Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level
Professor Margaret Hicks
Director: Learning and Teaching
The University of South Australia
Adelaide, South Australia
Australia
Email: margaret.hicks@unisa.edu.au
Professor Peter Lee
The University of South Australia
Deputy Vice Chancellor: Academic
Adelaide, South Australia
Australia
Email: peter.lee@unisa.edu.au
Conference Theme: How can institutions embrace transformational learning as part of the
mission?
Abstract
This paper will explore the process of introducing whole-of-university curriculum change, the
means employed to develop a case for change and the methods employed to gain wide
acceptance. It will also outline the methods that will be used to implement the change
required over the coming two year project. The paper gives particular focus on the need to
build coalitions of support from senior management, teaching and learning champions at
division and school level, as well as academic and professional staff. At the University of
South Australia this has culminated in the biggest single investment in curriculum renewal in
the university’s history, a first stage investment of $A4.7M. The newly developed Teaching
and Learning Framework at the University of South Australia continues the long held
centrality of the development of graduate qualities, but now replaces the notion of studentcentred learning with student-engaged learning. Engagement will be enhanced through the
provision of active learning experiences developing an experiential approach to learning. The
aim is that in each degree program that at least one third of all learning experiences will be
involved in either practice-based learning (work-based learning), research experiences, or an
element of service learning.
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
1
Introduction
Improving the quality of a student’s learning experience is essential for all universities. While
this can be achieved in many ways, of central importance is students’ engagement with the
curriculum. Through this paper we explore the process of introducing whole-of-university
curriculum change as a central driver in transforming learning and engaging students as part
of the University of South Australia’s newly defined mission1. After establishing the case for
change, we then describe the three stages of implementation and in doing so highlight a
number of lessons we have learnt from this experience.
An institutional approach to curriculum renewal
In formulating our approach to a whole-of-institutional approach, we were mindful of three
challenges. The first is that curriculum design and any related improvement strategies are
often dealt with at an individual level. The second is the difficulty of implementing any large
scale university-wide change which is realised beyond strategy and framework statements that
appear on university websites or in position papers. Thirdly, our students were telling us
through our surveys that there was a lack of engagement with their learning – a challenge
which was not unique to the University of South Australia.
At the university level, much curriculum design is dealt with at the individual
subject/unit/course level. Traditionally, it has been the prerogative of the individual lecturer to
outline and design the curricula of their individual teaching. Often (and not ideally) this is
done without reference to other subjects which are taught in the same award program. The
move to defining and articulating graduate attributes at a program level over the last fifteen
years has challenged this model of individualistic practice and in many universities facilitated
broader discussion at a program level about curriculum decisions. Similarly, the introduction
of new technologies in teaching has resulted in different delivery modes and has been a driver
for changed curriculum practices. But even with these broader imperatives, it is still often
easy to revert to individualistic and private practices of curriculum design and revision, and
institutional change practices, while well intended, are not fully realised.
Most universities now have publicly stated teaching and learning strategies, frameworks or
other statements about their teaching and learning purpose available on their websites and in
official documentation. It is acknowledged that there is variance in the extent to which these
statements are being implemented and used within individual institutions. Gibbs, Habeshaw
and Yorke’s (2000) survey of United Kingdom institutional implementation of teaching and
learning strategies while stating that strategy implementation takes time, concluded that there
was considerable variation across the sector and for some institutions this has not moved
beyond a paper-based exercise. Newton (2003) identifies five concepts which can be barriers
to successful implementation of learning and teaching strategies. These include:
(a) loss of ‘front-line’ academics’ autonomy;
(b) policy and strategy overload;
(c) bureaucratisation of teaching;
(d) local practices and local culture;
(e) the ‘shift from teaching to learning’. (Newton, 2003, p 432)
It is important to take these concepts into consideration when introducting new strategies and
implementing change at an institutional level.
Recent feedback from students nationally and internationally has focused on how students
‘engage’ with their learning (Krause, 2005; Yorke, 2006). Within the Australian context the
1
UniSA’s vision statements is available at: http://www.unisa.edu.au/about/intro/vision.asp
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
2
concept of student engagement has been defined as ‘students’ involvement with activities and
conditions likely to generate high-quality learning’ (ACER, 2008, p1). Engagement with their
learning is being seen as the most important factor in determining the quality of the learning
experience. Central to this concept is the curricula.
