University Teaching in Focus

The second edition of University Teaching in Focus distils the knowledge and insights
of internationally acclaimed experts in university teaching. It empowers university
teachers and contributes to their career success by developing their teaching skills,
strategies and knowledge.
Written in a clear and accessible style, it provides a sharp focus on student
learning through the lens of four sections:

• Focus on subject and curriculum design

• Focus on subject teaching and learning
• Focus on students
• Focus on your career

Each of the 15 chapters targets a key teaching and learning issue referencing
seminal works, current resources and practical applications using real-world cases.
The ‘Your thoughts’ sections encourage reflection and offer opportunities to adapt
international evidence about best practice to local contexts and disciplines.
This edition will be a key resource for foundational teaching development
programs in higher education institutions or as a self-help manual by early career
and experienced teachers who wish to enhance their students’ learning.

Lynne Hunt is Emeritus Professor, University of Southern Queensland.

Denise Chalmers is Emeritus Professor in the field of higher education teaching

and learning at the University of Western Australia.
University Teaching in Focus
A Learning-centred Approach

Second edition

Edited by Lynne Hunt and Denise Chalmers

Second edition published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 selection and editorial matter, Lynne Hunt and Denise Chalmers;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Lynne Hunt and Denise Chalmers to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and record-
ing, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or reg-
istered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 2013
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Hunt, Lynne, 1948– editor. | Chalmers, Denise, editor.
Title: University teaching in focus : a learning-centred approach / Edited
by Lynne Hunt and Denise Chalmers.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020055465 (print) | LCCN 2020055466 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367442095 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367442101 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003008330 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Classroom management. | College teaching. | Educational
leadership. | Effective teaching.
Classification: LCC LB2331 .U77 2021 (print) | LCC LB2331 (ebook) |
DDC 378.1/25—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055465
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055466

ISBN: 978-0-367-44209-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-44210-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-00833-0 (ebk)

Typeset in Baskerville
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
 CONTENTS

Forewordvii
List of figures x
List of tables xi
List of cases xii
About the editors xiv
About the contributors xvi
Introduction xxiii
Lynne Hunt and Denise Chalmers

PART 1 Focus on subject and curriculum design 1

Chapter 1 Understanding learning: theories and critique 3
Martyn Stewart

Chapter 2  esigning subjects for deeper learning: practical

D
research-based principles and guidelines 29
Tom Angelo

Chapter 3 Curriculum frameworks 53

Angela Hill, Kylie Readman and Katrina Strampel

Chapter 4 Discipline-based teaching 81

Ray Land

PART 2 Focus on subject teaching and learning 110

Chapter 5 The four Cs of effective classroom teaching 112
Kathryn A. Sutherland

Chapter 6  sing effective assessment and feedback to

U
promote learning 135
Sally Brown and Phil Race

Chapter 7 Academic integrity and literacy 163

Sarah Elaine Eaton

Chapter 8 Learning technologies 179

Michael Sankey

v
[Contents

PART 3 Focus on students 199

Chapter 9 Teaching to promote graduate employability 201
Beverley Oliver

Chapter 10 I nclusive teaching: becoming an effective facilitator

of learning 217
Liz Thomas

Chapter 11  edagogical partnership: engaging with students as

P
co-creators of curriculum, assessment and knowledge 243
Alison Cook-Sather and Kelly E. Matthews

Chapter 12 I ndigenous knowers and knowledge in university

teaching260
Michael Christie and Christine Asmar

PART 4 Focus on your career 285

Chapter 13 Scholarship of teaching and learning 286
Keith Trigwell

Chapter 14 A quality approach to university teaching 304

Kerri-Lee Krause

Chapter 15 Building your career through teaching 328

Denise Chalmers

Index344

vi
 FOREWORD

This second edition of Hunt and Chalmers’ popular University Teaching in Focus:
A Learning-Centred Approach brings the chapters in the first edition up to date, with
the addition of several new chapters. These new chapters bridge the gap between
the state of tertiary education in 2012 and where universities are today. They have
become more diversified, increasingly taking over vocational and technical edu-
cation, with the result that the student population is itself more diversified. More
students today are the first in their families to take on university education, and
with universities financially ever more dependent on international students than
before, ethnic diversity is a real challenge to teachers. Course structures have been
redesigned, and the employment prospects of graduates is rather less certain than
before. These arising complexities present challenges to tertiary teachers: chal-
lenges that this new edition anticipates.
Like the first edition, the book is in four sections but the foci here are different,
the better to address our changing times.

Focus on subject and curriculum design

Good subject design – ‘subject’ here referring to components of a degree pro-
gramme – is about planning and aligning what to teach, how to teach and how
to assess so that students engage in a coherent learning experience. Martyn Stew-
art discusses the development of learning theories from behaviourism to modern
cognitive theory, with the intent that different theories may influence academics’
choices about what and how they teach. Tom Angelo offers research-based princi-
ples for effective subject design, providing step-by-step guidance for designing and
redesigning subjects. In a new chapter, Hill, Readman and Strampel equip readers
with the language and rationale of curriculum frameworks and the role they play in
framing the overall student experience in a programme of study. They discuss cur-
riculum design principles that provide cohesion, constructive alignment and assur-
ance of learning, illustrating with models that promote active learner engagement,
particularly in partnerships with industry, community, colleagues and students. Ray
Land states that all subjects have key ‘threshold’ concepts that must be understood
in order to transform students’ thinking. He challenges university teachers to think
about threshold concepts in their own teaching.

vii
[Foreword

Focus on subject teaching and learning

Most of the chapters in this section are new. The common theme is that effective
teaching is contextual, addressing questions about what works best for a particular
student cohort, a particular discipline and for specified learning purposes. Kath-
ryn A. Sutherland emphasises that teaching is to facilitate students’ learning, with
particular reference to small- and large-group teaching. Sally Brown and Phil Race
show how to design and manage assessment so that it both provides formative feed-
back that shapes students’ learning behaviours and determines their final grades
so that it is assessment for learning, not just assessment of learning. Sarah Elaine
Eaton’s chapter on academic integrity and literacy alerts teachers to minimising
opportunities for fraudulent behaviour; academic integrity can be taught up front,
not just detected when things go wrong. A new chapter by Michael Sankey on tech-
nology enhanced learning (TEL) shows how technologies may be embedded in
subject and course design, facilitating alignment between expected learning out-
comes, coursework and assessment.

Focus on students
The current focus on graduate attributes is extended to graduate employability,
which Beverley Oliver addresses through the development of student portfolios
evidencing such typical attributes as literacy and numeracy, learning and working
collaboratively, and critical thinking. Given that university teachers now work with
increasingly diverse cohorts of students, new chapters show how diversity among
both students and staff may become a rich resource when designing and delivering
inclusively. Liz Thomas embraces many aspects of diversity, from LGBTQ+ students
to students of different ethnicities. She advocates universal curriculum design prin-
ciples, drawing on students’ interests and experiences, active learning, a variety of
assessment methods and helping failing students. Alison Cook-Sather and Kelly
E. Matthews advocate student partnerships to help with diversity issues. Michael
Christie and Christine Asmar explore how teaching Western academic knowledge
can be enriched and extended by using Indigenous knowledge in suggesting new
approaches to teaching and learning, including how to engage productively with
Indigenous colleagues.

Focus on your career

Teachers have career paths that today seem more precarious as casualisation
becomes more predominant. This section addresses what teachers may do to
enhance their career possibilities. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(SoTL) is discussed by Keith Trigwell as a professional way of thinking and working

viii
 Foreword ]

that informs improvements in student learning. He describes a six-step process to

get teachers started on their SoTL journey. Teachers also need to deal with qual-
ity assurance agencies that monitor the quality of university teaching and courses.
Kerri-Lee Krause suggests quality assurance strategies that university teachers can
use in their subjects and in degree programs, recommending teaching portfolios
that will facilitate both student learning and teachers’ own career advancement.
Finally, Denise Chalmers draws together many of the teaching and learning issues
presented in this second edition so that teachers may reflect on their own career
development in terms of criteria for effective and excellent teaching performance.
In all, this second edition of University Teaching in Focus comprehensively
addresses many of the new developments in university teaching that academics may
have to deal with. It can be thoroughly recommended as an important resource in
induction programmes for new faculty and faculty development generally; equally,
it deserves a place on the bookshelves of individual teachers.
John Biggs, AM
Hobart, 11 September 2020

ix
FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: the

distance between what a student can achieve
independently and with the scaffolding support
of a teacher or peers 18
Figure 1.2 Examples of how general teaching and learning
aims can draw from theoretical principles to inform
teaching designs 22
Figure 3.1 An example of a mapping template 63
Figure 3.2 Backward design process 64
Figure 3.3 Phases of the curriculum lifecycle 69
Figure 8.1 The nested model of technology use to support
learning and teaching 181
Figure 8.2 A metaphor for pedagogies 182
Figure 8.3 The Digital Equity Act (Murray 2019); distributed
via media pack for reuse 187
Figure 8.4 Illustrating the complexity of the TEL space 189
Figure 8.5 The four key elements required for holistic TEL
practice191
Figure 10.1 Distinguishing between equality and equity (with
permission from Interaction Institute for Social
Change | Artist: Angus Maguire) 220
Figure 10.2 A transformative approach to diversity (with
permission from Interaction Institute for Social
Change | Artist: Angus Maguire) 223
Figure 11.1 A model for undergraduate research and inquiry
(Healey & Jenkins 2009, p. 7) 251
Figure 13.1 Presage-Process-Product (3P) model of student
learning295

x
 TA B L E S

Table 2.1 Framework for developing more effective intended

learning outcomes (ILOs) 41
Table 3.1 Dominant paradigms and curriculum theorists 56
Table 4.1 Definition and exemplification of three types of
conceptual change (Davies & Mangan 2008, p. 39
with permission) 93
Table 5.1 Using the PAUSE procedure in workshops 129
Table 6.1 Comparison of assessment methods and links to
feedback dialogues 149
Table 7.1 Example of discipline-specific considerations for
academic integrity 169
Table 7.2 Examples of teaching and learning activities to teach
concrete academic integrity skills 170
Table 8.1 Active and collaborative learning approaches and
TEL tools 185
Table 8.2 Indicative core tools within the TEL ecology 192
Table 8.3 Cloud-based tools used to augment core tools 192
Table 8.4 Cloud-based tools used to augment core tools (blank) 193
Table 13.1 Items from a scholarship of teaching and learning
questionnaire (Trigwell 2013) 290
Table 13.2 The Carnegie Foundation’s six standards of
scholarship (Glassick et al. 1997, p. 36. Reproduced
with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) 292
Table 13.3 Levels of teaching/learning investigations showing
relations between the purpose, process and outcomes
(adapted from Ashwin & Trigwell 2004) 293
Table 13.4 Example investigation questions and relevant data
sources (Alkema 2011, p. 8) 297
Table 14.1 Six-step strategy to document your teaching
achievements320
Table 14.2 Checklist for assuring and enhancing the quality of
your teaching 322

xi
CASES

Case 1.1 Drawing on cognitive processing theory to develop

understanding of complex natural systems 11
Case 1.2 Mezirow’s transformative learning theory to inform
critical reflective writing 16
Case 2.1 Session preparation assignments (SPAs) 45
Case 3.1 Supporting mental health across the curriculum 60
Case 3.2 Demonstrating learning with portfolios and capstones 66
Case 3.3 Examples of different university curriculum design
principles70
Case 3.4 Apply the 5E inquiry model 74
Case 4.1 The legal case dialogue method 83
Case 4.2 Clinical rounds in medicine 84
Case 4.3 The studio and the ‘crit’ in architecture 85
Case 4.4 Information literacy: a framework approach 91
Case 4.5 Civil engineering: a course-level approach 91
Case 4.6 Economics: a hierarchy of conceptual change 92
Case 4.7 Integrated teaching of generic and discipline-specific
skills99
Case 4.8 Shakespeare and the law 102
Case 4.9 Politics, literature and ideas in Stuart England 102
Case 4.10 Interdisciplinary science 102
Case 5.1 Welcoming and connecting students in tourism 118
Case 5.2 Reflective writing as preparation for learning: a
teacher of first-year English literature 126
Case 5.3 Using the PAUSE procedure in lectures and academic
development workshops 128
Case 6.1 A technique for designing more authentic assignments 137
Case 6.2 Aligning authentic assignments 140
Case 6.3 Incremental assignments to demonstrate required
graduate attributes 141

xii
 Cases ]

Case 6.4 Rapid alternatives to on-site exams 142

Case 6.5 Supporting and enhancing student agency in
feedback processes: using a novel feedback tool in the
creative industries 147
Case 7.1 Proactive approach to teaching plagiarism 168
Case 7.2 Enacting academic integrity in history 171
Case 9.1 Enhancing students’ employability capabilities
through partnership 207
Case 9.2 Linking assessment to employability 209
Case 10.1 Dialogue Days, #Ibelong 221
Case 10.2 Fundamental subject modules 229
Case 10.3 Tourism231
Case 10.4 The School of Mechanical and Systems Engineering 233
Case 10.5 Unpacking assessment briefs 235
Case 11.1 Co-creation of curriculum 248
Case 11.2 Co-creation of assessment 250
Case 11.3 Co-creation of knowledge 251
Case 11.4 Co-creation of curriculum, assessment and knowledge 253
Case 12.1 Indigenous knowledges and science 266
Case 12.2 Teaching Indigenous students from non-traditional
academic backgrounds 269
Case 12.3 The Yolŋu studies program 272
Case 12.4 Online role-play and community forum 276
Case 12.5 Teaching Native American values and knowledge
systems in the environmental sciences 278
Case 13.1 Trialling a new approach to engaging students 287
Case 13.2 Researching explanations for poor student performance 288
Case 13.3 Constructive alignment 290
Case 13.4 Literature review to inform large-class teaching 291
Case 13.5 The experience of learning 295
Case 14.1 Faculty-wide peer review of teaching 316
Case 14.2 Peer observation of online teaching 318
Case 15.1 Shona’s unplanned academic career 337
Case 15.2 Kalid’s active involvement in building his teaching career 339

xiii
ABOUT THE EDITORS

Lynne Hunt is Emeritus Professor, University of Southern Queensland. She has

taught at all levels from transition to university to doctoral supervision in social
science, education and health science departments. Professor Hunt has worked
as an associate dean (teaching and learning) at Edith Cowan University (ECU), a
professor and leader of the Teaching and Learning Development Group at Charles
Darwin University (CDU), and a pro-vice-chancellor (learning and teaching) at the
University of Southern Queensland.
She received an Australian Executive Endeavour Award in 2009 to study qual-
ity assurance in university teaching in Malaysia, and she is the recipient of three
university-level awards for teaching excellence. She won the 2002 Australian Award
for University Teaching in the Social Science category and the 2002 Prime Minis-
ter’s Award for Australian University Teacher of the Year.
She has published four books and many articles associated with university teach-
ing and change leadership to enhance students’ learning experiences. She has also
served internationally as a member of an external review panel for the University
of Pretoria and as an examination moderator for the University of Botswana. She
is currently a member of the Curtin University Teaching Academy Advisory Board.
She has presented nationally and internationally on topics including change
leadership to promote university learning and teaching, faculty development plan-
ning, tertiary teaching, work-based university learning, teaching scholarship, teach-
ing awards, the student learning journey and women’s health organisations.

Denise Chalmers is Emeritus Professor in the field of higher education teaching and
learning at the University of Western Australia. She was awarded an OLT National
Senior Teaching Fellowship on recognising and rewarding university teaching in
2015 and an Australian Award for University Teaching: Citation for Outstanding
Contributions to Student Learning in 2014. In 2017 she was awarded life member-
ship by HERDSA.
She has over 25 years of demonstrated leadership in higher education, leading
two university Centres of Teaching and Learning as director and was a foundation
director of the Carrick Institute (later ALTC) with responsibility for Awards, Fellow-
ships and International Links. She has served as president and then as vice presi-
dent of the Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development (CADAD)
2008–2014 and president of HERDSA (2019–2021).

xiv
 About the editors ]

She has initiated and led institutional, national and international projects. She
is an active contributor to the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher edu-
cation through publications, proposing and participating in innovative and suc-
cessful competitive grants and projects, speaking engagements and working with
networks and institutions nationally and internationally. She contributes to the
national and international agenda on developing and enhancing teaching and
learning and criteria, standards and indicators of quality in higher education.

xv
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Tom Angelo is Emeritus Clinical Professor of Educational Innovation and

Research and Emeritus Founding Director of CIPhER – the Center for Innova-
tive Pharmacy Education and Research – in the UNC Eshelman School of Phar-
macy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He also serves as an
adjunct senior lecturer in the Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences
of Monash University (Melbourne). Prior to retiring from UNC in 2018, Tom had
served as a faculty member, faculty developer, academic administrator and/or
researcher at Harvard University, the University of California-Berkeley, Victoria
University of Wellington (New Zealand), and La Trobe University (Melbourne,
Australia) – where he was pro-vice-chancellor (curriculum and academic plan-
ning). He directed seven university academic development centres, five of which
he also designed and founded. Tom has consulted on curriculum design, assess-
ment, effective teaching and learning improvement in 18 countries, in all 50 of the
United States and Puerto Rico, and at more than 250 post-secondary institutions.
His current research interests focus on formative assessment, core concepts, and
curriculum renewal and redesign.

Christine Asmar has worked as an academic developer at the Universities of Syd-

ney and Melbourne. At Murrup Barak, the University of Melbourne’s Institute
for Indigenous Development, she coordinated their renowned Summer School
programs in Indigenous research, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander doc-
toral students from around Australia. A long-standing commitment to enhancing
our understanding of cultural diversity issues in higher education underpinned
her pioneering studies of the course experiences of Muslim university students in
Australia and the United States. Her collaboration with Aboriginal and Māori col-
leagues resulted in some of the earliest published research into how Indigenous
academics experience their work and life in Australasian universities. Awarded a
National Teaching Fellowship, she built on findings from research with Indigenous
and non-Indigenous teachers to develop an Indigenous Teaching website (www.
indigenousteaching.com) as a resource for university practitioners in Australia and
beyond. She now volunteers as an academic adviser at Tranby National Indigenous
Adult Education and Training in Sydney.

