Search

In a digital era where people may experience seamless control in determining their interactions with the world via analogue and digital modes, this paper challenges the need for a university-determined position on whether study need be designated as on-campus, online, or a predetermined mix of each. In a university in Australia, several subjects were designed in a flexible hybrid format where students were offered flexibility to create their own learning pathway via online or on-campus mode, changing as it suited and regardless of their original enrolment mode in the subject. The curriculum model was conceptualised and deployed using educational design research, involving three designed and taught subjects and a further two designed-only subjects (i.e. not yet taught) to help test the concept in contrasting contexts. Insights on the new model were gained from participating teachers, their students, and online analytics. Using the experiences of the trial as the basis of this discussion paper, one practical step and its related challenges are shared in working toward a hybrid pedagogy, with associated design principles extrapolated.

Upon enrolling in a university course, students typically commit to a predetermined study mode: on-campus, online, or a hybrid/blended study mode. The education provider typically predetermines which study mode/ s are available for each course. In this paper, the authors address the challenges of designing and trialling a new "StudyFlex" student-centred study mode at La Trobe University. By re-imagining the concept of flexibility in study mode selection, StudyFlex does away with bright line distinctions between online, blended and on-campus offerings and empowers students to self-select and adjust their preferred study mode pathway within their subject and throughout their course. This paper exposes and acts as a primer for discussing the many challenges of designing, developing, and implementing such student-centred study mode innovations. Specifically, it outlines and expands upon the StudyFlex trial conducted across several subjects, its genesis and justification, with its central tenet of designing subjects which allow students freedom to move between on-campus and online modes of learning within a single offering. Discussion extends to similar trial findings, including the recent pilot by Southern Cross University of a "converged delivery" model which attempted to merge on-campus and online study modes into a single converged mode. Attention then turns to curriculum development and design challenges inherent in the StudyFlex proof of concept. Particular emphasis is placed upon the imperative and significant challenge of ensuring equivalence of learning experience, in terms of learning value and quality, irrespective of the bespoke study mode pathway chosen by students in the StudyFlex trial subjects. The discussion culminates in identifying and highlighting the need for further research to address the challenges posed by innovations like the StudyFlex pilot and its predecessors such as the Southern Cross University converged delivery pilot. These extend to administrative challenges posed for universities seeking to accommodate student-centred study mode flexibility and potential and current practical regulatory constraints affecting such innovations. Fundamental questions emerge concerning the gap between the vision of allowing students to complete self-determination insofar as selection of study mode and the pragmatic realities of the various constraints facing higher education providers in seeking to push the boundaries of curriculum development and design to realise that vision. At a local level, and as the model becomes more widely adopted, La Trobe University teachers will need to be well supported to ensure their practices adapt to a new teaching model, while the model itself will need ongoing concerted design attention to ensure that students experience quality learning regardless of their study mode choices.

Growth in online higher education offerings has been significant in recent years, with many Australian Universities launching programs to extend into new markets and meet the student demand for greater flexibility in delivery modes. Further, it is well understood that good support is an essential component to student success, satisfaction and retention. Despite this, orientation, including non-academic support, is often overlooked in online education systems. Therefore, the current study aimed to develop an orientation program to increase student preparedness and facilitate ongoing support, in addition to developing evidence-based best-practice strategies to support academic's when developing new online courses.

Higher education is under pressure to advance from a singular focus on assessment of outputs (measurements) to encompass the impact (influence) of initiatives across all aspects of academic endeavour (research, learning and teaching, and leadership). This paper focuses on the implications of this shift for leadership in higher education. Demonstrating the impact of leadership in higher education requires taking a step beyond measuring the skills, behaviours, and achievements of individual leaders to demonstrating how universities can evaluate the impact of actions taken to build leadership capacity across the institution. The authors extend the outcome of empirical research into how a distributed leadership approach can be enabled and evaluated in Australian higher education--to analyse the effectiveness of these processes for both measuring output and assessing the impact and influence of practice.