In determining an approach to a whole-of-institution curriculum renewal, all of these factors
have been considered and have informed the approach taken. In the next section we turn to
the University of South Australia as a specific case-study to explore these changes in detail.
Background
The University of South Australia (UniSA)2 was founded in 1991 from a number of
predecessor institutions that can date their existence to the late nineteenth century. As a very
young University, it has faced considerable challenges in transforming itself from a teachingonly college of advanced education to one that is now rated number 13 out of 38 Australian
universities in terms of total research income (DEST, 2006). Its founding act requires the
University to pay particular attention to the provision of educational opportunities for those
from disadvantaged educational backgrounds as well as indigenous Australians. Uniquely in
Australia, it has set itself a goal that by 2010 all programs will include the equivalent of one
course on indigenous perspectives and has already achieved this goal in some 75% of its
programs. This has not been easy work, but is a discussion for another forum.
It is also a very large University, with nearly 34,000 students currently enrolled in some 400
programs of study in 2300 individual courses. It teaches on 4 campuses located in Adelaide,
and in two regional cities in South Australia. It teaches 11,000 international students, with
approximately half of theses students located in Adelaide, but significantly, half based in
Singapore, Kula Lumpur, Hong Kong, and other cities in South East Asia and central Asia.
Many of the programs offered are professionally oriented and directly applied within a
professional context.
The University has a proud tradition of providing flexible learning opportunities to a wide
cohort of students, originally as a designated distance education provider by the Federal
Government of Australia (King, McCausland and Nunan, 2001). This work continues with
nearly all courses now having an on-line presence, as an active and growing participation in
the delivery of on-line education through Open Universities Australia.
Very early on its existence, the University adopted as a founding principle of curriculum
design the embedding of graduate qualities (Nunan, George and McCausland, 2002). It was
one of the very first in Australia to demand that all programs at the University develop a set of
graduate qualities and to demonstrate that these qualities were developed through purposeful
student experiences interpreted through a discipline context. These graduate qualities are
such that a UniSA graduate:
1. operates effectively with and upon a body of knowledge of sufficient depth to begin
professional practice;
2. is prepared for life-long learning in pursuit of personal development and excellence in
professional practice;
3. is an effective problem solver, capable of applying logical, critical, and creative
thinking to a range of problems;
4. can work both autonomously and collaboratively as a professional;
5. is committed to ethical action and social responsibility as a professional and citizen;
2
UniSA’s home page can be accessed at: http://www/unisa.edu.au
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
3
6. communicates effectively in professional practice and as a member of the
community;
7. demonstrates international perspectives as a professional and as a citizen.
Each of these statements are backed by a set of indicators that describe how students may
demonstrate these qualities3.
While initially resisted by many staff who believed that the development of such qualities
could not occur without the displacement of content specific knowledge, they are now well
entrenched and accepted at UniSA.
The University has adopted student-centred approaches not only to the provision of direct
learning experiences, but also to the provision of services and administrative support. This is
particularly evident through the extensive development of on-line support materials for such
issues as student orientation experiences, learning developmental practice, IT support,
enrolment and program administration and information literacy development.
These elements of the UniSA experience: Graduate Qualities, Student Centred Experiences
provided through a Flexible Delivery method were seen as defining the unique student
experience for the past decade.
Establishing the case for change
Transforming itself from a teaching-only institution to one that is increasingly recognised for
its research has created three internal tensions. Firstly, it has placed a greater demand on staff
who are now expected to both conduct quality research that has impact in the wider
community, economically and or socially, as well as provide quality learning experiences for
our students. This has occurred through a period of tightening economic resources that have
resulted in the student to staff ratio increasing from approximately 14 to 1 to now
approximately 20 to 14.
Secondly, the increased “volume” of the research agenda, particularly surrounding the
introduction of a research quality assessment exercise introduced by the Australian Federal
Government, has made it more difficult to keep the teaching agenda on the “front burner”.
Staff have certainly perceived that perhaps good teaching is no longer valued by the
institution.