John Biggs has held chairs in education in Canada, Australia and Hong Kong. His
concept of constructive alignment (CA) is an outcomes-based approach to teaching

xvi
 About the contributors ]

in which the learning outcomes that students are intended to attain are defined,
and teaching is geared to what students have to do in order to achieve them, while
assessment tasks enable one to judge how well they have been attained. Constructive
alignment is outlined in Teaching for Quality Learning in University (McGraw-Hill/
Open University Press); the fifth edition is currently in preparation with Catherine
Tang and Gregor Kennedy as co-authors.

Sally Brown is an independent consultant in learning, teaching and assessment

and Emerita Professor at Leeds Beckett University, where she was, until 2010,
Pro-Vice-Chancellor. She is also a visiting professor at Edge Hill University and for-
merly at the Universities of Plymouth, Robert Gordon, South Wales and Liverpool
John Moores and at Australian universities James Cook Central Queensland and
the Sunshine Coast. She holds honorary doctorates from the universities of Plym-
outh, Kingston, Bournemouth, Edinburgh Napier and Lincoln. She is a principal
fellow of the Higher Education Academy, a Staff and Educational Development
Association (SEDA) senior fellow and a National Teaching fellow.

Michael Christie is Professor of Contemporary Indigenous Knowledge and Gover-

nance at Charles Darwin University in Australia’s Northern Territory. From 1972
until 1994 he worked as a teacher-linguist in bilingual education programs in East
Arnhem Land. In 1995 he set up the Yolŋu Studies program at Northern Territory
University (now Charles Darwin) employing Yolŋu lecturers under the supervision
of senior Yolŋu Elders to teach Yolŋu Aboriginal languages and culture. The pro-
gram, which is still running, won the Prime Minister’s Award for University Teacher
of the Year in 2005. Since moving to the Northern Institute, he has been undertak-
ing collaborative transdisciplinary research with Aboriginal knowledge authorities
in areas of resource management, health communication, housing, the third sec-
tor, epistemology, contemporary governance and government engagement.

Alison Cook-Sather is Mary Katharine Woodworth Professor of Education and

Director of the Peace, Conflict, and Social Justice Studies concentration at Bryn
Mawr College and Director of the Teaching and Learning Institute at Bryn Mawr
and Haverford Colleges, Pennsylvania, USA. With over US$1 million in grant fund-
ing, Alison has developed internationally recognised programs that position stu-
dents as pedagogical consultants to prospective secondary and practising tertiary
teachers and has consulted regarding the development of such partnership work
at over 65 institutions on six continents. She teaches undergraduate and gradu-
ate students, has won teaching and curriculum development awards, and has pub-
lished more than 100 articles and chapters and eight books, including Pedagogical
Partnerships: A How-To Guide for Faculty, Students, and Academic Developers in Higher
Education. She is founder and editor of Teaching and Learning Together in Higher

xvii
[About the contributors

Education, co-editor of International Journal for Students as Partners, and reviewer for
over 40 journals and book publishers.

Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is Associate Professor at the University of Calgary, Can-
ada, where she also serves as the university’s inaugural Educational Leader in Res-
idence, Academic Integrity. An award-winning educator and researcher, Sarah’s
work focuses on academic integrity in higher education.

Angela Hill is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) at Edith Cowan University,

Perth, Western Australia. Her role involves oversight of teaching quality, academic
policies and the student experience across national and international campuses.
Angela’s research interests relate to practice-based learning, including service
learning, higher education policy and academics’ work. She has led research grants
in access and equity in education, including pedagogies and policies of inclusion.
She has an abiding interest in social justice as a framework for educational practice.

Kerri-Lee Krause, PhD, is Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Student Life) and Deputy Pro-
vost at the University of Melbourne. She is an experienced university executive
who is internationally recognised for her contributions to higher education policy,
research and practice. She is an honorary professorial fellow at the Melbourne
Graduate School of Education, a lifetime fellow of the international Society for
Research in Higher Education and a principal fellow of the Higher Education
Academy. Her research program spans higher education curriculum renewal, the
changing nature of academic work and factors influencing higher education quality
and standards. Kerri-Lee holds the ministerial appointment of deputy chair, Higher
Education Standards Panel, and also led the Ministerial Implementation Work-
ing Group for the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions. Recent sector-
wide leadership roles include chair, Universities Australia Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Academic) Committee, and co-chair, Universities Australia Executive Women’s
Committee. She has a track record of leading university-wide strategic change and
organisational renewal, underpinned by a deep commitment to engaging students
and staff through cultural transformation. Experience includes systemic improve-
ment of the student experience and outcomes; whole-of-university curriculum
renewal; and extensive work on reshaping academic staff promotion policies and
processes to recognise and reward contemporary academic work.

Ray Land is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education and Emeritus Fellow of Uni-
versity College at Durham University. He has published widely in educational
research, including works on academic development, learning technology and
quality enhancement. He is best known for the educational theory of threshold
concepts and troublesome knowledge, which he established with Prof Jan Meyer.

xviii
 About the contributors ]

He has acted as consultant for the OECD, the European Commission and the Brit-
ish Council and has conducted projects in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Russia
and India. He has presented his research in over 50 countries across six continents.
He is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
and principal fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Last year he was a Gambri-
nus fellow of the Technical University of Dortmund, Germany.

Kelly E. Matthews is Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of

Queensland in Australia. Her research focuses on student-teacher relationships with
a focus on pedagogical partnerships that foster meaningful learning opportunities
in higher education. Recognised with both individual and team awards, she teaches
undergraduate students and university lecturers in the areas of pedagogy and cur-
riculum. Kelly has collaborated on 26 funded education projects worth $2.7 million
and publishes extensively. She is an Australian Learning and Teaching fellow and
an inaugural co-editor for the International Journal for Students as Partners. As an
elected vice president for the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning (2016–19), she co-authored the society’s first strategic plan leading
the focus on inclusion and equity. Kelly’s new co-authored book with Mick Healey
and Alison Cook-Sather, Writing about Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, is
available free via open-access publisher Elon Center for Engaged Learning.

Beverley Oliver is Emeritus Professor, Deakin University. She is Principal Fellow

of the Higher Education Academy and an Australian National Teaching fellow
based in Melbourne, Australia. She is a non-executive director at Open Learning,
an ASX-listed company; at EduGrowth, Australia’s not-for-profit acceleration net-
work for high-growth, borderless education; and at the International Council on
Badges and Credentials. Beverley was Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education at Deakin
University (2013–18) and Deputy Chair of Universities Australia’s Deputy Vice-
Chancellors (Academic) (2018). She is the founder and editor of the Journal of Teach-
ing and Learning for Graduate Employability. Beverley’s leadership has been recognised
through two national citations for outstanding contributions to student learning,
several nationally funded grants and two fellowships. In 2017, she was awarded
Deakin University’s highest honour, the title of Alfred Deakin Professor, for her out-
standing and sustained contribution to conceptualising the strategic enhancement
of courses in the digital economy and furthering Deakin’s research and scholarship
in the field of higher education. Beverley now works as a higher education con-
sultant, speaker and researcher focusing on digital education, micro-credentials,
curriculum transformation, quality assurance and graduate employability.

Phil Race has been writing, leading workshops and speaking on assessment, learn-
ing and teaching methods for nearly half a century. He is best known for his globally

xix
[About the contributors

recognised model which outlines the seven factors underpinning effective student
learning and his many publications, the best known of which are Making Learning
Happen: A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education (Sage 2014) and The Lecturer’s Toolkit:
A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching (Routledge 2019). Now largely
retired, he continues to write and contribute to the higher education pedagogic
community of practice.

Kylie Readman is the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) at Murdoch University in

Western Australia. Her role involves developing the institutional conditions to build
staff and student capacity in learning and teaching in the higher education sector,
focusing on engaging and innovative curriculum, embedded and holistic support
and future-focused initiative for the areas in which she has strategic responsibility:
employability, educational technologies, teaching quality, learner engagement and
student success. Her background is as a specialist educator in curriculum, peda-
gogy and assessment. Kylie’s current research interests include development of the
university workforce, leadership of learning and teaching, learning innovation and
assessment design.

Michael Sankey is Professor at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, where he

is the Director of Learning Transformations portfolio in the Centre for Learning
Futures. In addition to this role, Michael is President of the Australasian Council
on Open, Distance and e-Learning (ACODE). He specialises in emerging tech-
nologies, technology enhanced learning, curriculum renewal, e-learning quality,
multimodal design, and digital, visual and multiliteracies. He has worked in higher
education for over 30 years and is particularly interested in how constructively
aligned and aesthetically enhanced learning environments can better transmit con-
cepts to students, particularly those from diverse backgrounds and those who study
at a distance.

Martyn Stewart is Director of Graduate Studies and Senior Lecturer in Research

Methods at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM) and a senior fellow
of the UK Higher Education Academy. He started as a researcher and lecturer in
earth sciences and has worked for over 10 years as an educational developer along-
side lecturing in earth sciences, before returning to full-time lecturing in general
research methods and statistics. He has published educational research on student
motivation, student evaluations of teaching and lecturer educational development.
He currently oversees curriculum development at LSTM.

Katrina Strampel is the Manager of Teaching Quality at Edith Cowan University

in Western Australia. In this role, she supports a whole-of-institution approach

xx
 About the contributors ]

to designing high-quality curriculum across programs and subjects through pro-

fessional learning and support for academic staff. She has been supporting and
researching higher education assessment reform, curriculum design, learning expe-
rience design, and the development and acknowledgement of evidence-informed
teaching practices for over 15 years in universities in Australia and Canada.

Kathryn A. Sutherland is Associate Professor and Academic Developer in the Cen-

tre for Academic Development at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Welling-
ton in New Zealand. She is an award-winning teacher and researcher who loves
classroom teaching and has taught subjects such as English literature, writing,
work-integrated learning and higher education across her academic career. Her
research and practice has three main areas of focus: academic working lives, holis-
tic academic development and working in partnership with students to improve
teaching and learning. Kathryn is a principal fellow of the Higher Education Acad-
emy, is a chair of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management and was a co-editor of the International Journal for Academic Development
for eight years.

Liz Thomas is Professor of Higher Education at Edge Hill University in the UK and
an independent researcher and consultant in higher education. Liz has more than
20 years’ experience of undertaking and leading research about widening partic-
ipation, student engagement, belonging, retention and success, and institutional
approaches to improving student experiences and outcomes. Between 2008 and
2017 Liz led the What Works? Student Retention and Success Programme, funded
by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. It involved 35 UK universities and colleges and
has been highly influential in policy and practice at national, institutional and indi-
vidual levels in the UK and beyond. She is currently the UK lead for the Erasmus+
project Towards a Sense of Belonging in an Inclusive Learning Environment, work-
ing with students, staff and mentors to create an inclusive culture through dialogue
and understanding. She has also undertaken two studies about independent learn-
ing in higher education, funded by the Higher Education Academy and the Quality
Assurance Agency. Liz has taught for the Open University for many years and was
previously a senior adviser at the Higher Education Academy in the UK. She has
authored many research papers, reports and books. Liz has been a widening par-
ticipation expert on the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework
(TEF) main panel since its inception, championing the experience and outcomes
of students from non-traditional groups.

Keith Trigwell is a retired professor of higher education. He was previously Direc-

tor of the Institute for Teaching and Learning at The University of Sydney and

xxi
[About the contributors

Director of the Centre for Excellence in Preparing for Academic Practice and
Reader in Higher Education at the University of Oxford. With Michael Prosser, he
developed the Approaches to Teaching Inventory as part of a 30-year study of uni-
versity teaching. He has an honorary doctorate from Lund University, Sweden, life
membership of HERDSA, and a Lifetime Achievement Award (Leadership) from
the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, in which
he served as a co-president. He was a coordinating editor of the international jour-
nal Higher Education from 2005 to 2011.

xxii
 INTRODUCTION

Lynne Hunt and

Denise Chalmers

The first and second editions of University Teaching in Focus draw on the insights of
internationally recognised experts who have practised and researched extensively
in their specific fields of study. We are grateful that such eminent colleagues have
found time to share their knowledge and experience in each edition of this book.
Changes in the content and structure of chapters between the first and second edi-
tions reflect emergent issues in university teaching and also a sharpened focus on
tertiary teaching in a rapidly changing context.
The clear focus of this edition of University Teaching in Focus is on student learn-
ing. It distils the vision, knowledge and insights of international experts in higher
education teaching to explore ways to engage students in lifelong learning and to
extend their capacity to solve problems, understand their disciplines, enter the
workforce and live and work positively in diverse communities.
This second edition of the textbook may be used as a resource for foundational
teaching development programs in higher education institutions and as a self-help
manual. It provides succinct analyses of foundational knowledge and skills associ-
ated with critical aspects of teaching, looking at what university and higher edu-
cation teachers need to know about students, teaching, curriculum, quality and
scholarship. The discussion encapsulates quality teaching frameworks and policies
and shows how these can inform teaching innovations. Together, these chapters
provide strategies for the development of expert teaching practices that can be
demonstrated in portfolios for annual performance reviews, applications for pro-
motion and teaching awards.
The textbook is divided into four sections and 15 chapters. The sections are:

1. Focus on subject and curriculum design

2. Focus on subject teaching and learning
3. Focus on students
4. Focus on your career

xxiii
[Introduction

Each of the 15 chapters targets key issues relevant to beginning or early career
teachers. They also serve as an accessible resource for established university teach-
ers seeking to update their understanding of theories, principles and practices that
are known to facilitate students’ learning. Although each chapter focuses on a par-
ticular topic, significant cross-referencing between chapters signals the importance
of holistic approaches to teaching preparation, strategies and innovation.
University teachers and students work and study in a global context, so each
chapter offers international perspectives on practical and effective strategies to
facilitate student learning and engagement without imposing a one-size-fits-all
approach. The style is discursive, offering case studies and ‘your thoughts’ segments
to encourage readers to consider, adapt and apply information and resources to
their local circumstances. This approach acknowledges that universities around
the world have a shared commitment and responsibility to facilitate the learning
of university students while operating in diverse cultural, political and economic
environments.

xxiv
 PART 1
FOCUS ON SUBJECT AND
CURRICULUM DESIGN

This section explores the design of the subjects you teach and the curriculum con-
text within which you work. Terminology differs across universities and countries
so, in this textbook, we use the term ‘subject’ to refer to components of a degree
program, sometimes called units, modules, papers or courses. Full-time students
typically enrol in four subjects per semester organised in terms of year of study – or
level. Good subject design is about planning and aligning what to teach, how to
teach and how to assess so that students engage in a coherent learning experience.
Well-designed subjects make it difficult for teachers and students to lose their focus
on the learning intended while studying the subject.
The organisation of subject matter, assessment, and teaching and learning
across all levels of a degree program accords with a curriculum framework that is
influenced by specific disciplines and by academic or professional standards. The
curriculum framework informs good subject design. Although early career uni-
versity teachers are unlikely to be responsible for curriculum design, they may be
engaged in reviewing the subjects they teach within a curriculum context. Accord-
ingly, this section focuses on both subject and curriculum issues.
In Chapter 1, Martyn Stewart analyses the development of learning theories and
their influence on academics’ choices about what and how they teach. He chal-
lenges early career and experienced university teachers to think about and identify
the underpinnings of their pedagogy by introducing and critiquing the language
and core principles of learning theory.
In Chapter 2, Tom Angelo offers practical, research-based principles and guide-
lines for effective, efficient subject design. The criteria and framework of key ques-
tions in this chapter provide step-by-step guidance for designing and redesigning
subjects so that students learn and understand more.
In Chapter 3, Angela Hill, Kylie Readman and Katrina Strampel equip readers
with the language and rationale of curriculum frameworks and the role they play
in framing the overall student experience of a program of study. They provide an

1
[University Teaching in Focus

overview of the core principles of curriculum design that provides cohesion, con-
structive alignment and assurance of learning. Their chapter explores evidenced-
informed inquiry and experiential models that promote active learner engage-
ment, particularly when coupled with meaningful and sustained partnerships with
industry, community, colleagues and students.
University teachers and their students are bound by a passion for the discipline
they study and teach. In Chapter 4, Ray Land builds on this idea to explore ‘sig-
nature ways of thinking and practising’ in specific disciplines, noting that all have
key ‘threshold’ concepts that must be understood in order to transform students’
thinking. Successful negotiation of each threshold opens conceptual terrain and
provides access to new academic discourses. It is a reflective process – the very
essence of a university education. To bring home the point, Land challenges uni-
versity teachers to think about threshold concepts in terms of their own academic
identity and community of practice.

2
 CHAPTER 1

UNDERSTANDING LEARNING:
THEORIES AND CRITIQUE
Martyn Stewart

Abstract
Knowing what is likely to work, when and why, is important when designing teaching
at university. This chapter guides you through the complex field of learning theories,
the explanations of how learning takes place as a process. It introduces you to the
main influential theories and how these ideas have matured and conflicted, to help you
make sense of their implications for teaching. It introduces terms such as ‘constructiv-
ism’ and ‘behaviourism’ that you may encounter in teaching and learning literature,
and explores developments in cognitive psychology and more recently, neuroscience,
that examine how individuals process and recall information. The social influences on
learning follow, before turning to important works on metacognition and ‘self’ theo-
ries that increasingly inform recent teaching designs. Contemporary theories on net-
worked and distributed learning relevant to the internet age are also reviewed.
Throughout this chapter, the influence and implications of different theories for
teachers are considered, with key criticisms of the different perspectives, theories and
models summarised to help the reader make informed choices about when particu-
lar approaches might be applicable or not. While ‘theory’ is often seen as detached
from everyday practice in teaching, the chapter closes with thoughts on how your
enhanced knowledge of learning as a process can be harnessed to optimise effective
teaching designs.