Tax authorities in developed common law countries such as the United States, Australia and Canada are increasingly moving to digitise and automate tax administration. The move is rapid and multi-faceted, extending to core functions including tax compliance and investigation activities. However, this increasing reliance on digitisation, automation and artificial intelligence raises fundamental questions concerning tax authority accountability and the ability of taxpayers to exercise their rights to take legal action in the event of defective tax administration. To date, these questions have garnered little attention in the evaluation of the merits, efficiencies and goals of the push to digitise and automate. This article considers these questions and posits that the answers indicate a need to rethink the key public policy principles underpinning the legal rules which govern the limits of tax authority susceptibility to taxpayer suit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Farah Custodians Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2), ('Farah 2') the Federal Court of Australia refused to strike out a taxpayer negligence claim against the Commissioner of Taxation. This is a significant interlocutory finding. In Australia, taxpayer negligence actions against the Commissioner of Taxation are uncommon and are typically summarily dismissed. None have proceeded to a full hearing. Farah stands out, not just as an example of a rare interlocutory finding in favour of a taxpayer claiming negligence by Australian tax officials, but for the judicial reasoning of the Federal Court in reaching that decision. Farah 2 is the first time an Australian superior court has applied general Australian tortious principles for determining novel negligence claims against public officials to a tax case. This article examines this judicial approach and the insights it provides into the nature and scope of any possible tortious duty of care owed to taxpayers by Australian tax officials. The analysis extends to medium-term and long-term assessments on how future negligence claims against tax officials might play out, extrapolated from the reasoning in Farah 2 and from cases in broadly comparable jurisdictions such as Canada where there is a much more developed body of case law concerning taxpayer negligence claims against tax officials. These assessments are included with a view to isolating the key judicial challenges likely to be encountered in determining such claims in future and providing guidance for prospective future litigants concerned to understand the limits of potential tax officer exposure to common law suit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, tax authorities are digitising taxpayer services as part of a more general trend toward 'e-government'. However, in making this shift, tax authorities must be conscious of the existence of a significant and rapidly evolving 'digital divide' between various demographic groups. Recent research commissioned by the United States National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) highlights the issues, indicating that the digitising of authority services may have especially adverse consequences on vulnerable taxpayer groups - low income taxpayers, seniors, and those with disabilities. These findings, coupled with the Australian Taxation Office commitment to 'digital by default' provision of tax services, give good cause for closer examination of the NTA findings and the potential lessons for Australian tax administrators. This article contains this examination. It also proposes extending and refining the NTA work to ensure that any shift toward increased webbased tax services proceeds only with full appreciation of the potential consequences for vulnerable taxpayers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judges frequently deny relief to taxpayers in claims against tax officials because of concerns about the possible adverse motivational effects on tax officials of imposing liability. In particular, there is a concern that the fear of being sued will result in tax officials becoming over-defensive in carrying out their tax administration duties. These over-defensive behaviours are often described as 'chilling' effects or 'chill-factor' concerns. The inherent logical appeal of these chill-factor concerns is rarely subjected to the rigours of the rules of evidence or even to close academic scrutiny. Further, no attempt has been made to devise robust legal principles for appropriate judicial treatment of chill-factor concerns. This article addresses these deficiencies. Specifically, Part 2 explains the main controversies surrounding the existence, nature and most appropriate weight to be afforded to chill-factor concerns in taxpayer claims against tax officials. Part 3 examines the judicial treatment of chill-factor concerns in taxpayer claims against tax officials in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Part 4 draws on the various approaches in each of these jurisdictions and, mindful of the controversies and complexities discussed in Part 2, sets out a series of guidelines to assist policy-makers and judges in determining the appropriate treatment of chill-factor policy concerns in taxpayer claims against tax officials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Tax Journal / Revue Fiscale Canadienne is the property of Canadian Tax Foundation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Australian business taxpayers seeking compensation for losses caused by the wrongs of tax officials have a number of judicially-enforceable and non-judicial avenues of relief. This article outlines each of these options and assesses the suitability and effectiveness of each for resolving compensation claims of business taxpayers. This examination reveals that there are no broadly applicable judicial avenues of relief with any realistic prospects for recovery available to assist Australian business taxpayers. Business taxpayers must turn to non-judicial avenues for recovering compensation from the Commissioner of Taxation. This article contends that these non-judicial avenues of relief are ill-suited for resolving many business compensation claims. Consequently, unlike other taxpayers, Australian business taxpayers often will have no appropriate, broadly applicable avenue for recovering compensation for tax official wrongs. This article calls for an express statutory statement to address this disadvantage by providing businesses with clarity and certainty as to their entitlements to compensation for loss caused by the wrongs of tax officials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]