Thirdly, the University has indeed channelled more of its capital into research, creating high
quality centres of excellence that have national and international recognition. This has been
good for the organisation as a whole, but has in some quarters reinforced the message that
teaching does not matter. One of the challenges of the future is to re-engage these centres of
excellence, both the staff and physical resources back into the undergraduate mission of the
University.
The Federal Government also became concerned with the increased attention being given to
research outcomes in the sector as a whole, and in 2005 introduced a “Learning and Teaching
Performance Fund” (LTPF). This fund, with an annual allocation of approximately $80
Details about UniSA’s graduate qualities can be found at:
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/staff/indicators.asp
3
4
Universities Australia website
http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/documents/publications/stats/Student-teacher-ratio-19902007.pdf
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
4
million p.a. was introduced to “reward excellence in teaching outcomes” and was specifically
designed not to be “spread thinly across the sector”.
As is always the case, the measurement of learning and teaching outcomes proposed in the
LTPF was highly controversial. Claims of inappropriate metrics, very fine distinctions in
actual performance between institutions being used to force a ranking, opaque statistical
adjustment methods, lack of acknowledgment of individual university missions, regional
differences, and indeed institutional history that meant some universities had the benefit of
public funds for over 100 years while others had a little more than a decade all surfaced.
However, despite all of these concerns over the three years that the process has operated, the
government is able to claim a success for its policy initiative as universities have focussed
increasing attention on learning and teaching. This is particularly acute as rankings and
league tables are produced by local media outlets, to the embarrassment or joy of particular
university administrations.
The metric used in the Australian LTPF includes three scales and derives from an annual
survey of graduates from all universities. Typical response rates range from 30 to 70%
depending on university. The three scales are:
1. Graduate Satisfaction with the Good Teaching Scale comprising of six individual
questions
2. Graduate Satisfaction with the Generic Skills Scale comprising of six individual
questions
3. Graduate Overall Satisfaction Scale
In addition, two measures of student “success” are used:
4. Retention Rate defined as the number of students who continue in university studies
in the same university as a fraction of those who studied in the same university in the
preceding year adjusting for graduating students
5. The overall progress rate as defined as the number of individual courses passed as a
fraction of those courses attempted summed for all students.
Finally, two measures of student outcomes are used:
6. The percentage of graduates in full time employment who were available for full time
employment as measured four months after graduation.
7. The percentage of graduates who continued in either full or part time study
In the first round of the LTPF these measures were used at whole of university level, but in
subsequent rounds they have been used in four discipline clusters.
UniSA has not done well in these assessment exercises. Our own internal student feedback
data predicted this outcome, but nevertheless, it came as a hard pill to swallow. The effect on
internal morale was noticeable, and has taken several years to recover.
The immediate response of senior management to the first round of results was to be seen to
take action. It was long known within the University that assessment practice was not of
world standard, with many courses overloaded with assessment tasks for students. The
“crisis” of the first round results provided the platform to introduce institution-wide reform of
the assessment practices, mandating that each course would only have three pieces of formal
assessment, a total of 4500 words (or equivalent) of student assessable work, and that one
piece of assessment must occur in the first third of the course and be worth no more than 15%
of the final grade.
Lesson 1: Crises can be useful for introducing radical change quickly
This change in assessment practice was introduced with very little consultation with the
broader academic community and there was little initial support for the change. As observed
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
5
by Newton (2001), academic staff felt that their autonomy was lost. However, the policy was
mandatory and audits were conducted to ensure compliance. Three years later, internal
student feedback is showing improvement in students’ perception of the appropriateness and
evenness of the workload between courses. However, the manner of introduction of the
policy has made the policy still resented by staff, even despite the positive data that is
emerging. During 2008, the policy is being reviewed to create a bit more flexibility to allow
more innovation in assessment practices.
Lesson 2: Academic policies require the broad support of the academic community to
build trust and effect long term change.
Subsequent to the initial response, a more detailed analysis of the results obtained from the
LTPF revealed some underlying weaknesses at UniSA. Figures 1 and 2 highlight the gap
between UniSA and national benchmark data that clearly demonstrates that firstly, UniSA is
not performing as well as others on the Good Teaching Scale (Figure 1), and that the
underlying cause of this gap lay in the affective domain of teachers (Figure 2).