Key words
learning theories, behaviourism, constructivism (learning), cognitive development,
social learning, self-theories, distributed learning, activity theory, critique

Introduction
The field of learning theory has a long and complex history, studied from multiple
perspectives, from philosophical reflections to observing rats in boxes and more

3
[University Teaching in Focus

recently deciphering whole-brain images. The complexity of the field reflects our
own complexity as thinking humans – our biological, cognitive and psychological
differences, and our differing experiences as well as social, cultural and environ-
mental exposures.
This chapter introduces the main influential learning theories and follows how
the ideas have matured and conflicted to help you make sense of the developments
and their implications for teaching. It introduces terms such as ‘constructivism’ and
‘behaviourism’ that you may encounter in teaching and learning literature, and
it explores practical applications arising from the theories. The purpose of the
chapter is to empower you to participate in conversations about pedagogy and
to analyse the implications of learning theories for your discipline, your teaching
and your students. An understanding of learning theories, their applications, lim-
itations and continuing refinement, provides you with a powerful vocabulary and
framework for organising thinking and making sense of the challenging demands
of university teaching.

Towards contemporary theories of learning

Early theories of learning largely arose from philosophical introspection on how
we acquire knowledge and grow as individuals, with Plato, Confucius and Locke,
among many others, highlighting the role of observation, reflection and making
sense of experience for development of complex ideas. However, towards the early
20th century most formal education was experienced as rote learning, drilled into
the individual by the authoritarian front-of-class teacher.
The rise of learner-centred pedagogy that we would recognise today was advo-
cated at the turn of the 20th century by John Dewey, perhaps the most influential
educational philosopher of our time. He led the call for a more democratic model
of education and a learner-centred pedagogy. In his view, education needed to be
an active process, gaining procedural skills and building on experiences for learn-
ing that were authentic and meaningful. The role of the teacher was to create the
active learning opportunities, make the learning interesting through discovery and
listen to the voices of learners to shape a curriculum flexible to their needs. Dew-
ey’s ideas made an incalculable impact on school education systems, and his ‘learn-
ing by doing’ philosophy influenced so many of those who went on to develop
these principles further.
Dewey recognised that learning involved internal processes of acquiring both
knowledge and skills but was also shaped by external factors such as culture and
interactions with teachers and fellow learners. This chapter sets out the theories
largely following the evolution in their development, but also follows this structure
of individual-level ‘internal’ learning first, before those focused on external social
and cultural influences.

4
 Understanding learning ]

Behaviourist perspectives
The application of scientific methods to the study of learning in the early part of
the 20th century brought new perspectives in which understanding of the learning
process was based purely on what could be observed and measured. You will probably
be familiar with Pavlov’s famous 1903 experiments with dogs and bells (Pavlov 1927),
demonstrating how animals could be conditioned to behave in a specified way from
exposing them to a neutral stimulus. The resulting principle, classical conditioning,
was extended further by John B. Watson (1913, 1924) into human learning, with asso-
ciation becoming viewed as a major process of everyday learning and explaining the
shaping of perceptions and phobias. A fear of exams, for example, is not something
you are born with but a conditioned response to previous negative experiences.
Watson, a former student of Dewey, influenced a school of psychology he
referred to as ‘behaviourist’, due to this view of learning based on observable and
measurable changes in behaviour. Skinner (1938) developed ideas around animal
and human conditioning further by modifying and adding reinforcement stim-
uli, segmenting tasks and using series of positive rewards and negative sanctions
to demonstrate how behaviours could be shaped and reinforced toward target out-
comes. His experiments established another major principle of learning referred
to as instrumental or operant conditioning.

The influence of behaviourist theories

Behaviourist psychologists demonstrated how learning occurs as changes in actions,
with environmental conditioning and reinforcement through repeated action as
important mechanisms causing change. Task and instructional design principles
were developed and applied especially in training programmes involving staged,
progressive attainment of competencies and skills. The role of learner feedback
was also emphasised, as was the importance of rewards for learning. The principle
that behaviour could be shaped and directed through a teacher’s intervention left
a great legacy in terms of the power dynamic for the teacher as the director of
learning.
Another profound influence was the importance placed on detailing target
behaviours as learning outcomes that could be measured and evaluated. The lan-
guage arising out of the behaviourist tradition – learning outcomes, specifications,
targets and competencies – is found throughout the literature and procedures gov-
erning course design and has seen a revival in recent decades (Murtonen et al.
2017).
Ideas around mastery learning and high-level learning also emerged out of
applications of behaviourist principles, developed further by the psychologist Ben-
jamin Bloom. An expert in educational evaluation and measurement, rather than
associated with the behaviourist school, Bloom explored how learning outcomes

5
[University Teaching in Focus

could be ordered according to levels of increasing cognitive complexity, from

recall and manipulation to synthesis and evaluation. Published in 1956 as a tax-
onomy – essentially a classification of thinking levels – this set out an invaluable
practical framework for teachers to formulate learning objectives characterised by
specific verbs appropriate to different academic levels (Bloom & Krathwohl 1956).
The taxonomy was later expanded to include affective and psychomotor domains
and was subsequently refined by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). This taxonomy
is widely used across all levels of education and remains highly relevant for educa-
tors today.

Y OUR T HOUGHTS

• Where is reinforcement through repetition especially relevant for skills strengthening in

your teaching? How could your teaching or curriculum ensure progressive reinforcement
of these skills?
• Are there areas where complex procedures and tasks can be broken down to smaller seg-
ments and tasks to ensure progressive, step-by-step mastery?
• Reflect on what you are trying to achieve with your students. How is this reflected (or not)
as intended learning outcomes specified in your course, and how will your assessment
processes measure these?
• Where could feedback be better utilised to influence and reinforce changes in learner
behaviour and apply to identified future learning activities?
• Where is there potential to use incentives (or even penalties) to influence learner
behaviour?

Criticisms of behaviourist learning theories

While leading to enormous leaps forward in our understanding of learning as a
process, especially in skills acquisition, the rigidity of the methods and their ‘input–
output’ analyses proved a limitation. The researcher, as a distant observer of behav-
ioural change, essentially reduced behaviour to correlations between stimuli and
internal responses, viewing the mind somewhat as a blank canvas. Critics high-
lighted this view of human learning as one-dimensional and mechanical (Myers
1988).
The teacher-centric and outcome-based view of learning is also criticised for pri-
oritising short-term attainment of learning outcomes because, irrespective of the
teaching method, the education programme was assumed a success once targets
had been met. However, while rote learning is effective at achieving results in the
short term, retention over the longer term using this method is questionable.
Other major criticisms concerned the naïve generalisation of findings from
animal experiments to human learning (Chomsky 1959; Piaget 1952; Nye 1979).

6
 Understanding learning ]

Dealing only with observable data meant that internal mental processing and more
fuzzy concepts like ‘thinking’ and ‘meaning’ were not considered since they could
not be measured objectively. Indeed, Skinner considered a person’s behaviour
determined purely by their personal history and environment, with free will dis-
missed as illusionary (Skinner 1971). So, how could we study learning without ref-
erence to thinking? Surely we are more than the sum of our behaviours?

Cognitive and constructivist perspectives

In response, psychologists in the field of cognition and child development drew
attention to thinking and the development of the mind; how we come to store,
retrieve and process information, how our thinking strategies develop and how we
assimilate new experiences to make sense of the world. They addressed key ques-
tions not answered through behavioural experiments. Why does a 5-year-old think
differently from an adult? How do we make moral and ethical decisions? Why do
people solve problems in different ways? How do we go from memorising facts to
generating new ideas?

Cognitive constructivism
At the forefront of early research in cognitive development in the 1920s and
1930s, Jean Piaget noted how children’s thinking appeared illogical to adults,
proposing that they developed different ways of perceiving, interpreting and
gaining meaning at different stages of growth. The implication of this for teach-
ing in schools was profound as there was little point in teaching certain levels
of complexity, reasoning or abstraction until children’s minds had developed
an appropriate level of sophistication. He also demonstrated how the maturing
brain develops conceptual networks, which he called ‘schemas’, that referred to
symbolic mental frameworks into which we assimilate knowledge and experience.
Understanding becomes increasingly sophisticated as schemata grow and restruc-
ture as new information becomes assimilated. By adulthood, a person has devel-
oped countless schemata for everything from peeling an orange to sophisticated
concepts like love.
Piaget’s criticism of behaviourist research was that we can only understand how
to improve education once we understand how we deal with information mentally:
‘To present an adequate notion of learning one must first explain how the individ-
ual manages to construct and invent, not merely how he repeats and copies’ (Pia-
get 1970). ‘When we do so, we realise that the process of learning involves active
construction, and accordingly, learning should itself be active’ (Piaget, quoted in
Papert 1999, p. 105). This thinking reinvigorated a philosophy of learning known
as ‘constructivism’, essentially a theory that knowledge can be constructed only in
the mind of the learner. This reflected much of Dewey’s earlier thinking, which was
now given a stronger foundation.

7
[University Teaching in Focus

Cognitive processing
Towards the 1960s, research into cognitive processing considered how the mind
encodes and processes information, like a computer. Studies of cognitive loading
highlighted the limitations of working memory which, at any one time, is thought
to hold only a small amount of information during processing (Miller 1956).
Awareness of this for teachers is important, as there are real limits to what the
brain can absorb while simultaneously processing information (Sweller 1988). This
is why you used to feel drained as your lecturer approached slide 50 in their one-
hour lecture.
Theories had practical implications for how learning could be better presented
and sequenced. Models of working memory (Baddeley 2000) showed how the
order in which information is encoded was significant, as is the method: where
information is learned and retrieved using a variety of methods, it is more likely to
be recalled. Retrieval is also stronger when information is associated with meaning.
Inspiring teachers are memorable because they use surprise, novelty or emotion or
attach relevance and meaning to the information (Jensen 1998). Analogies, story-
telling and metaphors are useful strategies to attach meaning to new learning.
Dempster (1988) highlighted the importance of spacing effects and revealed
how material distributed across several sessions is better remembered than when
concentrated within a single session. Activating existing schemata prior to present-
ing new information also improves processing. Similarly, use of concept maps, rep-
resentations or lists could aid ‘computational offloading’, freeing the brain from
recalling the information to examine its content and relationships (Zhang & Nor-
man 1994).

Cognitive preferences and styles

Theories around individual learning and intelligence styles developed from the
1970s and include Howard Gardner’s idea that intelligence is not a single entity
that can be measured by simple IQ tests. He demonstrated that learners matured
at different stages across a range of cognitive, spatial and other development areas.
He argues that there existed multiple intelligences – linguistic, musical, logical–
mathematical, spatial and interpersonal intelligences which all individuals possess
to varying degrees (Gardner 1983). The theory became highly attractive and influ-
ential to areas of teaching development, giving value for building learners’ confi-
dence across different fields.
Riding and Cheema (1991) reviewed the many studies into cognitive style and
learning preference, concluding that findings could be classified into two dimen-
sions. Individuals who tend to process information either as complete entities or as
constituent parts, locating along a wholist–analyst dimension. The second dimen-
sion (visualist–verbalist) differentiates those who tend to think in mental pictures

8
 Understanding learning ]

or verbally. Zhang and Sternberg (2005) proposed a threefold model of intellec-

tual styles, including a creativity-generating, higher-level cognitive style, a more
norm-favouring style of lower cognitive complexity, and a third style where the
style adopted depended on the task at hand. More recently, Sadler-Smith (2009)
proposed a duplex model that differentiated information processing styles during
decision-making and problem-solving into intuitive and analytic modes.
While a complex field with concepts of cognitive style challenging to define, the
broader awareness of differences in how individuals engage with and process infor-
mation has important implications for teachers to consider when planning learn-
ing activities. These range from the structuring of learning activities and pacing of
tasks to the selecting of media used in delivery. Learning style has been a hugely
popular focus of educational development courses across all levels of education.

Neuroscience and education

Neuroscientists enable a direct look at the brain’s functioning through imag-
ing, and the emerging field of neuro-educational research offers fresh insight.
Howard-Jones (2010), for example, questioned why some students’ attention drifts
off in a well-planned lesson, only for them to go home and be captivated for hours
on a computer game. Experimental studies showed that release of dopamine, a
reward chemical, is triggered when there is greater unpredictability and uncer-
tainty associated with learning, which has implications for the design of learning
activities and games (Howard-Jones & Demetriou 2009).
Advances in neuroscience supported those cognitive studies examining working
memory and its influence on attention (Fukuda & Vogel 2009) and highlighted
the importance of creating space for learning in instructional design. Taylor et al.
(2007), for example, described how the brain has the neural machinery to learn
from errors. This has implications for how university teachers create an envi-
ronment for learning, implying a need for safe space to practice to ensure that
error-making can be an opportunity for learning, given it is a natural part of the
learning process.
Other studies also illuminated the fundamental role of emotion in learning,
with related structural changes in brain development and maturation seeming to
extend well beyond adolescence into the mid-20s. These are considered to be asso-
ciated with risk-taking behaviours, development of self-awareness and potentially as
a response to the demands of major life transitions at this period, such as leaving
home (Bennett & Baird 2006; Aimone et al. 2010; Raznahan et al. 2011).
Other key areas of progress have been in understanding brain architecture in
relation to developmental disorders, as well as how brain health and optimisation
is influenced by factors such as sleep, physical exercise, diet and pollution (Thomas
et al. 2019).

9
[University Teaching in Focus

The influence of cognitive and constructivist theory

A major contribution of constructivist and cognitivist theories is the understand-
ing of thinking and mental constructions at a deeper level, how information and
experience is assimilated and the significance of attaching meaning to learning
for retention. The implication for teaching is that learning is effective when the
learner is actively involved in the primary construction of knowledge. Cogni-
tive constructivists do not reject behaviourist theories but argue that association
is only an isolated part of a more general process of learning. Piaget (1970)
argued that the simple conditioned association between bell and food for Pav-
lov’s drooling dogs would quickly fade when the ring of the bell failed to be
rewarded; it is a temporary link. For associations to persist they must be assimi-
lated with other concepts as part of an active process of schemata building and
modification.
For didactic teaching and lecturing, cognitive research signals the importance
of not overloading students’ brains. Evidence suggests that learning has more
durable retention when taught using active, constructivist methods. Dochy et al.
(2003) conducted a meta-analysis of more than 40 empirical studies on the effects
of problem-based learning. They found that the method had a positive effect on
development of skills, and that while students gained slightly less knowledge com-
pared to conventional teaching, they remembered more of it. This finding was
confirmed by Doğru and Kalander (2007). Beyond cognition, other meta-analyses
have found positive effects on students’ perception of the learning environment
(Qin et al. 2016).

Y OUR T HOUGHTS

• Where are there opportunities for students to discover or experiment with ideas in
your teaching? Can these be increased, or the learning around these events be better
harnessed?
• Where could your curricula be adapted to enquiry-, research- or problem-based learning
designs?
• What strategies might you use to help students activate experience or previous learn-
ing to aid assimilation of new concepts? How can new learning be made more mean-
ingful by building on what they already know? Are there opportunities to use methods
to help memorisation and assimilation of key ideas, such as analogies, metaphors or
stories?
• Can you identify areas of teaching where there is a risk of cognitive overload? How might
you create space or reorganise learning by breaking sessions into manageable chunks?
Can you create a safe learning space for error-making?

10
 Understanding learning ]

• Can you identify opportunities for concept maps or flow diagrams to aid ‘computational
offloading’ and help students explore connections between concepts?
• Are you aware of any differences in learning styles between students? If you identify differ-
ences, what would the implications be for how you structure or present learning or design
learning activities?
• If strategies used in computer games are effective in capturing attention, what potential is
there to incorporate gaming strategies into teaching designs?

CAS E 1 .1  DRAW I NG O N CO GNI TI VE PROC E S S I N G T H E O RY T O D E V E L O P

UNDERSTANDI NG O F CO M PL E X N AT U R A L S Y S T E MS
Martyn Stewart, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (Stewart 2012)

Much teaching in natural sciences involves developing students’ understandings of complex

natural systems. This case study illustrates how theories of information processing theory was
drawn upon to design a block of teaching in earth sciences to develop understanding of com-
plex subject matter related to landslides.
Landslides are rarely caused by a single factor but rather from interactions of a range of
variables: soil type and structure, slope geometry, groundwater, land use, erosion, climate. Stu-
dents need to develop understanding of how short- or long-term changes in one system (e.g.
climate) will impact upon other systems (erosion, groundwater) and how these in turn have a
knock-on effect to other systems. Developing students’ understanding of this interconnected
‘web’ of causes is important.
Several areas of learning came together to inform the choice of using concept mapping
to teach this topic. I was influenced by Piaget’s idea of schemas, seeing knowledge as a con-
ceptual package of information and interconnections. This was a good fit to this topic of com-
plex slope systems. In this field, the nature of the connection between the concepts were as
important as, if not more important than, the concepts being connected. As a visual method,
concept mapping seemed appropriate, as it would prioritise students’ focus on the linkages
between concepts.
Secondly, I was concerned about the complexity of the information they were dealing with,
as there are multiple variables in this complex system. I was aware of the concept of ‘compu-
tational offloading’ where students offload the pressure on recalling information to free up
thinking space for the relationships to be made. Again, concept mapping was a good fit as
they could mark out the variables in the system as ‘nodes’, which then freed up their attention
to focus on making connections.
The activity was distributed over several sessions to allow sufficient time and space for
connections to be thought through. SOLO taxonomy, a specific tool for measuring cognitive
complexity (Biggs & Collis 1982), was used to evaluate learning and found a measurable
improvement in higher order relational learning compared to control groups (Stewart 2012).

