a range of new institutions and partnerships. This paper presents a comprehensive and practical analysis of the current state of innovative financing in global education. The report argues that education is a complex sector characterized by significant barriers to investment. But it also suggests how to break through these barriers using innovative financing such as solidarity levies and private sector investments through a global education investment bank. This research, carried out by the Innovative Finance Foundation, is part of the Open Society Education Support Program's efforts to identify innovative financing mechanisms and approaches that can increase the availability and allocation of resources for education systems. [This report was written with contributions by Diego Filmus and Taya L. Owens.]

This paper provides an account of the main approaches, debates and evidence in the literature on the role of workforce skills in the innovation process in developed economies. It draws on multiple sources including the innovation studies discipline, neoclassical Human Capital theory, institutionalist labour market studies and the work organisation discipline. Extensive use is also made of official survey data to describe and quantify the diversity of skills and occupations involved in specific types of innovation activities. The principal debates within the literature are outlined and evaluated. These debates centre on the definition of "skill"; the idea of generic "skills for innovation"; the contribution of skills supply in promoting innovation; the apparent paradox of simultaneous skill shortages and "over-qualification" in the workforce; the notion of "high or low-skill equilibrium"; how industry and training systems balance the demands for workers to acquire firm-specific skills of immediate value in the market against more general skills and knowledge that may be relevant to a broader range of firms and technologies over a working life; the role of different work organisation systems in promoting and utilising workforce skills and whether technical change is fundamentally biased towards demanding higher level workforce skills. The paper identifies a number of major findings in the literature. First, the predominant form of innovation in firms is incremental, and this points to the central role of the broader workforce in the generation, adaptation and diffusion of technical and organisational change. Second, achieving high academic standards within a country for the largest proportion of school students not only supports high participation in post school education and training but creates a workforce with greater potential to engage productively with innovation. Third, the extent to which a firm's workforce actively engages strongly determined by particular work organisation practices. Finally, there are large differences across advanced nations in workforce skill formation systems, especially for vocational skills. Such differences result in large disparities across nations in the share of their workforce with formal vocational qualifications, and in the level of these qualifications. The resulting differences in the quantity and quality of workforce skills are a major factor in determining the observed patterns of innovation and key aspects of economic performance. (Contains 7 tables, 1 figure and 40 endnotes.)

The purpose of this Issue Paper is to provide a framework and justification for effective ways that teachers can collect and use assessment data to make instructional decisions. This framework is provided as an indication of what effective linking of assessment data to instructional decisions "ought" to look like--rather than a summary or survey of current practices. The framework and respective Innovation Configuration for Linking Assessment and Instruction in Teacher Preparation and Professional Development (provided in the Appendix, pages 31-34) are primarily designed to provide a blueprint for preservice teacher preparation; however, they also may be used as an evaluation rubric or development guide for inservice professional development. Although many schools and districts may not currently have in place the practices discussed in this Issue Paper, these practices are strongly endorsed by the requirements of the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--also known as the No Child Left Behind Act--and the competitive grants to states that were made available through the Race to the Top Fund. This paper begins with a discussion of why assessment and instruction should be linked. It continues with an overview of the innovation configuration, describing essential components in preservice and inservice teacher training to identify the skills and competencies that teachers need to make sound decisions about using assessment information to improve instruction. Next, the major points within the innovation configuration are provided, with a rationale for their importance and elaboration of some of their core characteristics. Last, recommendations are provided regarding how the components of the innovation configuration might be included in teacher preparation and professional development practices. (Contains 2 figures.)

The Group of Eight (Go8) welcomes the Government's commitment to developing a comprehensive research workforce strategy. Australia's research capacity and the continuing translation of research into policy, products and services is directly linked to the future productivity of the economy, social wellbeing, environmental outcomes and the nation's long-term prosperity. The "Meeting Australia's research workforce needs" consultation paper provides a useful starting point for discussions on Australia's research workforce needs but the Go8 believes that some issues will need to receive more attention in the final strategy to ensure it is comprehensive and well targeted. In particular, the paper gives insufficient attention to: (1) the quality of both the research workforce and of the research training experience--increasing the size of the research work force will not be sufficient in itself to keep Australia competitive; (2) interdependencies between the research workforce and other parts of the innovation system, including schools and research users; (3) the roles and importance of research-trained people in the broader workforce including in industry and government; (4) the need for a whole of government approach and the removal of inconsistencies between the proposed strategy and other policies and programs (for example in relation to visas) that could impede its implementation; and (5) the dependence of the strategy on increased and better targeted funding and a concentration of capability (talent and infrastructure). A number of important actions have been identified which if adopted would be positive steps in helping to build Australia's research capacity and would help Go8 universities in managing their research training programs. (Contains 2 figures, 1 table, and 10 footnotes.)

More than 5 million English language learners (ELLs) attend school in the United States (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008). This population has increased by approximately 57 percent during the last decade, drawing sharp attention to the individual and instructional needs of students who are nonnative speakers of English (Ballantyne et al., 2008). With the rising number of ELLs in American classrooms, general "mainstream" teachers will undoubtedly teach a student who is not proficient in English and therefore unable to access the academic curriculum. These mainstream teachers are expected to teach academic content and raise student achievement while simultaneously developing ELL students' facility in and command of the English language. Emerging research indicates that mainstream teachers are ill equipped to effectively teach ELL students and have little access to preservice and inservice education focused on what to teach and how to teach this underserved population (Ballantyne et al., 2008; Hollins & Guzman, 2005). Coupled with these expectations are the challenges in making sense of the highly politicized debates over English-only and bilingual instruction. For these reasons, preparing effective teachers for this complex classroom and policy environment is critical and the role of teacher education programs is paramount. This Issue Paper presents a review of the policy environment for ELL instruction and the preparation of mainstream teachers to address the needs of ELL students. It also describes the key features of effective instructional practices for ensuring ELL students' learning of academic content supported by empirical evidence. Finally, the paper presents the Innovation Configuration for Preparing Mainstream Teachers of ELL Students, a tool for evaluating mainstream teacher preparation programs and inservice professional development. Appendix includes: Innovation Configuration for Preparing Mainstream Teachers of ELL Students.