Lesson 3: There is never any substitute to careful analysis of available data – let the
data speak.
Figure 1: UniSA forecast results on the 2008 LTPF by discipline benchmarked against
2007 Band A1 and A2 minimum cut-offs
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
6
Figure 2: Good Teaching Scale staff attributes
UniSA
All Unis
Top10 pass mark
UniSA
GTS
All Unis
Top10 pass mark
GTS
100%
100%
GTS27
GTS01
GTS27
GTS01
90%
90%
80%
80%
GTS16
GTS03
GTS15
GTS16
GTS10
GTS03
GTS15
UniSA
UniSA
All Unis
GTS10
All Unis
Top10 pass mark
Top10 pass mark
GTS
100%
GTS
100%
GTS27
GTS27
GTS01
GTS01
90%
90%
80%
80%
GTS16
GTS03
GTS15
GTS10
GTS16
GTS03
GTS15
GTS10
GTS01: ‘time into commenting on my work’
GTS03: ‘helpful feedback’
GTS10: ‘motivated me to do my best work’
GTS15: ‘extremely good at explaining things’
GTS16: ‘make their subject interesting’
GTS27: ‘understand difficulties I might be having with my work’
Formulating a response
In addition to the data obtained from the national Learning and Teaching Performance Fund,
UniSA conducted the third of its Student Experience Questionnaires in 2006. These surveys,
run every 2 years, provide a rich source of information, not only on students’ perception of
courses and teaching, but on the broader experience at University. The 2006 results are
summarised in Figure 3 which produces an evaluation of the relative importance of particular
components of the student experience, and a relative rating of how well the students rated our
performance on each factor.
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
7
SEQ Priority Matrix
Figure 3: Student Experience Questionnaire 2006 priority matrix
Maintain
5.00
Maintain or Improve
4.50
Performance (mean)
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
Monitor
0.50
Top Priority
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Impact (lowest to highest)
Program Experiences
Student Engagement
Program Resources
Tangibles
Safety
Program Services
IT Support
Program Support
This analysis clearly showed that the University needed to improve the program experience
and student engagement.
The way forward for the University now clearly involved:
1. increasing student engagement
2. engaging academic staff in major curriculum renewal
3. illustrating the University was willing to commit resources to improving the teaching
performance of the University
4. raising the profile of the importance of teaching, and
5. improving the morale of teaching staff,
whilst acknowledging the history of the organisation, both as an emerging university and its
antecedent teaching-only organisations.
A series of workshops with teaching staff were held in which these issues were explored, data
presented and ideas sought. In all, over 150 staff were consulted in small groups, as well as
school and division (faculties at UniSA are known as divisions) meetings.
At the same time, it was important that as much tension between the research and teaching
agendas of the University were removed and “harmonised” in any new teaching and learning
framework. Extensive discussions and workshops were held on the “teaching – research
nexus” jointly sponsored by the Deputy Vice Chancellors Academic and Research. The
symbolism of having both Deputy Vice Chancellors discussing these issues was and remains
extremely important.
Lesson 4: On major policy development, it is important that all of the senior
leadership group support and sponsor the direction to be taken
The time period between UniSA receiving its first results from the LTPF to the launch of the
University’s new teaching and learning framework was three years. Consultations with staff
about the new teaching and learning framework and subsequent discussions and workshops
were held over a twelve month period. The time-frame to implement the new framework is
planned for a three year period.
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
8
Lesson 5: Implementing change takes considerable time and can not be hurried
The New Teaching and Learning Framework
The new framework’s principal function is to indicate the key elements of our teaching and
learning activity and the relationships between them. These include a renewed commitment to
UniSA’s graduate qualities, student engagement, and flexible learning environments. It
indicates a coherent process linking intentions, implementation activity, outcomes and
reflections on improvements. In this, it is not unlike an Approach-Deployment-ResultsImprovement (ADRI) cycle often used for quality assurance and accountability purposes.
Where educational models and quality assurance cycles differ is in the weighting given to the
linearity of decision-taking processes. The ADRI cycle involves a definite step-by-step
rationality; educational models tend to acknowledge the complexity of interactions between
their composite elements.