11
[University Teaching in Focus

Criticisms of cognitivist and constructivist learning theories

The extent to which discovery- and problem-based designs benefit learners, and
the degree of guidance needed, has been a central focus of debate. Kirschner et al.
(2006) described student-centred constructivist teaching as ‘unguided methods of
instruction’ and highlighted that problem-based learning designs were intended to
simulate professional scenarios. A distinction needed to be made between how an
expert operates in their profession and how students with limited prior knowledge
learn that profession. They argued that the activities involving free exploration of
a complex environment in the absence of guiding structure could be cognitively
detrimental to learning. Schmidt et al. (2007) countered that the underlying prin-
ciples of problem-based learning are entirely compatible with our cognitive struc-
tures and point to the flexibility in guidance within these teaching methods. Recent
systematic reviews confirm that unassisted discovery does not benefit learners, but
various forms of guidance using discovery-based models does lead to significant
benefit (Alferi et al. 2011; Lazonder & Harmsen 2016).
Developments in neuroscience have exploded some influential ideas around
brain-based learning. While the brain’s hemispheres are known to specialise, there
is no evidence to support the popular idea of the intuitive ‘right brain’ or rational
‘left brain’ or the idea we use only 10% of our brain (OECD 2002; Dekker et al.
2012). Similarly discredited is the ‘edumyth’ that the brain’s structure is defined by
infancy or by adolescence. While there are sensitive periods for limited aspects of
language development in infants, evidence suggests that the brain retains plasticity
over its lifetime (Koizumi 2004; OECD 2007).
The primary criticism of neuroscience is that after several decades it has offered
little back to education to improve effectiveness; ‘a bridge too far’, suggests Bruer
(1997). While neuroimaging technologies can provide insight into how mental
functions map on to brain structures, Mareschal et al. (2013) acknowledge that
these studies alone require the support of cognitive models of memory and social-
emotional development of the kind provided by psychologists to inform edu-
cation, with the field of cognitive neuroscience currently serving the bridge.
The emergence of educational neuroscience as a discipline itself offers new
opportunities.
Gardner’s idea of multiple intelligences is accepted by the self-esteem move-
ment due to the implication that anyone can be ‘intelligent’ in some way, argue
Visser et al. (2006). The problem lies in the absence of empirical validation, with a
critical review by Waterhouse (2006) finding no supporting evidence. While there
is stronger empirical evidence for other models of cognitive style, the field gen-
erally suffers from the struggle in defining the construct of ‘styles’ in the pres-
ence of overlapping concepts of intellectual ability and personality traits (Messick
1994). Coffield et al. (2004) criticised the field of learning styles as fragmented and

12
 Understanding learning ]

ineffective in its relevance to education, noting the potential challenge of teachers

attempting to adapt their teaching style in class to accommodate a multitude of
learning styles.

Humanistic perspectives and ‘self’ theories

In Skinner’s eyes, free will and motivation were dismissed as illusions. In stark con-
trast, an alternative perspective emerged which rejected the notion that humans
are simply biological objects about whom everything can be explained by networks
of causes.
At the forefront of this ‘humanist’ perspective was Abraham Maslow proposing
a theory that people are ultimately motivated toward self-actualisation and would
learn for learning’s sake to realise their potential (Maslow 1970). The psycholo-
gist Carl Rogers agreed, following his views on psychotherapy, and articulated
through his person-centred theory of experiential learning (Rogers 1969, 1983).
He differentiated between cognitive (meaningless) learning and experiential
(significant) learning, the latter being synonymous with personal change and
growth. Like Dewey many decades before, Rogers viewed the role of the teacher
as facilitator, to prioritise participation and enable significant learning by empow-
ering the student to have control of the nature and direction of their learning.
At the heart of his theory was the need for creation of a learning environment
where subject matter is relevant to the learner’s interest and where threats to the
self are minimised.
Rogers’ theory was oriented towards adult learning and influenced Malcolm
Knowles, who contextualised adult learning further and advocated for lifelong
learning. Unlike children, adults will already have developed a self-concept and
will enter education with a wealth of experience and resources for problem-
solving (Knowles et al. 2005). Knowles again argued teaching designs should build
on experience and be active and problem-centred.

Reflection, reflexivity and transformation

Experiential learning models required the learner to relate new ideas to the
foundations of their experience leading to models for sequencing the cycle of
learning becoming popular in teacher and management education. The most
famous, that of Kolb (1984), involves a four-stage cycle of experience – reflection –
conceptualisation – experimentation.
In the context of preparing learners for professions, Schön (1983) argued that
contemporary methods of teaching were inappropriate for dealing with real-world
problems which are often messy, highly situational and may require difficult judge-
ments in the face of ethical, political, economic or moral concerns. In response,
Schön developed the notion of the professional as a ‘reflective practitioner’, placing

13
[University Teaching in Focus

great value on the knowledge and experience of the practitioner rather than on
scientific textbooks. He emphasised the importance in professional learning con-
texts of becoming reflexive and self-aware during working (reflection-in-action),
and then able to reflect-on-action after events to drive real improvement.
Extending these ideas of reflexivity and self-awareness further, Mezirow’s (1991)
transformative learning theory proposed that people can change their views of
the world when facing disorienting dilemmas. His theory characterised levels of
increasingly analytical and critical reflective thinking that a person can progress
through to ultimately reach powerful changes in perspective.

Theories of the self

Theories relating to self-control had developed through the 1960s and 1970s with
Rotter’s (1966) influential development of a locus of control scale. This could
help learners evaluate their beliefs around their ability to control events – whether
within their control or determined by fate or other external factors. The attribu-
tion theory of Weiner (1974) extends the notion of control further by examining
explanations that people use to justify successes and failures and whether causes
of success or failure are considered stable and controllable. For example, the dif-
ficulty of a task is stable and remains outside of a learner’s control. In contrast,
effort is not stable: a student has a great deal of control of the amount of effort they
expend. Students who believe success is attributable to effort will be more likely to
work harder.
Important for learners is the concept of self-efficacy, the person’s belief in their
capability to make a difference and succeed. Albert Bandura’s work in this field
(1977a, 1995) has been very valuable to contemporary educational development
in higher education. Students with low self-efficacy are likely to believe that certain
tasks are outside their capability and will tend to avoid such challenges. Bandura
explained how self-efficacy could be developed through positive experiences where
tasks are mastered and through witnessing others successfully meeting challenges.
Positive feedback, persuasion and encouragement play a central role. There is
strong empirical evidence for the positive link between self-efficacy, academic
achievement and other mediating effects, such as motivation and self-regulation
(Pajares 1996).
Dweck (1999) highlighted the importance of mindsets and demonstrated how
shifting people’s beliefs can lead to meaningful and deep change. She proposed
that students sit somewhere along a continuum between a fixed view of intelli-
gence, where success is believed to be a function of innate ability, and a mallea-
ble, incremental view of intelligence, where success is believed to be a function of
hard work and study. Knight and Yorke (2004) considered the implications of this
for developing students’ self-efficacy in university teaching by exploring the belief

14
 Understanding learning ]

systems of both students and academic staff and the dynamics of their interaction.
They concluded that the ideal scenario is when both teacher and student hold mal-
leable views of intelligence with the teacher providing supportive developmental
feedback on which students can act to improve. The worst scenario is when both
teacher and student hold fixed views of intelligence leading to a shared belief that
‘not a lot can be done’. Dweck (2009) also highlighted the links between mindset,
motivation and resilience, with students with a growth mindset more likely to look
for challenge and appreciate the value of effort.

Influences of humanistic and ‘self’ theories

The traditional top-down hierarchies in universities are shifting, with students
increasingly empowered and working in partnership with staff (see Chapter 11).
While this trend may be due in part to consumer-driven democratisation of higher
education, it is also a reflection of the influence of the learner-centred pedagogies,
student partnerships and increased value placed on metacognition and reflective
learning arising from these theories.
Evidence increasingly and consistently supports the impact of self-theories in
leading to transformation, autonomy in learning and impact for students. There
are important implications from these studies for teachers about how to facilitate
learning and how to create a supportive climate that changes mindsets allowing for
students to grow.
The work of Schön and Kolb have also been hugely impactful in the profes-
sional disciplines and in adult education and training, as well as in work-based
learning and preparing students for employment (see Chapter 9).

YOUR T HO UGHTS

• What strategies do you currently use, or could you use, to encourage students to
reflect on their self-beliefs, for example in the locus of control, or attributing success
or failure?
• Where in your teaching or in the curriculum do students get choice to follow interests or
choose pathways for learning, and could these be increased?
• What strategies could be used to support more autonomous learning, for example nego-
tiated learning contracts?
• How would you or your students identify fixed or growth belief systems? How could you
help students identify this and support a transition to a growth mindset?
• As a course team, how is reflection valued as a strategy for learning? Where is reflection,
self-awareness or self-directed learning specified as an intended outcome in the course
documentation?
• How might you assess critical reflection?

15
[University Teaching in Focus

C AS E 1 .2  ME ZIR O W ’ S TRANSF O RM ATI VE L EA R N I N G T H E O RY T O I N F O R M

CRITIC AL REF L ECTI VE W RI TI NG
Martyn Stewart, Sally Theobald and Rachel Tolhurst, Liverpool School
of Tropical Medicine

In a qualitative research methods course at postgraduate level, students work in groups on a

small-scale research project over a period of five weeks to gain practical experience of meth-
ods. The students choose a topic, develop a research question, identify a sample, conduct
and transcribe interviews, analyse the results and present preliminary findings as a group
presentation.
In qualitative research, the researcher plays a central role at each stage of the research
process, so needs to be aware of their own positionality and how this could inadvertently
distort the aspects of the research. Researcher reflexivity is, therefore, an important mindset to
develop. The assignment for the project is an individual critical reflective report where students
are required to reflect on their learning during the project process and consider where key
learning took place and how they might have influenced the research process.
Most of the students have limited prior experience with formalised reflective practice and
presenting this as reflective writing they tend to find very challenging. As the critical reflec-
tion is an assessed piece of work, the unfamiliarity is amplified as students comment that
they struggle to understand concepts of simpler and ‘critical’, more sophisticated forms of
reflection.
To introduce the concepts, a session is run drawing on Jack Mezirow’s transformative learn-
ing theory to provide a framework to think about levels in reflective thinking, with the types
of troublesome encounters students faced when learning qualitative methods analogous
to ‘disorienting dilemmas’. The theory is valuable applied in this context as it differentiates
between reflecting on a problem’s content, process and premise. It also explains how learners
can develop and use critical self-reflecting to consider their positionality and prior beliefs and
actions, in this case in the context of framing the research questions and collecting and ana-
lysing their data.

Criticisms of humanistic and ‘self’ learning theories

Taken to its extreme, a humanistic education would be more like an open, edu-
cational retreat rather than the form of education with which we are familiar.
Self-directed learning would feature prominently, and for assessment, rather than
reproducing knowledge, value would be placed on meaningful transformations of
ideas or practice with critical reflection at the heart. Student-led learning might
find students designing not only the classes but also the forms of assessment and
selecting the assessment criteria.
While there are many examples of these approaches, it is still far from the fun-
damentally top-down culture and context of how most universities operate, with

16
 Understanding learning ]

established traditions and power dynamics between learners, teachers and insti-
tutions. Servant-Miklos and Noordegraaf-Eelens (2019) explain the challenge of
promoting self-directed learning that values reflection and transformation out of
context is that it can create for students a state of disconnect, which is subsequently
eased by clinging on to the more accepted shallower measures of achievement
such as grades. However, while challenging, these are fundamentally issues of the
educational philosophy of the course, and there are many excellent examples of
student-led initiatives and assessment strategies promoting student partnership
and empowerment (e.g. Leach et al. 2001).
Theories from humanistic psychology, as advocated by Maslow and Rogers, have
been criticised for being somewhat vague or lacking a cumulative empirical base,
for encouraging self-centredness (Seligman & Csiksczentmihalyi 2000), and for an
over-optimistic view, assuming that all students are capable of seeking self-actualisation.
Other criticisms regarding self-directed learning are similar to those levelled
against discovery learning described earlier by Kirschner et al. (2006), in that,
left alone, an average student is likely to experience cognitive overload and
unlikely to encounter their real ‘self’ in any purposeful way (Servant-Miklos &
Noordegraaf-Eelens 2019).
Despite Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle being possibly the most cited learning
model used in educational training and a highly valuable framework for planning
activities, it has been dogged by criticism for being underdeveloped and lacking
scientific validity. Seaman (2008) suggests such models are best thought of as an
ideology or pedagogic approach rather than a theory of learning with a scientific
foundation.
The assumption that self-theories are universal has been questioned, as they have
been developed in Western contexts. Gould (1999) suggests that some theories and
applications of locus of control break down when seen from diverse cultural con-
texts. Others suggest different factors that may be more significant to student success
than self-theories, for example the importance of intrinsic interest in the subject and
career orientation (Kember et al. 2010; Schiefele & Winteler 1992).

External influences on the learning processes

Social constructivism
While we associate Piaget with constructivism from his work on cognitive develop-
ment, social constructivism we associate with the work of Lev Vygotsky and Jerome
Bruner. In the 1920s and 1930s (although only widely known from the 1980s),
Vygotsky highlighted the social origins of thinking, and in his Mind in Society (1978)
he described how each high-level function first occurs as an interaction between
people, say teacher and student, and then is internalised within the person. As
interactions widen, these understandings and skills propagate through society, an
idea influential in more recent theories of distributed learning.

17
[University Teaching in Focus

In particular, Vygotsky emphasised the critical role played by teachers in extend-

ing the potential of individual learning. He demonstrated that a child could get
only so far with problem-solving, but with ‘scaffolding’ support the teacher could
enable the child to achieve far more than they could left to their own devices. This
extended zone of potential he termed the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD,
Figure 1.1) and argued that it was toward the top of this zone that a teacher needed
to target activities and support strategies such as modelling (demonstrating exam-
ples) and bridging (helping make connections).
Influenced by Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner developed constructivism and applica-
tions of scaffolding further. He also developed the idea of the spiral curriculum
(Bruner 1960), in which topics are introduced early in the curriculum and then
revisited again, each time adding depth and complexity. The other major contri-
bution was his seminal work on how culture shaped learning (Bruner 1996) and
how learning occurred for the individual when situated in different environments.

Social learning theory

Albert Bandura noted that ‘learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to men-
tion hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to
inform them what to do’ in his social learning theory (Bandura 1977b pp. 22). He
demonstrated that much learning occurs by observing and imitating the behav-
iours of people around us and assimilating their experiences into our own devel-
oping understandings. Termed vicarious or observational learning, modelling is

FIGURE 1.1 Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: the distance between what a student can
achieve independently and with the scaffolding support of a teacher or peers

18
 Understanding learning ]

central to this process. It is particularly influential in the formation of expectations,

in the adoption of new behaviours (‘watch and learn’) and for developing students’
self-efficacy.

Situated learning
As Bruner had considered how culture and environment shape learning, Jean Lave
and Etienne Wenger proposed that learning occurred as a social act that occurs
in everyday life. They suggested it involves the process of engaging with ‘commu-
nities of practice’, which refers to differing situated contexts in which individuals
experience learning. For example, a student will likely be a member of multiple
communities: a project group within a course unit, a student residence community,
a sports club and perhaps an employee in a part-time job. Lave and Wenger (1991)
suggested that learning is situated in distinct contexts and that success in any one
is a function of how well individuals fit in and learn to become competent in that
setting. Characteristic features of communities of practice include:

• shared interest, passion and commitment

• an identity defined by this common interest
• active engagement and interaction between members
• a structure through which advancement is possible
• use of technical language
• shared competence that distinguishes members from others.

They also explained how individuals enter communities at the periphery, initially
involved in activities that are less important, and then gradually move towards the
centre becoming established members as competency, identity and involvement in
key community processes develops. Their key point was that we adapt to frameworks
that already possess structure. The implication is that we should refocus empha-
sis on social engagements to consider how learners become active participants in
these communities, how barriers to entry are overcome and how identities develop
within these communities: ‘the purpose is not to learn from talk but to learn to talk
to legitimise one’s position in a community’ (Lave & Wenger 1991, pp. 108–109).

Distributed and expanding learning

In addition to theories explaining how individual processes of learning can be
influenced by social interactions, others have suggested that cognition and learn-
ing should not be considered occurring simply at the level of the individual, but
also at the level of community. Ideas around distributed cognition have a long
history in anthropology and sociology, and Hutchins (1995) described a form of
distributed cognition that explains how cognitive activity is distributed across indi-
vidual minds, artefacts and the interactions between.

19
[University Teaching in Focus

Activity theory is a similar framework for understanding how elements in a system

work – for example how students on an online learning course might collaborate
on a group project. The idea of activity theory was introduced by Vygotsky as part
of understanding how cognition is shared in society and was developed further as a
model by Engeström (1987). A limitation of standard learning theories, Engeström
(2018) argues, is that there is a competent ‘teacher’ who knows what is to be learned,
but in real-world contexts new concepts or practices are emerging, and learning is
not stable or understood ahead of time. Learning occurs as the concept is being cre-
ated so the learning needs to occur in an interconnected activity system. The focus
is not on the individual here but the system, so learners are actors within the system,
working towards a goal mediated by artefacts and others as part of a community.
The theory emphasises the important role of artefacts and learners’ interactions with
these and with others, so learning is not located inside the mind of the individual but
a product of a wider system of interactions. This system-focused model is particularly
valuable for informing e-learning designs (Mayes & de Freitas 2013).
A more recent perspective of distributed knowledge especially relevant to a dig-
ital society is connectivism (Siemens 2005; Downes 2005). This views knowledge
analogous to connected nodes, representing information, people and communi-
ties that form, grow, shift and disappear in an uncontrolled and fluid way. It is a first
attempt to develop a theory considering the influence of the internet on learning.

Y OUR T HOUGHTS

• What is the rationale for using group work or collaborative learning in your teaching or
course? How can you help students recognise the enhanced learning that arises from col-
laboration, compared to if they had learned in isolation?
• How can collaborative knowledge building tools such as wikis and online discussion boards
be optimised for students to learn from each other or observe how others learn?
• Thinking of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, where are you pitching activities
that you set your students compared to what they could achieve left to their own devices?
• What role does modelling or use of role models play in your teaching?
• For professional learning or employability, what opportunities exist for work-based or
placement learning? How can learning gains from these situated contexts, such as the
language or understanding of organisational cultures and processes, be optimised?

Criticisms of social, situated and distributed learning theories

Early criticisms of social learning theories concerned the extent to which social
interactions and role models were claimed to influence behaviour. Critics argued
that these theories tended to reject genetic factors as significant determinants of
behaviour: the classic nature versus nurture debate (Bouchard et al. 1990).

20
 Understanding learning ]

The principles of situated learning theory are often applied to the workplace
as a learning environment. Hughes et al. (2007) argued that the original empir-
ical work was carried out in atypical communities not easily equated to modern
professional workplaces. Another criticism is that the theory presumes that com-
munities of practice are reasonably stable and that the learner adapts to a struc-
tured, self-contained environment. Instead, we live in a world of change where such
communities are unstable, evolve rapidly, and within which membership is highly
mobile. The process of crossing boundaries between these situated communities in
itself provides a stimulus for learning (Engeström et al. 1995).
Criticisms around connectivism primarily concern its status as a new theory.
Verhagen (2006) argued that existing learning theories already explain the main
principles, while Kop and Hill (2008) suggested it didn’t offer enough of a new
explanation to our understanding of learning as a process to warrant status as a
stand-alone theory. Its defenders have argued instead that it is a networked theory
of learning drawing on wider theories, but there is little attempt to develop upon
the more established and extensive work of activity theory, so some prefer to see
it as a framework or model to support learning, rather than a distinct theory of
learning (Bell 2011).