Research universities throughout the world are part of a larger effort by nation-states to bolster science and technological innovation and compete economically. The US remains highly competitive as a source of High Tech (HT) innovation because of a number of market positions, many the result of long term investments in institutions such as research universities and in R&D funding, and more broadly influenced by a political culture that has tended to support entrepreneurs and risk taking. In essence, the US was the first mover in pursuing the nexus of science and economic policy. The following essay places universities within this larger political and policy environment by discussing market factors that have influenced knowledge accumulation and HT innovation in the US, their current saliency in the face of globalization, and the growing market position of competitors, such as the EU. The paper also provides observations on major US state-based HT initiatives intended to create or sustain Knowledge Based Economic Areas (KBEAs). Thirteen variables are used to assess the overall comparative ability for creating KBEAs, including the vitality of regional and national research universities, patterns of R&D investment, access to venture capital, intellectual property laws, educational attainment levels of the workforce, access and retention of global labor force, and political interest and forms of government support for promoting science and technology. Among the papers conclusions: There is a large disconnect in US policy related to promoting KBEAs and national competitiveness. Few policymakers, or even the higher education community are aware of stagnant and, in some states, real declines in higher education access and graduation rates relative to economic competitors, that the US is no longer a net importer of high tech goods, or that the US is no longer the number one destination for international students. Combined with global changes in the market for S&T talent, and the significant and increasingly successful effort of competitors to increase the educational attainment of their population, the US's HT advantage is eroding--although there remain a number of strengths, chiefly related to an entrepreneurial culture, more conducive tax advantages for business, a cadre of elite research universities, and the highest concentration of venture capital in the world. But even here, these advantages may wane over the next decade as the world becomes more economically, and educationally, competitive. The US generally lacks a broadly conceived strategy for retaining America's high tech advantage. "A Sample of the Frenzy of State Initiatives: 2007" is appended. (Contains 17 figures and 37 notes.) [A version of this working paper was presented at the OECD conference, "Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged: Higher Education and Regions" (Valencia, Spain, September 20, 2007).]

The current and still-evolving role of the American research university has been shaped by four key developments in the past sixty-five years: the historic decision to establish a comprehensive postwar federal science policy, described in Vannevar Bush's 1945 report, "Science, The Endless Frontier;" the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980; economic analyses from the 1950s onward that have validated the central role of knowledge in economic growth and influenced government and university policy on industry-university research; and various experiments with such research that have led to an increasing integration of research universities and industrial partners in the pursuit of innovation. Can American research universities continue to meet intensifying demands for innovation that advances regional, state, and national economic growth? This paper answers the question with a conditional yes. It describes the trend toward closer relations between universities and industry and how this trend is encouraging new ways of conducting scientific research and new forms of organization within the research university. It concludes with several recommendations for preserving the competitive advantage research universities contribute to American economic leadership: correcting our underinvestment in research in certain disciplines, such as the physical and social sciences; ensuring that federal support for research is sufficient to train graduate students in the numbers needed for national economic competitiveness and to encourage young faculty to pursue research projects with potential for innovative breakthroughs; and to make it easier for foreign-born students to remain in this country once they have earned advanced degrees in American universities. (Contains 18 endnotes.) [This report was prepared as the basis for Richard C. Atkinson's remarks at the Conference of Presidents of Academies and Scholarly Societies in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, March 14-17, 2010, Jerusalem, Israel.]

California has achieved considerable economic success through technological innovation and the formation of businesses based upon those technologies. This paper addresses some of the roles of universities in that success story. It starts with some measures of the contributions of innovation and a robust university structure to the California economy, drawn from the biotechnology and wine industries. This is followed by an exploration of some recent partnership structures involving universities with industry and/or the state government. Emphasis is on the University of California, since that is where the experience of the author lies. This is followed by considerations of how such partnerships can be most successful and at the same time meet concerns about potential undesirable consequences stemming from them. (Contains 38 notes.) [Paper prepared for Salzburg Seminar No. 441, "From Lab to Market: Accelerating Innovation through University, Business, and Government Partnership" (Salzburg, Austria, April 28-May 3, 2007).]

The purpose of this project is to apply the framework developed by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) for measuring research impact to assess the outcomes of the research and activities funded under the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Research Innovation and Expansion Fund (RIEF). LSAY provides a rich source of information about young people and their transitions from school to post-school destinations. The purpose of the Research Innovation and Expansion Fund was to facilitate an increase in the quantity, quality, distribution and accessibility of youth transitions research and analysis using LSAY data in the academic and public policy communities. The RIEF involved a variety of activities, including a competitive research grants program and a fellowship, and has led to the publication of six research reports, a national youth policy forum and data workshops. This study reinforces the point that the interplay between research and policy is complex. Nevertheless, in this case, connections between policy, practice and research have been strengthened as a result of the Research Innovation and Expansion Fund. This study also confirms the effectiveness of NCVER processes for the dissemination of research. The importance of a media release for immediate impact is noted. Policy forums and engaging directly with policy-makers and other stakeholders can also play a very positive part. Data workshops are appended. (Contains 5 tables and 9 footnotes.)