It has been constructed to reflect both a spiral of activity but also acknowledge that the
component elements impact on each other in dynamic ways.
For the purposes of accountability – we wish to think of the framework in terms of an ADRI
cycle, we can describe it as follows.
1. Approach involves the factors which shape our thinking and the way we go about
planning for the future, i.e. moving from our core values, reflected in commitments of
access to, equity within and quality throughout our programs; guided by our establishing
Act of Parliament, the University Mission and its Statement of Strategic Intent; and
acknowledging the force of both the local and international contexts of higher education.
2. Deployment refers to implementing our teaching and learning framework and we describe
here the elements that shape teaching and learning (the centrality of Graduate Qualities in
all teaching and learning arrangements); how we implement them (fostering student
engagement facilitated by the provision of flexible learning environments); and our
acknowledgement of the importance of disciplinary knowledge, the teaching-research
nexus, the critical experiential dimension of practice based learning, and learning through
service to others.
3. Results are reflected in the outcomes of teaching and learning as manifest in the
performance of our graduates in relation to their professional expertise, generic skills (e.g.
communication abilities, collaboration abilities, information literacy or problem solving
skills), and personal attributes (e.g. commitments to ethical behaviour, continuing
professional development and having international perspectives on their professional
activity). We discharge our mission as a university by developing graduates who can
meet the intellectual, civic, and professional needs of society and industry.
4. Improvement should be evidence based, taking account of the way students report their
experience, feedback from other stakeholders (e.g. government, the professions and their
associations, employing bodies), and the extent to which we meet standards established
through benchmarking. These evidence sources are used both in our internal planning,
review and improvement processes, and also through external validation (e.g. Australian
University Quality Agency audits and professional accreditation).
The deployment element of the new Teaching and Learning Framework is best illustrated in
Figure 4.
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
9
Figure 4: UniSA Teaching and Learning Framework, deployment element
The challenge of the new framework for a University of the size of the UniSA is in
implementing experiential learning across the breadth of the programs and for large class
sizes. This cannot be achieved without the injection of new resources.
Lesson 6: Major changes in machinery need oil – in the form of extra resources.
Implementation
The implementation of the new framework required both setting target and building a
business case for the investment. The aim is by 2010, approximately one third of all learning
experiences in all programs at UniSA will be related to any combination of the three elements
of experiential learning:
 Teaching-research nexus
 Practice based learning
 Service learning
Different programs may have different mixes of the three elements; however, the aim is for all
programs to include some elements of all three components.
The Student Engagement Project (STEP 2010) is a three stage process which began in
September 2007 and is scheduled to finish in March 2010.
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
10
Figure 5: Transformation timeline
Stage one - Business analysis
This involves a review of all UniSA programs currently offered against four categories of
indicators:
 Market position
 Program quality
 Financial viability
 Capacity/Constraints
A Program Review Team comprised of senior staff from across the University conducted a
strategic analysis of each program based on data collected in the four categories.
Stage two - Program design
In stage 2, the Head of School and Dean: Teaching and Learning in each Division are
working together as 'Joint Project Sponsors' to decide which aspects of the Teaching and
Learning Framework require most attention within those programs identified as 'ready for
investment' in stage 1. This is requiring a review of the current status of those programs in
relation to the three elements of experiential learning using the mapping techniques developed
by the Learning and Teaching Unit. Heads of Schools are consulting with staff to review the
status of programs in their respective Schools and seek input on the future design of
programs.
Once mapping is completed, the key questions are what are the strengths and opportunities for
development of each program in relation to engaging students through experiential learning.
A full SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis may be helpful at this
time.
Towards the end of stage 2, the Head of School will develop an action plan for curriculum
development that summarises the outcomes of the mapping activity indicating main areas of
improvement and action to be addressed in stage 3 (implementation) of the STEP 2010
process. This plan will form the basis of a submission to the Division Pro Vice Chancellor
and Deputy Vice Chancellor: Academic for stage 3 funding.
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
11
In order for the Deputy Vice Chancellor: Academic to release the $20,000 stage 2 funding to
a School a short paper (no more than two pages) was required from each school which
provided the following information:
1. What courses in the programs deemed ‘ready for investment’ will be mapped in stage
2 (e.g. core only; streams; specialisations)
2. How will the elements of experiential learning be mapped across the programs (e.g.
identification of opportunities; number of hours of student effort, the quality of the
experience). One or more of these elements may be chosen.