Making sense of theory in practice

Clearly, learning processes are complex, and current research strives to synthesise
these dimensions into comprehensive conceptual models that can help teachers
optimise student learning (Hattie & Donoghue 2016; Illeris 2018).
Usually how we teach is informed by a combination of influences: modelling
how others teach, learning from teacher education programmes, intuition, experi-
ence and/or reading from teaching literature. So where do learning theories fit in
and what role may they play in practice? If you consider your role in more sophisti-
cated terms, not as a ‘teacher’ standing in front of a class but as a designer of learn-
ing activities, opportunities and environments, then learning theories can become
particularly valuable for guiding choices in these designs. Figure 1.2 illustrates how
a teacher might draw on theoretical principles to strengthen the design of teaching
activities.
Let’s say in your teaching you have a scenario-based activity and want to make
this more engaging for students (Figure 1.2, top). Armed with your deeper under-
standing of how learning takes place as a process, there are evidence-based prin-
ciples that you can draw upon to enhance the activity design. You know that you
could make the activity engaging by adding a stronger risk and reward element to
the scenario, to trigger that dopamine rush so effective in computer game design.
Also, drawing from neuroscience research, you know the value of error-making as
part of that process of learning, so can design in a ‘safe space’ as part of the activity

21
[University Teaching in Focus

FIGURE 1.2 Examples of how general teaching and learning aims can draw from theoretical principles
to inform teaching designs

and encourage students to really push their ideas. You also know, from humanistic
and ‘self’ theories, that for this learning to take place without students being self-
aware of the advances in thinking would be a lost opportunity. Therefore, incorpo-
rating a critical reflective log to encourage students to deconstruct their thinking
process and bring to the surface the learning gains will make the activity more
meaningful – possibly even transformative for some, and powerfully engaging.
Learning theories are explanations of the learning process. It is not a matter of
choosing or aligning to one theory or another but of using this understanding of
learning as a process to make sense of the teaching designs available and guiding
the use of these to best effect to secure learning outcomes. Knowing what is likely
to work, when and why.

References
Aimone, JB, Deng, W, & Gage, FH, 2010, ‘Adult neurogenesis: Integrating theories and
separating functions’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 14, pp. 325–337, doi: 10.1016/j.
tics.2010.04.003.
Alferi, L, Brooks, PJ, Aldrich, NJ, & Tenenbaum, HR, 2011, ‘Does discovery-based instruc-
tion enhance learning?’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 1–18, doi:
10.1037/a0021017.

22
 Understanding learning ]

Anderson, LW, & Krathwohl, DR (eds.) 2001, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assess-
ing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Baddeley, AD, 2000, ‘The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?’, Trends in
Cognitive Science, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 417–423, doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2.
Bandura, A, 1977a, ‘Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioural change’, Psycho-
logical Review, vol. 84, pp. 191–215, doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
Bandura, A, 1977b, Social learning theory, General Learning Press, New York, doi: 10.1177/
105960117700200317.
Bandura, A, 1995, Self-efficacy in changing societies, Cambridge University Press, doi: 10.1017/
CBO9780511527692.
Bell, F, 2011, ‘Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in tech
nology-enabled learning’, International Review Research of Open and Distance Learning, vol.
12, pp. 98–118, doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661.
Bennett, CM, & Baird, AA, 2006, ‘Anatomical changes in the emerging adult brain: A voxel-
based morphometry study’, Human Brain Mapping, vol. 27, pp. 766–777, doi: 10.1002/
hbm.20218.
Biggs, J, & Collis, KF, 1982, Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy, Academic
Press, New York, ISBN: 9781483273310.
Bloom, BS, & Krathwohl, DR, 1956, Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of edu-
cational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive domain,
Longmans Green, New York, doi: 10.1177/001316445601600310.
Bouchard, T, Lykken, D, McGue, M, Segal, N, & Tellegen, A, 1990, ‘Sources of human psy-
chological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart’, Science, vol. 250,
pp. 223–229, doi: 10.1126/science.2218526.
Bruer, JT, 1997, ‘Education and the brain: A bridge too far’, Educational Researcher, vol. 26,
no. 8, pp. 4–16, doi: 10.3102/0013189X026008004.
Bruner, J, 1960, The process of education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, doi:
10.1002/bs.3830090108.
Bruner, J, 1996, The culture of education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, ISBN:
0-674-17952-8.
Chomsky, N, 1959, ‘Review of Skinner’s verbal behavior’, Language, vol. 35, pp. 26–58, doi:
10.2307/411334
Coffield, F, Moseley, D, Hall, E, & Ecclestone, K, 2004, Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16
learning. A systematic and critical review, Learning and Skills Research Centre, London,
ISBN: 1853389188.
Dekker, S, Lee, NC, Howard-Jones, P, & Jolles, J, 2012, ‘Neuromyths in education: Prevalence
and predictors of misconceptions among teachers’, Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 3, p. 429,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429.

23
[University Teaching in Focus

Dempster, FN, 1988, ‘The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results
of psychological research’, American Psychologist, vol. 43, pp. 627–634, doi: 10.1037/
0003-066X.43.8.627.
Dochy, F, Segers, M, van den Bossche, P, & Gijbels, D, 2003, ‘Effects of problem-based
learning: A meta-analysis’, Learning & Instruction, vol. 13, pp. 533–568, doi: 10.3102/
00346543075001027.
Doğru, M, & Kalander, S, 2007, ‘Applying the subject “cell” through constructivist approach
during science lessons and the teacher’s view’, Journal of Environmental & Science Educa-
tion, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–1.
Downes, S, 2005, An introduction to connective knowledge, Stephen’s Web, December 22, viewed
24 September 2020, www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034.
Dweck, CS, 1999, Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality & development, Psychology
Press, Philadelphia, ISBN: 9781841690247.
Dweck, CS, 2009, ‘Who will the 21st-century learners be?’, Knowledge Quest: Professional Prac-
tice, vol. 38, pp. 8–9, viewed 24 September 2020, www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/
files/content/aaslissues/toolkits/bldnglvl/09_NovDec_Dweck.pdf.
Engeström, Y, 1987, Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research, Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki, ISBN: 951-95933-2-2.
Engeström, Y, 2018, ‘Expansive learning: Towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualis-
ation’, in K. Illeris (ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists . . . in their own
words, 2nd edn, Routledge, London, pp. 46–65, doi: 10.4324/9781315147277.
Engeström, Y, Engeström, R, & Karkkainen, M, 1995, ‘Polycontextuality and boundary
crossing in expert cognition’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 5, pp. 319–336, doi: 10.1016/
0959-4752(95)00021-6.
Fukuda, K, & Vogel, EK, 2009, ‘Human variation in overriding attentional capture’, The
Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 27, pp. 8726–8733, doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2145-09.
2009.
Gardner H, 1983, Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, Basic Books, New York,
ISBN: 9780465024346.
Gould, SJ, 1999, ‘A critique of Heckhausen & Schulz’s (1995) “Life-span theory of control”
from a cross-cultural perspective’, Psychological Review, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 597–604, doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.106.3.597.
Hattie, JAC, & Donoghue, G, 2016, ‘Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model.
Nature: Science of Learning’, vol. 1, p. 16013, published online 10 August 2016, doi:
10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13.
Howard-Jones, PA, 2010, Introducing neuroeducational research: Neuroscience, education and the
brain from contexts to practice, Routledge, London, ISBN-10: 0-415-47201-6.
Howard-Jones, PA, & Demetriou, S, 2009, ‘Uncertainty and engagement with learning
games’, Instructional Science, vol. 37, pp. 519–536, doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9073-6.

24
 Understanding learning ]

Hughes, J, Jewson, N, & Unwin L, 2007, ‘Communities of practice: A contested concept in

flux’, in J Hughes, N Jewson, & L Unwin (eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives,
Routledge, London, ISBN-13: 978-0-415-36474-4.
Hutchins, E, 1995, Cognition in the wild, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, ISBN: 9780262581462.
Illeris, K, 2018, ‘A comprehensive understanding of human learning’, in K Illeris (ed.), Con-
temporary theories of learning: Learning theorists . . . in their own words, 2nd edn, Routledge,
London, pp. 1–14, doi: 10.4324/9781315147277.
Jensen, E, 1998, Teaching with the brain in mind, Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, VA, ISBN-13: 1-4166-0030-2.
Kember, D, Ho, A, & Kong, C, 2010, ‘Initial motivation orientation of students enrolling
in undergraduate courses’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 263–276, doi:
10.1080/03075070903023510.
Kirschner, PA, Sweller, J, & Clark, RE, 2006, ‘Why minimal guidance during instruction does
not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experien-
tial, and inquiry-based teaching’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, pp. 75–86, doi: 10.1207/
s15326985ep4102_1.
Knight, P, & Yorke, M, 2004, ‘Self-theories: Some implications for teaching & learn-
ing in higher education’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 25–38, doi:
10.1080/1234567032000164859
Knowles, MS, Holton III, EF, & Aswanasu, R, 2005, The adult learner, 6th edn, Butterworth
Heinemann, London, ISBN-10: 0415739020.
Koizumi, H, 2004, ‘The concept of “developing the brain”: A new science for learning and
education’, Brain & Development, vol. 26, pp. 434–441, doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2003.
09.011.
Kolb, D, 1984, Experiential learning, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, doi: 10.1002/
job.4030080408.
Kop, R, & Hill, A, 2008, ‘Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?’,
International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, vol. 9, no. 3, doi: 10.19173/
irrodl.v9i3.523.
Lave, J, & Wenger, E, 1991, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355.
Lazonder, AW, & Harmsen, R, 2016, ‘Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of
guidance’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 681–718, doi: 10.3102/
0034654315627366.
Leach, L Neutze, G, & Zepke, N, 2001, ‘Assessment & empowerment: Some critical questions’,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 293–305, doi: 10.1080/
02602930120063457.
Mareschal, D, Butterworth, B, & Tilmie, A, 2013, Educational neuroscience, Wiley Blackwell,
Chichester, ISBN: 978-1-118-72589-4.

25
[University Teaching in Focus

Maslow, A, 1970, Motivation and personality, 2nd edn, Harper & Row, New York, ISBN-10:
0060442417.
Mayes, T, & de Freitas, S, 2013, Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models, Joint Informa-
tion Systems Committee, London, viewed 24 September 2020, https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/
open/file/8ff033fc-e97d-4cb8-aed3-29be7915e6b0/1/Review+of+e-learning+theories.pdf.
Messick, S, 1994, ‘The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational prac-
tice’ Educational Psychologist, vol. 19, pp. 59–74, doi: 10.1080/00461528409529283.
Mezirow, J, 1991, Transformative dimensions of adult learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, doi:
10.1177/074171369204200309.
Miller, GA, 1956, ‘The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity
for processing information’, Psychological Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 81–97, doi: 10.1037/
h0043158.
Murtonen, M, Gruber, H, & Lehtinen, E, 2017, ‘The return of behaviourist epistemology:
A review of learning outcomes studies’, Educational Research Review, vol. 22, pp. 114–128,
doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.001.
Myers, DG, 1988, Psychology, Worth, London, ISBN: 9781429299909.
Nye, RD, 1979, What is B.F. Skinner really saying? Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, ISBN-10:
0139521844.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2007, Understanding
the brain: Towards a new learning science, OECD, Paris, ISBN: 9789264029125.
Pajares, F, 1996, ‘Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings’, Review of Educational Research, vol.
66, pp. 543–578, doi: 10.3102/00346543066004543.
Papert, S, 1999, ‘Papert on Piaget, in “The Century’s Greatest Minds” special issue’, Time
Magazine, March 29, p. 105.
Pavlov, IP, 1927, Conditioned reflexes, trans. SV Anrep, Oxford University Press, London.
Piaget, J, 1952, ‘When thinking begins’, in J Piaget (ed.), The origins of intelligence in
children, International University Press, New York, originally published 1936, doi:
10.1037/11494-000.
Piaget, J, 1970, ‘Piaget’s theory’, in PH Mussen (ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychol-
ogy, 3rd edn, vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, New York, ISBH-10: 0471626961, ISBN-13:
9780471626961.
Qin, Y, Wang, Y, & Floden, RE, 2016, ‘The effect of problem-based learning on improvement
of the medical educational environment: A systematic review & meta-analysis’, Medical
Principles & Practice, vol. 25, pp. 525–532, doi: 10.1159/000449036.
Raznahan, A, Shaw, P, Lalonde, F, Stockman, M, Wallace, GL, Greenstein, D, Clasen, L, Gog-
tay, N, & Giedd, JN, 2011, ‘How does your cortex grow?’, Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 31,
pp. 7174–7177, doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0054-11.2011.

26
 Understanding learning ]

Riding, RJ, & Cheema, I, 1991, ‘Cognitive styles – An overview and integration’, Educational
Psychology, vol. 11, nos. 3 & 4, pp. 193–215, doi: 10.1080/0144341910110301.
Rogers, CR, 1969, Freedom to learn, CE Merrill, Columbus, OH, ISBN: 0675095190.
Rogers, CR, 1983, Freedom to learn for the 80s, CE Merrill, Columbus, OH, ISBN: 06752
00121.
Rotter, JB, 1966, ‘Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of rein-
forcements’, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 1–28, doi:
10.1037/h0092976.
Sadler-Smith, E, 2009, ‘A duplex model of cognitive style’, in LF Zhang & RJ Sternberg
(eds.), Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles, Springer, New York, pp. 3–28, ISBN:
978-0-8261-0461-8.
Schiefele, AK, & Winteler, A, 1992, ‘Interest as a predictor of academic achievement:
A meta-analysis of research’, in KA Renninger, S Hidi, & A Krapp (eds.), The role of interest
in learning & development, Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, ISBN: 9781138989887.
Schmidt, HK, Loyens, SMM, van Gog, T, & Paas, F, 2007, ‘Problem-based learning is human
cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006)’, Educational
Psychologist, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 91–97, doi: 10.1080/00461520701263350.
Schön, D, 1983, The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action, Temple Smith, Lon-
don, doi: 10.1080/07377366.1986.10401080.
Seaman, J, 2008, ‘Experience, reflect, critique: The end of the “learning cycles” era’, Journal
of Experiential Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 3–18, doi: 10.1177/105382590803100103.
Seligman, MEP, & Csiksczentmihalyi, M, 2000, ‘Positive psychology: An introduction’, Ameri-
can Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 5–14, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.
Servant-Miklos, V, & Noordegraaf-Eelens, L, 2019, ‘Toward social-transformative education:
An ontological critique of self-directed learning’, Critical Studies in Education, published
online 7 February 2019, doi: 10.1080/17508487.2019.1577284.
Siemens, G, 2005, ‘Connectivism: A theory for the digital age’, International Journal of Instruc-
tional Technology and Distance Learning, vol. 2, no. 1, viewed 24 September 2020, www.itdl.
org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm.
Skinner, BF, 1938, The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis, Appleton-Century,
Oxford, England, ISBN: 1-58390-007-1.
Skinner, BF, 1971, Beyond freedom & dignity, Knopf, New York, ISBN: 9780394425559.
Stewart, M, 2012, ‘Joined up thinking? Evaluating the use of concept-mapping to develop
complex system learning’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 37, no. 3,
pp. 349–368, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.534764.
Sweller, J, 1988, ‘Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning’, Cognitive Sci-
ence, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 257–285, doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.

27
[University Teaching in Focus

Taylor, SF, Stern, ER, & Gehring, WJ, 2007, ‘Neural changes for error monitoring: Recent
findings and theoretical perspectives’, The Neuroscientist, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 160–172, doi:
10.1177/1073858406298184.
Thomas, MSC, Ansari, D, & Knowland, VCP, 2019, ‘Annual research review: Educational
neuroscience: Progress and prospects’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 60,
no. 4, pp. 477–492, doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12973.
Verhagen, P, 2006, Connectivism: A new learning theory? viewed 24 September 2020, Surf
e-learning themasite, http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793.
Visser, BA, Ashton, MC, & Vernon, PA, 2006, ‘Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences the-
ory to the test’, Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 487–502, doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.004.
Vygotsky, LS, 1978, Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes, eds. M Cole,
V John-Steiner, S Scribner, & E Souberman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
ISBN: 9780674576292.
Waterhouse, L, 2006, ‘Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect & emotional intelligence:
A critical review’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 207–225, doi: 10.1207/
s15326985ep4104_1.
Watson, JB, 1913, ‘Psychology as the behaviorist views it’, Psychological Review, vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 158–177, doi: 10.1037/h0074428.
Watson, JB, 1924, Behaviorism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ISBN: 393 00524 0.
Weiner, A, 1974, Achievement motivation and attribution theory, General Learning Press, Morris-
town, NJ, ISBN: 9780382250651.
Zhang, J, & Norman, DA, 1994, ‘Representations in distributed cognitive tasks’, Cognitive
Science, vol. 18, pp. 87–122, doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(94)90021-3.
Zhang, LF, & Sternberg, RJ, 2005, ‘A threefold model of intellectual styles’, Educational Psy-
chology Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–53, doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-1635-4.

