Search

This article reports on an exploratory two-stage sequential mixed methods research study that investigated the views of university educators on the introduction of assessment methods other than essays, exams and dissertations within taught Masters programmes. In the first stage, interviews were conducted internationally with 45 participants and the data analysed using an activity theoretical framework. The article illustrates how interviewees questioned their existing practice and reworked aspects of it, using new assessment methods as tools to transform their teaching and learning processes. The issues emerging from this analysis informed the design of a second study that used Q methodology to interpret five shared viewpoints on assessment methods among a group of UK-based educators. These viewpoints all saw alternative assessment methods as having advantages over traditional methods in, for example, encouraging student motivation and improving equality of opportunity, although training for academic staff in such methods was seen as necessary. Differences between the five viewpoints related to, for example, whether improving assessment methods requires a shift in how learning is viewed, and the importance of institutional support in encouraging assessment innovation. The five viewpoints are compared and contrasted. Tensions within and across assessment related activity systems are also considered, and recommendations made for further research into stakeholder viewpoints and values to improve collaboration across interacting networks.

Assessment at Masters Level is the subject of a three-year UK National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) project, "Assimilate", which seeks to explore innovatory approaches in this field. More than 40 interviews were undertaken for the project with teachers at Masters level in the UK and internationally. Although national and institutional systems differentiate clearly in their documentation how assessment at M-level should differ from that at undergraduate level, in practice there is not necessarily such clarity. This article draws on how teachers and programme leaders on Masters level courses who were interviewed for the project described the differences in practice. It concludes that there is considerable confusion and ambivalence about what distinguishes one level from another and scope for further clarification.

After a brief overview of ethical issues in an Australian context catalyzed by the current pandemic, this article focuses on data protection in the light of recent debates about COVID-19 data tracking in Australia and globally. This article looks at the issue of trust as a fundamental principle of effective and ethical COVID-safe measures undertaken by the government. Key to ensuring such trust are Habermasian participatory dialogs, which assume trust as a condition of authentic illocution, and an emphasis on short-term data capture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers recent ethical topics in Australia relating to the health rights of children in the contexts of (1) detention centers, (2) vaccination, and (3) procreative liberty, within a wider framework of discussion of the competing rights of society, parents, the child, and future generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessment at Masters Level is the subject of a three-year UK National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) project, ‘Assimilate’, which seeks to explore innovatory approaches in this field. More than 40 interviews were undertaken for the project with teachers at Masters level in the UK and internationally. Although national and institutional systems differentiate clearly in their documentation how assessment at M-level should differ from that at undergraduate level, in practice there is not necessarily such clarity. This article draws on how teachers and programme leaders on Masters level courses who were interviewed for the project described the differences in practice. It concludes that there is considerable confusion and ambivalence about what distinguishes one level from another and scope for further clarification. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article we describe how concepts of risk are both generated by and used to reinforce a neoliberal agenda in relation to the health and well-being of young people. We examine how risk may be used as a tool to advance ideals such as rational choice and individual responsibility, and how this can further disadvantage young people living within the contexts of structural disadvantage (such as geographic areas of long-term unemployment; communities that experience racial discrimination). We also identify the ways in which risk is applied in uneven ways within structurally disadvantaged contexts. To suggest a way forward, we articulate a set of principles and strategies that offer up a means of resisting neoliberal imperatives and suggest how these might play out at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels. To do this, we discuss examples from the UK, Canadian and Australian contexts to illustrate how young people resist being labelled as risky, and how it is possible to engage in health equity-enhancing actions, despite seemingly deterministic forces. The cases we describe reveal some of the vulnerabilities (and hence opportunities) within the seemingly impenetrable world view and powers of neoliberals, and point towards the potential to formulate an agenda of resistance and new directions for young people's health promotion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most terminally ill people express a preference for dying at home. Within established models of palliative care, achieving death at home is a particular challenge for homeless people. This paper describes a quality-improvement project undertaken by a community-based palliative care service in Melbourne, Australia, to understand homeless people's palliative care needs and the challenges that workers face. Six semi-structured interviews with workers in hospital and community-based settings were undertaken and a case study documented. The results were used to initiate discussion about how policy and protocols for the community-based palliative care service might serve this population more effectively. The findings confirmed that homeless people have complex psychosocial and medical needs. They may be periodically uncontactable or living in unsafe settings, experience isolation from social support networks, and have issues of compliance with treatment protocols exacerbated by mental health problems and/or substance abuse. Service providers had particular challenges in meeting the palliative care needs of homeless people. A flexible, compassionate, and coordinated response is required, and more work is needed to explore how the needs of this particular group can be met.