3. Who and how will the mapping process be conducted and who will be consulted?
4. What will stage 2 funds be used for?
5. What is the projected timeline for the completion of stage 2?
Stage two is expected to be completed in September 2008.
Stage three – Implementation
Funds will be allocated to Schools or groups of Schools to implement the approved planned
curriculum changes and these will progress through Academic Board's normal process for
approving changes to programs and courses.
Heads of Schools will consult with staff in their respective School on the implementation of
the curriculum changes and the impact of the changes on staff and students in the School. It
is anticipated that different Schools will have different approaches and the curriculum
changes will be progressively implemented across the University.
Stage three is expected to begin in September 2008 and be completed by March 2010.
Evaluating success
As discussed above, the approach taken has been carefully based on detailed data analysis
from a range of sources including data which informs market and competitor analysis as well
as student satisfaction (both national data and internal UniSA data). This data will continue to
be sourced to inform and monitor the process as Schools implement different strategies
through the stages outlined above. Currently, the University is investigating ways to sharpen
the information that it collects about student engagement and this will be an important
consideration in evaluating the progress of this initiative. Of significance will be the use of the
AUSSE (The Australian Survey of Student Engagement) survey which has been piloted in
Australia in 2007/8 (UniSA was one of the pilot sites).
Anecdotally, the Heads of Schools have informally commented on the process thus far
(completion of Stage 1). In a recent meeting of Heads of School, they have collectively stated
how empowered they have felt by the process. They have appreciated having the data
considered in this stage pre-populated in a report. As part of this process each Head of School
and program directors within their school met their Divisional Pro-Vice Chancellor and other
University senior managers to discuss the results. While this may have first been interpreted
as a daunting process, in fact the reverse was reported. Instead they have talked about a real
sense of ownership, empowerment and positive support to make changes.
Conclusion
As can be demonstrated through this case-study, transforming teaching and learning at an
institutional level is a complex and time intensive process. The University of South Australia
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
12
through its intent to improve student engagement is using an institutional-wide strategy to
achieve this. Through this process a number of significant lessons have been learnt that can be
generalised to other contexts. Importantly, this experience has shown that under-performance
in teaching scores can be used positively to kick-start improvement. But to do so,
commitment is needed from every level of the institution – senior managers, teaching staff
and professional staff – all have a role to play in the change process. Commitment can be
gained by using an evidence based approach. The detailed analysis of data was an important
input for decision making in the first stage of this transformative process and will continue to
be used to evaluate progress. Finally, no significant change of this magnitude can be hurried.
It takes time and resources to fully achieve institutional change.
References
ACER, 2008, Attracting, Engaging and Retaining: New Conversations about Learning,
Australasian Student Engagement Report, Australian Council for Educational Research
(ACER), Victoria
http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AUSSE_07AustralasianStudentEngagementReport.pdf
DEST (2006) Research Income and Publications by Sub Category,
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/programmes_funding/general_funding/rbgran
ts/documents/2006researchincomeandpublicationsbysubcategory_xls.htm
Gibbs G, Habeshaw T and Yorke M, (2000) Institutional learning and teaching strategies in
English higher education, Higher Education, 40, p 351 – 372
King B, McCausland, H, Nunan T, (2001) Converting to Online Course and Program
Delivery: The University of South Australia Case Study, International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, Vol 1, No 2, January, p 1 – 22
Krause K, Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning
communities, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne,
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/Stud_eng.pdf
Newton J, (2003) Implementing an Institution-wide Learning and Teaching Strategy: lessons
in managing change, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 28, No 4, October, p 427 – 441
Nunan, T., George, R., & McCausland, H. (2000). Rethinking the ways in which teaching and
learning are supported: the Flexible Learning Centre at the University of South Australia.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 85 - 98.
Yorke, M, (2006), Student engagement: deep, surface or strategic? Keynote address at the 9th
Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia,
http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/2006/Keynotes/Yorke.pdf
Hicks and Lee, Transforming Teaching and Learning at an Institutional Level, HEA conference paper,
June 2008
13