28
References

1 The term ‘Indigenous’ in this chapter refers to Australians of both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
descent. ‘Non-Indigenous’ refers to all other Australians. Indigenous Australians constitute less than 3
per cent of the Australian population; about 1 per cent of Australian university students; and about 1 per
cent of Australian university teachers.
2 University of Melbourne Graduate Attributes, viewed 26 September 2020, <https://provost.unimelb.
edu.au/student-life/the-melbourne-graduate>.
3 University of Southern Queensland Graduate Attributes Policy, viewed 26 September 2020, <https://
policy.usq.edu.au/documents/18747PL>.
4 See, for example, Universities Australia’s 2019 list of Indigenous curriculum pro-
jects, viewed 26 September 2020, <www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/
u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 9 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 9 1 2 0 3 - P r i n c i p l e s - f o r- I n d i g e n o u s - c o u r s e - a c c r e d i t a t i o n - a n d - c u r
riculum.pdf> and the Good Practice Case Studies in Indigenous medical and health education from
Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand, viewed 26 September 2020, <www.limenetwork.net.au/
resources-lime-publications/good-practice-case-studies/>.
5 Caring for Country, Common Ground First Nations, viewed 26 September 2020, <www.commonground.
org.au/learn/caring-for-country-and-telling-stories>.
6 Verbatim comments from teachers in this chapter are drawn from Asmar’s research interviews with teach-
ers in Australian universities, unless otherwise specified. The teachers’ comments are available online,
with their permission. Viewed 26 September 2020, <www.indigenousteaching.com/teaching-exemplars>.
7 See Charles Darwin University’s Incorporating Indigenous Knowledges Guide, viewed 26 September 2020,
<http://libguides.cdu.edu.au/IndigenousEducation>.
8 Te Pūmoto o te Tangata Whenua, o te Taiao/Indigenous Knowledge and Science, viewed
24 September 2020, <www.wgtn.ac.nz/fhss/student-admin/course-outlines/2016/tri
mester-1/maor/maor302-2016-t1.pdf>.
9 The forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, as children, from their fami-
lies and communities by government, welfare or church authorities and their placing into institutional
or foster care.
10 See Diana Eades’ (1999) definition in ‘Aboriginal English’, on the University of Hawaii’s
Language Varieties website, viewed 26 September 2020, <http://www.hawaii.edu/sato
center/langnet/definitions/aboriginal.html>.
11 Terra nullius is Latin for ‘land belonging to no one’. British colonisation and later Australian land laws
were based on the claim that Australia was terra nullius, justifying acquisition by British occupation and
the denial of Indigenous people’s prior connection to the land. Viewed 26 September 2020, <https://
australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/mabo-native-title/>.
12 Viewed 26 September 2020, <www.batchelor.edu.au>.
13 Viewed 26 September 2020, <www.sbs.com.au/nitv>.
14 Viewed 26 September 2020, <www.abc.net.au>.
15 Viewed 26 September 2020, <www.abs.gov.au>.
16 Viewed 26 September 2020, <www.reconciliation.org.au/resources/>.
17 Historian Robert Manne (2009) describes the History Wars as ‘the bitter and still unresolved cultural
struggle over the nature of the Indigenous dispossession and the place it should assume in Australian
self-understanding’.
18 The Australian government’s controversial Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007,
a reaction to alleged child abuse in the Northern Territory.
19 For more on Bill’s role-play, see ‘Transformative Pedagogy’, viewed 26 September 2020, <www.indige-
nousteaching.com/pdf/BillGenat.pdf >.
20 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC), viewed 24
September 2020 <https://natsihec.edu.au/members/indigenous-units/>.
21 For appropriate wording, see Reconciliation Australia, viewed 26 September 2020, <www.reconciliation.
org.au>.
Ambrose, S, Bridges, M, Di Pietro, M, Lovette, M, & Norman, K, 2010, How learning works: Seven research-based
principles for smart teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, doi: 10.1111.teth.12013.
Angelo, T, 2017, ‘Assessing motivation to improve learning: Practical applications for Keller’s MVP model
and ARCS-V design process’, New Directions for Teaching & Learning, vol. 2017, no. 152, pp. 99–108, doi:
10.1002/tl.20272.
Angelo, T, & Cross, K, 1993, Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers, 2nd edn, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) 2012, VALUE: Valid assessment of learning in under-
graduate education, Washington, DC, viewed 8 September 2020, www.aacu.org/value/rubrics.
Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) Council, 2013, Australian qualifications framework, 2nd edn, Min-
isterial Council on Tertiary Education and Employment, South Australia, viewed 8 September 2020, www.
aqf.edu.au.
Bain, K, 2004, What the best college teachers do, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Barkley, E, Major, C, & Cross, K, 2014, Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty, 2nd edn,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Biggs, J, 2003, ‘Aligning teaching for constructing learning’, The Higher Education Academy, viewed 8 Septem-
ber 2020, www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/id477_aligning_teaching_for_construct-
ing_learning.pdf.
Biggs, J, & Tang, C, 2011, Teaching for quality learning at university, 4th edn, Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Boud, D, & Molloy, E, 2012, Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well, Rou-
tledge, New York, doi: 10.4324/9780203074336.
Bowen, J, 2012, Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Brown, P, Roediger, H, & McDaniel M, 2014, Make it stick: The science of successful learning, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), 2018, Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2, viewed
8 September 2020, http://udlguidelines.cast.org.
Chasteen, S, Perkins, K, Beale, P, Pollock, S, & Weiman, C, 2011, ‘A thoughtful approach to instruction:
Course transformation for the rest of us’, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 24–30,
viewed 8 September 2020, www.cwsei.ubc.ca/SEI_research/files/Physics/Chasteen_CourseTransforma-
tion_JCST2011.pdf.
Covington, M, von Hoene, L, & Voge, D, 2017, Life beyond grades: Designing college courses to promote intrinsic
motivation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Davis, B, 2009, Tools for teaching, 2nd edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Dawson, P, Henderson, M, Mahoney, P, Phillips, M, Ryan, T, Boud, D, & Molloy, E, 2019, ‘What makes for
effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 44, no.
1, pp. 25–36, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877.
Diamond, R, 2008, Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide, 3rd edn, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Dunlosky, J, 2013, ‘Strengthening the student toolbox: Study strategies to boost learning’, American Educator,
vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 12–21, viewed 8 September 2020, www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/dunlosky.
pdf.
Dunlosky, J, Rawson, K, Marsh, J, Nathan, M, & Willingham, D, 2013, ‘Improving students’ learning with
effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology’, Psycho-
logical Science in the Public Interest, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4–58, doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266.
Ericsson, K, 2008, ‘Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A gen-
eral overview’, Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 988–994, doi: 10.1111/
j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x.
European Union Tuning Project, n.d., ‘Approaches to teaching learning and assessment in competences
based degree programmes’, Tuning educational structures in Europe, viewed 8 September 2020, www.unide-
usto.org/tuningeu/teaching-learning-a-assessment.html.
Fink, L, 2013, Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses, 2nd edn,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Freeman, S, Eddy, S, McDonough, M, Smith, M, Okoroafor, N, Jordt, H, & Wenderoth, M, 2014, ‘Active learn-
ing increases achievement in science, engineering and mathematics’, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS), vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Gibbs, G, 1999, ‘Improving teaching, learning and assessment’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, vol.
23, no. 2, pp. 147–155, doi: 10.1080/03098269985425
Gross, D, Pietri, E, Anderson, G, Movano-Camihort, K, & Graham, M, 2015, ‘Increased preclass preparation
underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom’, CBE-Life Sciences Education, vol. 14, no.
4, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-02-0040.
Handelsman, J, Miller, S, & Pfund, C, 2007, Scientific teaching, Freeman, New York.
Hattie, J, 2009, Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge, New York.
Hattie, J, & Yates, G, 2014, Visible learning and the science of how we learn, Routledge, New York.
Holdsworth, A, Watty, K, & Davies, M, 2009, Developing capstone experiences, Centre for the Study of Higher Edu-
cation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, viewed 8 September 2020, http://hdl.handle.net/10536/
DRO/DU:30033379.
Innis, K, 1996, Diary survey: How undergraduate full-time students spend their time, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Leeds.
Kennedy, D, 2007, Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide, University College Cork, Cork, viewed
8 September 2020, https://cora.ucc.ie/handle/10468/1613.
Lang, J, 2016, Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Mayhew, M, Rockenbach, A, Bowman, N, Seifert, T, Wolniak, G, Pascarella, E, & Terenzini, P, 2016, How college
affects students, vol. 3: 21st century evidence that higher education works, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Morisano, D, Hirsh, J, Peterson, J, Pihl, R, & Shore, B, 2010, ‘Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal
goals improves academic performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 255–264, doi:
10:1037/a0018478.
Nicol, D, & Macfarlane-Dick, D, 2007, ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and
seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 199–218, doi:
10.1080/03075070600572090.
Nilson, L, 2013, Creating self-regulating learners: Strategies to strengthen students’ self-awareness and learning skills,
Stylus, Sterling.
Nilson, L, & Goodson, L, 2018, Online teaching at its best: Merging instructional design with teaching and learning
research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Perkins, D, & Salomon, G, 2012, ‘Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional
view of transfer’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 248–258, doi: 10.1080/
00461520.2012.693354.
Rhodes, T (ed.) 2010, Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics, American
Association of Colleges & Universities, Washington, DC.
Schneider, M, & Preckel, F, 2017, ‘Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic
review of meta-analyses’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 565–600, doi: 10.1037/bul0000098.
Shnabel, N, Purdie-Vaughns, V, Cook, J, Garcia, J, & Cohen, G, 2013, ‘Demystifying values affirmation inter-
ventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity threat’, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 663–676, doi: 10.1177/0146167213480816.
Svinicki, M, 2004, Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom, Anker Press, Bolton.
Svinicki, M, 2016, ‘Motivation: An updated analysis’, IDEA Paper, no. 59, The IDEA Center, Manhattan, KS,
viewed 8 September 2020, www.ideaedu.org/idea_papers/motivation-an-updated-analysis/.
Svinicki, M, & McKeachie, W, 2014, McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and univer-
sity teachers, 14th edn, Wadsworth, Belmont.
Theobald, E, Hill, M, Tran, E, Agrawal, S, Arroyo, E, Behling, S, Chambwe, N, Cintron, D, Cooper, J, Dunster,
G, Grummer, J, Hennessey, K, Hsiao, J, Iranon, N, Jones, L, Jordt, H, Keller, M, Lacey, M, Littlefield, C,
Lowe, A, Newman, S, Okolo, V, Savannah, O, Peecook, B, Pickett, S, Slager, D, Caviedes-Solis, I, Stanchak,
K, Sundaravardan, V, Valdebenito, C, Williams, C, Zinslii, K, & Freeman, S, 2020, ‘Active learning narrows
achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering,
and math’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), vol. 117, no. 12, pp. 6476–6483, doi:
10.1073/pnas.1916903117.
Vai, M, & Sosulski, K, 2016, Essentials of online course design: A standards-based guide, 2nd edn, Routledge, New
York.
Wiggins, G, 2012, ‘Seven keys to effective feedback’, Educational Leadership, vol. 70, no, 1,
pp. 10–16, viewed 8 September 2020, www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leader
ship/sept12/vol70/num01/Seven-Keys-to-Effective-Feedback.aspx.
Wiggins, G, & McTighe, J, 2005, Understanding by design, 2nd edn, Association for Supervision and Curricu-
lum Design, Alexandria.
Wright, G, 2011, ‘Student-centered learning in higher education’, International Journal of Teaching and Learn-
ing in Higher Education, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 92–97, viewed 8 September 2020, www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/
IJTLHE834.pdf.
Zhadko, O, & Ko, S, 2020, Best practices in designing classes with open educational resources, Routledge, New York.
Aditomo, A, Goodyear, P, Bliuc, A, & Ellis, R, 2013, ‘Inquiry-based learning in higher education: Princi-
pal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 9,
pp. 1239–1258, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.616584.
Apple, M, 2004, Ideology and curriculum, 3rd edn, RoutledgeFalmer, New York.
Baik, C, Larcombe, W, Brooker, A, Wyn, J, Allen, L, Brett, M, Field, R, & James, R, 2017,
Enhancing student mental wellbeing: A handbook for academic educators, Australian Gov-
ernment Department of Education and Training, viewed 9 September 2020, https://
melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2408604/MCSHE-Student-
Wellbeing-Handbook-FINAL.pdf.
Bernstein, B, 2000, Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique, Rowman & Littlefield Pub-
lishers, Lanham, MD.
Biggs, J, & Tang C, 2011, Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does, 4th edn, Open Univer-
sity Press, Maidenhead, England.
Billett, S, & Henderson, A, 2011, Developing learning professionals: Integrating experiences in university and practice
settings, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3937-8.
Boud, D, & Feletti, G, 1997, The challenge of problem based learning, 2nd edn, Kogan Page, London.
Bransford, J, 2000, How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, National Academy Press, Washington,
DC.
Buzzetto-More, NA, 2013, ‘Models to inform capstone program development’, Issues in Informing Science and
Information Technology, vol. 10, pp. 81–93.
Case, J, 2016, ‘Higher education and social justice: Asking the “education questions” ’, in Higher education close
up 8, Lancaster, England, 18–20 July 2016, viewed 10 September 2020, www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/
hecu8/docs/ThinkPieces/Case.pdf.
CLAYSS, 2020, CLAYSS: Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario, viewed 4 July 2020, www.
clayss.org.ar/english/publications-clayss.html.
Darling-Hammond, L, & Bransford, J (eds.) 2007, Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should
learn and be able to do, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Dewey, J, 1956, The school and society & the child and the curriculum, Reprint, Dover, New York, 2001.
Downes, S, 2020, ‘Recent work in connectivism’, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, vol. 22, no.
2, pp. 113–132, doi: 10.2478/eurodl-2019-0014.
Freire, P, 2000, Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th edn, Continuum, New York.
Fung, D, 2017, A connected curriculum for higher education, UCL Press, London, doi: 10.14324/
111.9781911576358.
Harvey, A, & Russell-Mundine, G, 2019, ‘Decolonising the curriculum: Using graduate qualities to embed
Indigenous knowledges at the academic cultural interface’, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 6,
pp. 789–808, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1508131.
Herrington, J, Reeves, T, & Oliver, R, 2010, A guide to authentic e-learning, Routledge, New York.
Hill, A, Salter, P, & Halbert, K, 2018, ‘The critical global citizen’, in T Hall, T Gray, G Downey, & M Singh
(eds.), The globalisation of higher education: Developing internationalised education research and practice, Pal-
grave Macmillan, Sydney, pp. 103–116, doi: 443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-3-319-74579-4_6.
Hill, C, & Lawton, W, 2018, ‘Universities, the digital divide and global inequality’, Jour-
nal of Higher Education Policy & Management, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 598–610, doi: 10.1080/
1360080X.2018.1531211.
hooks, b, 2003, Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope, Routledge, New York.
Kolb, D, 1984, Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs.
Lasen, M, Evans, S, Tsey, K, Campbell, C, & Kinchin, I, 2018, ‘Quality of WIL assessment design in higher edu-
cation: A systematic literature review’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 788–804,
doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1450359.
Lawson, R, Taylor, T, French, E, Fallshaw, E, Hall, Kinash, S, & Summers, J, 2015, ‘Hunting and gathering:
New imperatives in mapping and collecting student learning data to assure quality outcomes’, Higher Edu-
cation Research and Development, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 581–595, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.911249.
Madden, B, 2019, ‘A de/colonizing theory of truth and reconciliation education’, Curriculum Inquiry, vol. 49,
no. 3, pp. 284–312, doi: 10.1080/03626784.2019.1624478.
Matthews, KE, Cook-Sather, A, & Healey, M, 2018, ‘Connecting learning, teaching, and research through
student – staff partnerships: Toward universities as egalitarian learning communities’, in VH Tong,
A Standen, & M Sotiriou (eds.), Shaping higher education with students, UCL Press, London, pp. 23–29, doi:
10.2307/j.ctt21c4tcm.7.
Meyers, NM, & Nulty, D, 2009, ‘How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic learning
environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning outcomes’, Assessment and Eval-
uation in Higher Education, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 565–577, doi: 10.1080/02602930802226502.
Montessori, M, 1964, The Montessori Method: Scientific pedagogy as applied to child education in the Children’s
Houses, Bentley, Cambridge, MA.
Oliver, B, & Whelan, B, 2011, ‘Designing an e-portfolio for assurance of learning focusing on adoptability
and learning analytics’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1026–1041, doi:
10.14742/ajet.927.
Oliver, R, 2008, ‘Engaging first year students using a web-supported inquiry-based learning setting’, Higher
Education, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 285–301, doi: 10.1007/s10734-007-9055-7.
Olssen, M, & Peters, MA, 2007, ‘Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From
the free market to knowledge capitalism’, Journal of Education Policy, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 313–345, doi:
10.1080/02680930500108718.
Patrick, CJ, Peach, D, Pocknee, C, Webb, F, Fletcher, M, & Pretto, G, 2008, The WIL (Work Integrated Learning)
report: A national scoping study [Final Report], Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, viewed 9
September, 2020, https://eprints.qut.edu.au/44065/.
Shulman, LS, 2005, ‘Signature pedagogies in the professions’, Daedalus, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 52–59.
Siemens, G, & Gráinne, C, 2011, ‘Special issue – connectivism: Design and delivery of social networked learn-
ing: Editorial’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [online], vol. 12, no. 3, doi:
10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.994.
Symes, C, & McIntyre, J, 2002, ‘Working knowledge: An introduction to the new business of learning’, in
Working knowledge: The new vocationalism and higher education, Society for Research into Higher Education,
Open University Press, Maindenhead, England, pp. 1–13.
Taylor, C, 1983, ‘The significance of significance: The case for cognitive psychology’, in S Mitchell & M Rosen
(eds.), The need for interpretation: Contemporary conceptions of the philosopher’s task, Bloomsbury, London,
pp. 141–169.
Thorndike, E, 1905, The elements of psychology, AG Seiler, New York, doi: 10.1037/10881-000.
van Acker, L, & Bailey, J, 2011, ‘Embedding graduate skills in capstone courses’, Asian Social Science, vol. 7, no.
4, pp. 69–76, doi: 10.5539/ass.v7n4p69.
Vygotsky, L, 1978, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Wiggins, G, & Mctighe, J, 2005, Understanding by design, 2nd edn, Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, VA.
Wijngaards-de Meij, L, & Merx, S, 2018, ‘Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning goals by
making the curriculum visible’, International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 219–231,
doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2018.1462187.
Zeichner, K, & Wray, S, 2001, ‘The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know
and what we need to know’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 613–621, doi: 10.1016/
S0742-051X(01)00017-8.
Zocco, D, 2011, ‘A recursive process model for AACSB assurance of learning’, Academy of Educational Leader-
ship Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 67–91.
Barker, P, & McLaren, A, 2005, Teaching first year design by mechanical dissection, Higher Edu-
cation Academy Engineering Subject Centre, Loughborough, viewed 6 April 2020,
h t t p s : / / r e p o s i t o r y. l b o r o . a c . u k / a r t i c l e s / Te a c h i n g _ F i r s t _ Ye a r _ d e s i g n _ b y _ m e c h a n i c a l _
dissection/9488069.
Barnett, RA, 2000, Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity, Society for Research into Higher Educa-
tion (SRHE) & Open University Press, Buckingham.
Barnett, RA, 2007, A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty, Society for Research into Higher Edu-
cation (SRHE) & Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Becher, T, 1989, Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of discipline, Society for
Research into Higher Education (SRHE) & Open University Press, Buckingham.
Becher, T, & Trowler, P, 2001, Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines, 2nd
edn, Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) & Open University Press, Buckingham.
Blackmore, P (ed.) 2010, The King’s-Warwick project: Creating a 21st century curriculum,
King’s College Institute, London, viewed 6 April 2020, www.academia.edu/38692148/
Creating_a_21st_Century_Curriculum_The_King_s-Warwick_Project.
Bradley, JP, Daniels, LF, & Jones, TC (eds.) 1969, The international dictionary of thoughts: An encyclopedia of quo-
tations from every age for every occasion, JG Ferguson Publishing Co, Chicago.
Brodie, L, 2012, ‘Problem based learning’, in L Hunt & D Chalmers (eds.), University teaching in focus:
A learner-centred approach, Routledge, London, pp. 145–163, doi: 10.4324/9780203079690.
Brown, S, & Race, P, 2012, ‘Using effective assessment to promote learning’, in L Hunt & D Chalm-
ers (eds.), University teaching in focus: A learner-centred approach, Routledge, London, pp. 74–91, doi:
0.4324/9780203079690
Chalmers, D, & Partridge, L, 2012, ‘Teaching graduate attributes and academic skills’, in L Hunt & D Chal-
mers (eds.), University teaching in focus: A learner-centred approach. Routledge, London, pp. 56–73, doi:
0.4324/9780203079690.
Cousin, G, 2008, ‘Threshold concepts: Old wine in new bottles or new forms of transactional curriculum
inquiry?’, in R Land, JHF Meyer, & J Smith (eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines, Sense Publishers,
Rotterdam & Taipei, pp. 261–272, doi: 10.1163/9789460911477.
Cousin, G, 2009, Researching learning in higher education. An introduction to contemporary methods and approaches,
Routledge, New York & London, doi: 10.4324/9780203884584.
Cousin, G, 2010, ‘Neither teacher-centred nor student-centred: Threshold concepts and research’, Journal of
Learning Development in Higher Education, no. 2, February, pp. 1–9.
Davies, P, & Mangan, J, 2008, ‘Embedding threshold concepts: From theory to pedagogical principles to
learning activities’, in R Land, JHF Meyer, & J Smith (eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines, Sense
Publishers, Rotterdam & Taipei, pp. 37–50, doi: 10.1163/9789460911477.
Donald, JG, 2009, ‘The commons: Disciplinary and interdisciplinary encounters’, in C Kreber (ed.), The
university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond university boundaries, Routledge, New
York & London, pp. 35–48, doi: 10.4324/9780203892596.
Entwistle, N, 2007, ‘Conceptions of learning and the experience of understanding: Thresholds, contextual
influences and knowledge objects’, in S Vosniadou, A Baltas, & Z Vamvakoussi (eds.), Reframing the concep-
tual change approach in learning and instruction, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 123–144.
Fielden, J, 2007, Global horizons for UK universities, The Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE),
London.
Flanagan, M, n.d., Threshold concepts: Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate training and professional development.
A short introduction and bibliography, www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html
Henkel, M, 2000, Academic identities and policy change in higher education, Jessica Kingsley, London &
Philadelphia.
Hermida, J, n.d., Signature pedagogies in the professions, viewed 6 April 2020, www.julianher
mida.com/algoma/scotlsignaturepedagogy.htm.
Hokstad, LM, Rødne, G, Braaten, BO, Wellinger S, & Shetelig, F, 2016, ‘Transformative learning in architec-
tural education: Re-thinking architecture and the education of architecture’, in R Land, JHF Meyer, &
MT Flanagan (eds.), Threshold concepts in practice, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Boston, MA & Taipei,
pp. 321–333, doi: 10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8.
Humboldt, W Von, 1970, ‘On the spirit and organisational framework of intellectual institutions in Berlin’,
Minerva, vol. 8, pp. 242–267.
Hunt, L, Chalmers, D, & Macdonald, R, 2012, ‘Effective classroom teaching’, in L Hunt & D Chalm-
ers (eds.), University teaching in focus: A learner-centred approach. Routledge, London, pp. 21–37, doi:
10.4324/9780203079690.
Jenkins, A, & Healey, M, 2012, ‘Research-led or research-based undergraduate curricula’, in L Hunt & D
Chalmers (eds.), University teaching in focus: A learner-centred approach. Routledge, London, pp. 128–144,
doi: 0.4324/9780203079690.
Kinchin, IM, Cabot, LB, & Hay, DB, 2010, ‘Visualizing expertise: Revealing the nature of a threshold concept
in the development of an authentic pedagogy for clinical education’, in JHF Meyer, R Land, & C Baillie
(eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam &Taipei, pp. 81–95,
doi: 10.1163/9789460912078.
Kinchin, I, & Hay, DB, 2000, ‘How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning
by illustrating patterns of conceptual development’, Educational Research, vol. 42, no. 1, Spring, pp. 43–57,
doi: 10.1080/001318800363908.
Knight, DB, Callaghan, DC, Baldock, T, & Meyer, JHF, 2013, ‘Identifying threshold concepts: Case study of an
open catchment hydraulics course’, European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 125–142,
doi: 10.1080/03043797.2013.833175.
Knights, M, 2011, Politics, literature and ideas in Stuart England, Department of History, University of Warwick,
Coventry, viewed 6 April 2020, https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/people/staff_index/mknight/
Kreber, C (ed.) 2009, The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond university bound-
aries, Routledge, New York & London, doi: 10.1080/13562510903414747.
Land, R, Meyer, JHF, & Flanagan, MT (eds.) 2016, Threshold concepts in practice, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam,
Boston, MA & Taipei, doi: 10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8.
Land, R, Meyer JHF, & Smith, J (eds.) 2008, Threshold concepts within the disciplines, Sense Publishers, Rotter-
dam & Taipei, doi: 10.1163/9789460911477.
Mackay, DB, & Eva, N, 2016, ‘Information literacy and liberal education: From Google to scholarly sources’,
in R Land, JHF Meyer, & MT Flanagan (eds.), Threshold concepts in practice, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam,
Boston, MA & Taipei, pp. 229–238, doi: 10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8.
Martin, PW, 2003, ‘Key aspects of teaching and learning in arts, humanities and social sciences’, in H Fry,
S Ketteridge, & S Marshal (eds.), A handbook for teaching & learning in higher education, 2nd edn, Kogan
Page, London & Sterling, VA, pp. 301–323.
Marton, F, 2010, ‘Personal communication to the Steering Committee of the Australian Learning and Teach-
ing Council Project: A threshold concepts focus to curriculum design: Supporting student learning
through application of variation theory’, EARLI 2009 Conference, 25 August, Free University, Amster-
dam, cited in JHF Meyer, R Land, & C Baillie (eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning, Sense
Publishers, Rotterdam & Taipei, p. xxiii, doi: 10.1163/9789460912078
Matthew, RGS, & Pritchard, J, 2009, ‘Hard and soft – a useful way of thinking about disciplines? Reflections
from engineering education on professional identities’, in C Kreber (ed.), The university and its disciplines:
Teaching and learning within and beyond university boundaries, Routledge, New York & London, pp. 58–68,
doi: 10.1080/13562510903414747.
McCune, V, & Hounsell, D, 2005, ‘The development of students’ ways of thinking and practising in three
final-year biology courses’, Higher Education, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 235–255, doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6666-0.
McLeod, A, & Dziegiel, A, 2011, Five steps to great collaboration. Knowledge Centre, University of Warwick,
Coventry.
Meyer, JHF, Knight, DB, Baldock, TE, Callaghan, DP, McCredden, J, & O’Moore, L, 2016, ‘What to do with
a threshold concept: A case study’, in R Land, JHF Meyer, & MT Flanagan (eds.), Threshold concepts in
practice, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Boston, MA & Taipei, pp. 195–207, doi: 10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8.
Meyer, JHF, & Land, R, 2003, ‘Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge – linkages to ways of thinking
and practising’, in C Rust (ed.), Improving student learning – ten years on, OCSLD, Oxford, pp. 412–424.
Meyer, JHF, & Land, R, 2005, ‘Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considera-
tions and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning’, Higher Education, vol. 49, pp. 373–388, doi:
10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5.
Meyer, JHF, & Land, R (eds.) 2006, Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and trouble-
some knowledge, Routledge, London & New York, doi: 10.4324/9780203966273.
Meyer, JHF, Land, R, & Baillie, C (eds.) 2010, Threshold concepts and transformational learning, Sense Publishers,
Rotterdam &Taipei, doi: 10.1163/9789460912078.
Middendorf, J, & Pace, D, 2004, ‘Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn disciplinary
ways of thinking’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 98, pp. 1–12, doi: 10.1002/tl.142.
Pang, M, & Marton, F, 2005, ‘Learning theory as teaching resource: Enhancing students’ understanding of
economic concepts’, Instructional Science, 33(2), pp. 159–191, doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-2811-0.
Peel, D, 2011, ‘Signature pedagogies and the built environment’, Journal for education in the built environment,
vol. 6, no. 2, December 2011, pp. 1–7, doi: 10.11120/jebe.2011.06020001.
Perkins, D, 2006, ‘Constructivism and troublesome knowledge’, in JHF Meyer & R Land (eds.), 2006, Over-
coming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, Routledge, London &
New York, pp. 33–47, doi: 10.4324/9780203966273.
Poole, G, 2009, ‘Academic disciplines: Home or barricades?’, in C Kreber (ed.), The university and its dis-
ciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond university boundaries, Routledge, New York & London,
pp. 50–57, doi: 10.1080/13562510903414747.
Ross, PM, Taylor, CE, Hughes, C, Kofod, M, Whitaker, N, Lutze-Mann, L, & Tzioumis, V, 2010, ‘Threshold
concepts: Challenging the way we think, teach and learn in Biology’, in JHF Meyer, R Land, & C Baillie
(eds.), Threshold concepts and transformational learning, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam & Taipei, pp. 165–178,
doi: 10.1163/9789460912078.
Shulman, LS, 2005a, ‘Pedagogies of uncertainty’, Liberal Education, no. 91, pp. 18–25.
Shulman, LS, 2005b, ‘The signature pedagogies of the professions of law, medicine, engineering, and the
clergy: Potential lessons for the education of teachers’, Teacher education for effective teaching and learning
workshop, NRC, Irving, CA, viewed 6 April 2020, www.taylorprograms.com/images/Shulman_Signature_
Pedagogies.pdf.
Shulman, LS, 2005c, ‘Signature pedagogies in the professions’, Daedalus, vol. 134, no. 3, American Academy
of Arts & Science, pp. 52–59.
Strathern, M, 2008, ‘Knowledge identities’, in R Barnett & R di Napoli (eds.), Changing identities in higher
education: Voicing perspectives, Routledge, London & New York, pp. 9–20, doi: 10.4324/9780203944905.
Taylor, C, 2008, ‘Threshold concepts, troublesome knowledge and ways of thinking and practising – can we
tell the difference in Biology?’, in R Land, JHF Meyer, & J Smith (eds.), Threshold concepts within the disci-
plines, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam and Taipei, pp. 185–196, doi: 10.1163/9789460911477.
Timmermans, JA, & Land, R (eds.) 2020, Threshold concepts on the edge, Sense Publishers, Leiden & Boston,
MA, doi: 10.1163/9789004419971.
Townsend, L, Brunetti, K, & Hofer, A, 2011, ‘Threshold concepts and information literacy’, Portal: Libraries
and the Academy, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 853–869, doi: 10.1353/pla.2011.0030.
Trigwell, K, 2012, ‘Scholarship of teaching and learning’, in L Hunt & D Chalmers (eds.), University teaching
in focus: A learner-centred approach, Routledge, London, pp. 253–267, doi: 10.4324/9780203079690.
Wenger, E, 1998, Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803932.
Al-Busaidi, S, Aldhafri, S, & Büyükyavuz, O, 2016, ‘Effective university instructors as per-
ceived by Turkish and Omani university students’, SAGE Open, 1–8, doi: 10.1177/
2158244016662900.
Angelo, TA, & Cross, KP, 1993, Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers, 2nd edn, Jos-
sey-Bass, San Francisco.
Bain, K, 2004, What the best college teachers do, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ballantyne, R, Bain, J, & Packer, J, 1997, Reflecting on university teaching academics’ stories, Australian Govern-
ment Publishing Service, Canberra.
Barnett, R, 2000, Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Barnett, R, 2007, A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty, Society for Research into Higher Edu-
cation & Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Bertola, P, & Murphy, E, 1994, Tutoring at university: A beginner’s practical guide, Centre for Educational
Advancement, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA.
Biggs, J, & Tang, C, 2007, Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd edn, Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Boda, Z, Elmer, T, Vörös, A, & Stadtfeld, C, 2020, ‘Short-term and long-term effects of a social network inter-
vention on friendships among university students’, Scientific Reports, vol. 10, article number 2889, viewed
21 September 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59594-z.
Brabazon, H, 2020, ‘The academy’s neoliberal response to COVID-19: Why faculty should be wary and how
we can push back’, Academic Matters: OCUFA’s Journal of Higher Education, viewed 21 September 2020,
https://academicmatters.ca/neoliberal-response-to-covid-19/
Brookfield, SD, 2006, The skillful teacher: On technique, trust and responsiveness in the classroom, 2nd edn, Jos-
sey-Bass, San Francisco.
Bruff, D, 2009, Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Cho, YH, Lee, SY, Jeong, DW, Im, SJ, Choi, EJ, Lee, SH, Baek, SY, Kim, YJ, Lee, JG, Yi, YH, Bae, MJ, & Yune,
SJ, 2012, ‘Analysis of questioning technique during classes in medical education’, BMC Medical Educa-
tion, vol. 12, Article number 39, viewed 21 September 2020, https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/
articles/10.1186/1472-6920-12-39.
Cowan, J, 2006, On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action, 2nd edn, Society for Research
into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Cranton, 2006, Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults, 2nd edn,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Devlin, M, & Samarawickrema, G, 2010, ‘The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education con-
text’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 111–124, doi: 10.1080/07294360903244398.
Entwistle, N, Skinner, D, Entwistle, D, & Orr, S, 2000, ‘Conceptions and beliefs about “good teaching”:
An integration of contrasting research areas’, Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 5–26, doi: 10.1080/07294360050020444.
Fulford, A, & Mahon, Á, 2020, ‘A philosophical defence of the university lecture’, Oxford Review of Education,
vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 363–374, doi: 10.1080/03054985.2019.1702013
Heng, K, 2014, ‘The effects of faculty behaviors on the academic achievement of first-year Cambodian
urban university students’, Educational Research for Policy and Practice, vol. 13, pp. 233–250, doi: 10.1007/
s10671-013-9159-z
Hunt, L, Chalmers, D, & Macdonald, R, 2012, ‘Effective classroom teaching’, in L Hunt & D Chalmers (eds.),
University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach, 1st edn, Routledge, London, pp. 21–37.
Kember, D, 1997, ‘A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching’,
Learning and Instruction, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 255–275, doi: 10.1016/s0959-4752(96)00028-x.
Kember, D, & McNaught, C, 2007, Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from research into award winning teach-
ers, Routledge, London.
Lang, J, 2016, Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Loes, CN, An, BP, & Pascarella, ET, 2019, ‘Does effective classroom instruction enhance bachelor’s degree
completion? Some initial evidence’, The Review of Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 903–931, doi:
10.1353/rhe.2019.0024.
McWilliam, E, 2008, ‘Unlearning how to teach’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 45, no.
3, pp. 263–269, doi: 10.1080/14703290802176147.
Nilson, L, 2016, Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors, 4th edn,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Prosser, M, & Trigwell, K, 1999, Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education, Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Radmehr, F, Laban, W, Overton, J, & Bakker, L, 2020, ‘Student perceptions of effective lec-
turers: The need to recognise the role of ethnicity and choice of discipline’, Higher Edu-
cation Research & Development, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 302–317, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2019.
1674789.
Ramsden, P, 2003, Learning to teach in higher education, 2nd edn, RoutledgeFalmer, London.
Rice, G, 2018, Hitting pause: 65 lecture breaks to refresh and reinforce learning, Stylus, Sterling, VA.
Ruhl, KL, Hughes, CA, & Schloss, PJ, 1987, ‘Using the pause procedure to enhance lec-
ture recall’, Teacher Education and Special Education, vol. 10, pp. 14–18, doi: 10.1177/
088840648701000103.
Schott, C, & Sutherland, KA, 2009, ‘Engaging tourism students through multimedia teaching and active learn-
ing’, Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 351–371, doi: 10.1080/15313220903047987.
Schwartz, HL, 2019, Connected teaching: Relationship, power, and mattering in higher education, Stylus, Sterling,
VA.
Su, F, & Wood, M, 2012, What makes a good university lecturer? Students’ perceptions of teaching excellence’,
Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 142–155, doi: 10.1108/17581181211273110.
Zenger, J, & Folkman, J, 2016, ‘What great listeners actually do’, Harvard Business Review, viewed 21 Septem-
ber 2020, https://hbr.org/2016/07/what-great-listeners-actually-do.
Bloxham, S, & Boyd, P, 2007, ‘Developing effective assessment’, in Higher education: A practi-
cal guide, McGraw-Hill International/Open University Press, Maidenhead, doi: 10.1080/
03069400903541476.
Boud, D, 1995, Enhancing learning through self-assessment, Routledge, Abingdon.
Boud, D, & Molloy, E, 2013, ‘Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design’, Assess-
ment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 698–712.doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.
Brown, S, 2015, Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education: Global perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Brown, S, Rust, C, & Gibbs, G, 1994, Strategies for diversifying assessment, Oxford Centre for Staff Development,
Oxford.
Brown, S, & Sambell, K, 2020a, Contingency planning: Exploring rapid alternatives to face to
face assessment, viewed August 2020, https://sally-brown.net/2020/03/13/assessment-
alternatives-at-a-time-of-university-closures/.
Brown, S, & Sambell, K, 2020b, Fifty tips for correct replacements for time-constrained, invigilated
on-site exams, viewed August 2020, https://sally-brown.net/2020/04/02/kay-sambell-sal
ly-brown-coronavirus-contingency-suggestions-for-replacing-on-site-exams/
Brown, S, & Sambell, K, 2020c, Writing better assignments in the Post-Covid19 era: Approaches
to good task design, viewed August 2020, https://sally-brown.net/2020/08/20/swantons-
sketchnote-of-sambell-and-sallys-stuff/.
Dawson, P, & Sutherland-Smith, W, 2019, ‘Can training improve marker accuracy at detecting contract
cheating? A multi-disciplinary pre-post study’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 44, no. 5,
pp. 715–725, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1531109.
Firth, R, Cochrane, R, Sambell, K, & Brown, S, 2017, ‘Using a simple feedback stamp to provide incremen-
tal feedback on work-in-progress in the art design process’, Edinburgh Napier, DLTE Quick Guide Series,
viewed August 2020, http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/dlte/Pages/QuickGuides.aspx
Flint, NR, & Johnson, B, 2011, Towards fairer university assessment – recognising the concerns of students, Rout-
ledge, London, doi: 10.4324/9780203836705.
Glynn, M, & O’Riordan, F, 2018, Academic integrity for quality teaching and learning in higher education insti-
tutions in Georgia, DCU Teaching Enhancement Unit, viewed August 2020, https://teuintegrityproject.
wordpress.com/.
Huxham, M, 2007, ‘Fast and effective feedback: Are model answers the answer?’, Assess-
ment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 601–611, doi: 10.1080/
02602930601116946.
Joughin, G, 2010, A short guide to oral assessment, Leeds Met Press, Leeds.
Newton, PM, 2018, How common is commercial contract cheating in higher education and is it increasing? A systematic
review, viewed August 2020, www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2018.00067/full.
Race, P, 2020, The lecturer’s toolkit, 5th edn, Routledge, Abingdon, ISBN: 9780429060205.
Sadler, DR, 1989, ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional Science, vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 119–144, doi: 10.1007/bf00117714.
Sambell, K, & Brown, S, 2020, The changing landscape of assessment: Some possible replace-
ments for unseen, time-constrained, face-to-face invigilated exams, viewed August 2020, https://
sally-brown.net/2020/04/02/kay-sambell-sally-brown-coronavirus-contingency-sugges
tions-for-replacing-on-site-exams/.
Sambell, K, Brown, S, & Graham, L, 2017, Professionalism in practice: Key directions in higher education learning,
teaching and assessment, Springer, New York.
Sambell, K, Brown, S, & Race, P, 2017, Helping students appreciate what’s expected of them in assessment: Develop-
ing students’ assessment literacy, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, viewed August 2020, https://
staff.napier.ac.uk/services/dlte/Pages/QuickGuides.aspx.
Sambell, K, Brown, S, & Race, P, 2019, ‘Assessment to support student learning: Eight challenges for 21st cen-
tury practice’, AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 2.
Sambell, K, McDowell, L, & Montgomery, C, 2012, Assessment for learning in higher education, Routledge,
Abingdon, doi: 10.4324/9780203818268.
Tai, J, Ajjawi, R, Boud, D, Dawson, P, & Panadero, E, 2018, ‘Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling
students to make decisions about the quality of work’, Higher Education, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 467–481, doi:
10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3.
Winstone, N, & Carless, D, 2020, Designing effective feedback processes in higher education, – a learning focused
approach, Routledge, London, doi: 10.4324/9781351115940.
Adam, L, 2016, ‘Student perspectives on plagiarism’, in T Bretag (ed.), Handbook of academic integrity, Springer,
Singapore, doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_67.
Adam, L, Anderson, V, & Spronken-smith, R, 2017, ‘It’s not fair’: Policy discourses and students’ under-
standings of plagiarism in a New Zealand university’, Higher Education, vol. 74, pp. 17–32, doi: 10.1007/
s10734-016-0025-9.
Austin, Z, Collins, D, Remillard, A, Kelcher, S, & Chuia, S, 2006, ‘Influence of attitudes toward curriculum on
dishonest academic behavior’, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 70, pp. 1–9, doi: 10.5688/
aj700350.
Austin, Z, Simpson, S, & Reynen, E, 2005, ‘ “The fault lies not in our students, but in ourselves”: Academic
honesty and moral development in health professions education – results of a pilot study in Canadian
pharmacy’, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 10, pp. 143–156, doi: 10.1080/1356251042000337918.
Baró-solé, X, Guerrero-Roldan, AE, Prieto-Blázquez, J, Rozeva, A, Marinov, O, Kiennert, C, Rocher, PO, &
Garcia-Alfaro, J, 2018, ‘Integration of an adaptive trust-based e-assessment system into virtual learning
environments – The TeSLA project experience’, Internet Technology Letters, vol. 1, e56, doi: 10.1002/itl2.56.
Bertram Gallant, T, 2008. Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative, John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Bradley, C, 2011. Plagiarism education and prevention: A subject-driven case-based approach, Chandos Publishing,
Oxford.
Bretag, T, 2016, ‘Discipline-specific approaches to academic integrity: Introduction’,
in T Bretag (ed.), Handbook of academic integrity, Springer, Singapore, doi: 10.1007/
978-981-287-098-8_78.
Bretag, T, 2017. Tertiary education quality and standards agency, good practice note: Addressing contract cheating to
safeguard academic integrity, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, Melbourne, Australia.
Bretag, T, & Harper, R, n.d., Impossible to prove? Substantiating contract cheating, viewed 7 September 2020,
https://cheatingandassessment.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EDUCATOR-RESOURCE-Sub-
stantiating-contract-cheating.pdf.
Bretag, T, Harper, R, Burton, M, Ellis, C, Newton, P, Rozenberg, P, Saddiqui, S, & Van Haeringen, K, 2019,
‘Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 44,
pp. 1837–1856, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1462788.
Bretag, T, Mahmud, S, East, J, Green, M, & James, C, 2011. ‘Academic integrity standards: A preliminary anal-
ysis of the academic integrity policies at Australian universities’, Proceedings of AuQF 2011 demonstrating
quality, Melbourne.
Carroll, J, 2007, A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development, Headington.
Chalmers, D, & Partridge, L, 2012, ‘Teaching graduate attributes and academic skills’, in L Hunt & D Chalm-
ers (eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach, 1st edn, ACER Press, Victoria, Australia,
doi: 10.4324/9780203079690
Christensen Hughes, J, 2017, Understanding academic misconduct: Creating robust cultures of integrity, University
of Calgary, Calgary.
Clarke, R, & Lancaster, T, 2006. ‘Eliminating the successor to plagiarism: Identifying the usage of contract
cheating sites’, in Second international plagiarism conference, The Sage Gateshead, Tyne & Wear.
Coren, A, 2011, ‘Turning a blind eye: Faculty who ignore student cheating’, Journal of Academic Ethics, vol. 9,
pp. 291–305, doi: 10.1007/s10805-011-9147-y.
Cowan, M, 2019, ‘Teaching about academic integrity by making citations meaningful’,
Canadian Historical Association, viewed 7 September 2019, https://cha-shc.ca/teaching/
teachers-blog/teaching-about-academic-integrity-by-making-citations-meaningful-2019-
09-16.htm.
Curtis, G, & Vardanega, L, 2016, ‘Is plagiarism changing over time? A 10-year time-lag study with
three points of measurement’, Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 35, pp. 1–13, doi:
10.1080/07294360.2016.1161602.
Eaton, SE, 2017, ‘Comparative analysis of institutional policy definitions of plagiarism: A pan-Cana-
dian university study’, Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, vol. 48, pp. 271–281, doi: 10.1007/
s10780-017-9300-7.
Eaton, SE, 2021, Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling tough topics in academic integrity, Santa Barbara, CA,
Libraries Unlimited.
Eaton, SE, Chibry, N, Toye, MA, & Rossi, S, 2019, ‘Interinstitutional perspectives on contract cheating:
A qualitative narrative exploration from Canada’, International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 15, doi:
10.1007/s40979-019-0046-0.
Eaton, SE, Crossman, K, Behjat, L, Yates, RM, Fear, E, & Trifkovic, M, 2020, ‘An institutional self-study of
text-matching software in a Canadian graduate-level engineering program’, Journal of Academic Ethics, doi:
10.1007/s10805-020-09367-0.
Eisner, C, & Vicinus, M, 2008. ‘Introduction: Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the
age of the internet’, in C Eisner & M Vicinus (eds.), Originality, imitation, and plagiarism, University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ellis, C, Van Haeringen, K, Harper, R, Bretag, T, Zucker, I, McBride, S, Rozenberg, P, Newton, P, & Saddiqui,
S, 2019, ‘Does authentic assessment assure academic integrity? Evidence from contract cheating data’,
Higher Education Research & Development, pp. 1–16, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956.
European Network for Academic Integrity, n.d., viewed 7 September 2020, www.academicin
tegrity.eu/wp/.
European Network for Academic Integrity, 2019, Testing of support tools for plagiarism detection, viewed 7 Sep-
tember 2020, www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wg-testing/.
Fishman, T, 2016, ‘Academic integrity as an educational concept, concern, and movement in US institu-
tions of higher learning’, in T Bretag (ed.), Handbook of academic integrity, Springer, Singapore, doi:
10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_1.
González-González, C, Infante-Moro, A, & Infante-Moro, J, 2020, ‘Implementation of
e-proctoring in online teaching: A study about motivational factors’, Sustainability,
vol. 12, p. 3488, doi: 10.3390/su12083488.
Guerrero-Dib, JG, Portales, L, & Heredia-Escorza, Y, 2020, ‘Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical
behaviour’, International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 16, p. 2, doi: 10.1007/s40979-020-0051-3.
Hamilton, MJ, & Wolsky, KL, 2019, ‘Looking the other way: Why faculty in post-secondary education chose
not to report academic dishonesty’, Canadian Symposium on Academic Integrity (CSAI), Calgary, Canada,
April 18.
Howard, RM, 2000, ‘Sexuality, textuality: The cultural work of plagiarism’, College English, vol. 62, pp. 472–
491, doi: 10.2307/378866.
Howard, RM, 2002, ‘Don’t police plagiarism: Just teach!’, The Education Digest, vol. 67, pp. 46–49.
International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), 2014, The fundamental values of academic integrity, 2nd
edn, viewed 7 September 2020, https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Funda-
mental-Values-2014.pdf.
James, R, 2016, ‘Tertiary student attitudes to invigilated, online summative examinations’, International Jour-
nal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 13, p. 19, doi: 10.1186/s41239-016-0015-0.
Jendrek, MP, 1989, ‘Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty’, Journal of College Development, vol. 30,
pp. 401–406.
Kaposi, D, & Dell, P, 2012, ‘Discourses of plagiarism: Moralist, proceduralist, developmental and inter-textual
approaches’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 33, pp. 813–830, doi: 10.1080/01425692.2012.686897.
Lock, J, Schroeder, M, & Eaton, SE, 2019, ‘Designing and implementing an online academic integrity tuto-
rial: Identifying the challenges within a post-secondary context’, Journal of Educational Thought, vol. 52,
pp. 193–208.
McCabe, D, 1992, ‘The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college students’, Sociological
Inquiry, vol. 62, pp. 365–374.
McCabe, D, 2005, ‘Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective’, Interna-
tional Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 1, doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v1i1.14.
McCabe, D, 2016, ‘Cheating and honor: Lessons from a long-term research project’,
in T Bretag (ed.), Handbook of academic integrity, Springer, Singapore, doi: 10.1007/
978-981-287-098-8_35.
McCabe, D, Butterfield, KD, & Treviño, LK, 2012, Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can
do about it, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
McGowan, U, 2005, ‘Academic integrity: An awareness and development issue for students’, Journal of Univer-
sity Teaching and Learning Practice, vol. 2, viewed 7 September 2020, http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_
i03a/pdf/mcgowan_005.pdf.
Morris, EJ, 2018, ‘Academic integrity matters: Five considerations for addressing contract cheating’, Interna-
tional Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 14, doi: 10.1007/s40979-018-0038-5.
Ozga, J, 1999, Policy research in educational settings, Buckingham, Open University Press.
Patterson, K, Grenny, J, McMillan, R, & Switzler, A, 2002, Crucial conversations, McGraw-Hill Professional
Publishing, Blacklick.
Ridgley, A, Miller, A, Schindler-Lynch, C, & Lynch, G, 2020, ‘Visual plagiarism: How to prevent, educate, and
detect’, paper presented at the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) 2020 Conference, Portland,
OR.
Simon, 2016, ‘Academic integrity in non-text based disciplines’, in T Bretag (ed.), Handbook of academic integ-
rity. Springer, Singapore, doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_61.
Stoesz, BM, Eaton, SE, Miron, JB, & Thacker, E, 2019, ‘Academic integrity and contract cheating policy anal-
ysis of colleges in Ontario, Canada’, International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 15, pp. 1–18, doi:
10.1007/s40979-019-0042-4.
Stoesz, BM, & Yudintseva, A, 2018, ‘Effectiveness of tutorials for promoting educational integrity: A synthesis
paper’, International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 14, doi: 10.1007/s40979-018-0030-0.
Stoner, M, n.d., Understanding plagiarism workshop lesson plan from Sacramento State University – Sacramento,
California State University, Sacramento, CA, viewed 7 September 2020, www.csus.edu/indiv/s/stonerm/
understanding%20plagiarism%20workshop%20lesson%20written%20lesson%20plan.pdf.
Sutherland-Smith, W, 2008, Plagiarism, the internet and student learning: Improving academic integrity, Routledge,
New York.
Taylor, KL, Usick, BL, & Paterson, BL, 2004, ‘Understanding plagiarism: The intersection of personal, ped-
agogical, institutional, and social contexts’, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, vol. 15, pp. 153–174.
TeSLA Project, 2020, TeSLA Consortium partners, viewed 7 September 2020, https://tesla-pro
ject-eu.azurewebsites.net/partners/.
University of New South Wales, n.d., Have you contact cheated? viewed 25 May 2020, www.arc.unsw.edu.au/
uploads/Yellow%20poster_v2.pdf
Yorke, J, Sefcik, L, & Veeran-Colton, T, 2020, ‘Contract cheating and blackmail: A risky business?’, Studies in
Higher Education, pp. 1–14, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1730313.
Zaza, C, & McKenzie, A, 2018, ‘Turnitin® use at a Canadian University’, Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, vol. 9, doi: 10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.2.4
Alexander, B, Ashford-Rowe, K, Barajas-Murphy, N, Dobbin, G, Knott, J, McCormack, M, Pomerantz, J, Seil-
hamer, R, & Weber, N, 2019, EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition’, EDUCAUSE,
Louisville, CO.
Anthony, KV, 2012, ‘Analyzing the influence of course design and gender on online participation’, Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol. 15, no. 3, Fall, viewed 10 September 2020, www.westga.
edu/~distance/ojdla/fall153/anthony153.html
Barkley, EF, 2010, Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Bisset, D, 2018, ‘Role of educational designers in higher education institutions’, in C Bossu & N Brown (eds.),
Professional and support staff in higher education, Springer Nature, Singapore Pty Ltd, Singapore, pp. 71–89.
Brown, M, McCormack, M, Reeves, J, Brooks, C, Grajek, S, Alexander, B, Bali, M, Bulger, S, Dark, S, Engel-
bert, N, Gannon, K, Gauthier, A, Gibson, D, Gibson, R, Lundin, B, Veletsianos, G, & Weber, N, 2020,
EDUCAUSE Horizon report, teaching and learning edition’, EDUCAUSE, Louisville, CO.
Clark, RC, & Mayer, RE, 2016, ‘Applying the personalization and embodiment principles: Use conversational
style, polite wording, human voice, and virtual coaches’, in e‐Learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, 4th edn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ,
pp. 179–200, doi: 10.1002/9781119239086.ch9.
Courey, SJ, Tappe, P, Siker, J, & LePage, P, 2013, ‘Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning
(UDL)’, Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council
for Exceptional Children, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 7–27, doi: 10.1177/0888406412446178
Crosslin, M, 2016, ‘From instructivism to connectivism: Theoretical underpinnings of MOOCs’, Current Issues
in Emerging eLearning, vol. 3, no. 1, Article 6, viewed 10 September 2020, https://scholarworks.umb.edu/
ciee/vol3/iss1/6
Dao, DD, 2020, ‘Best practices for monitoring students’ cognitive load in online courses:
A case study at a university in Iowa’, International Journal of Education and Social
 Science, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 25–39, viewed 10 September 2020, www.ijessnet.com/uploades/vol
umes/1598598325.pdf.
Echo360, 2016, ‘Student grades & engagement improved with Echo360’, Echo360 Blog, 20
July, viewed 10 September 2020, https://echo360.com/faculty-grant-recipients-find-stu
dent-grades-engagement-improved-active-learning-echo360/.
Jones, KML, 2019, ‘Learning analytics and higher education: A proposed model for establishing informed
consent mechanisms to promote student privacy and autonomy’, International Journal Educational Technol-
ogy in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 24, pp. 1–22, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0155-0.
Kilgour, P, Reynaud, D, Northcote, MT, & Shields, M, 2015, ‘Role-playing as a tool to facilitate learning,
self-reflection and social awareness in teacher education’, International Journal of Innovative Interdiscipli-
nary Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 8–20.
Kirkwood, A, & Price, L, 2016, Technology-enabled learning implementation handbook, Commonwealth of Learn-
ing, British Columbia, Canada, viewed 10 September 2020, http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2363.
Lave, J, & Wenger, E, 1991, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press,
London.
Learning Futures, 2020, Padlet & GriffithU Padlet backpack, Griffith University, viewed 10 September 2020,
https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/exlnt/entry/5306/view.
Martin, F, & Parker, MA, 2014, ‘Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and how?’, MERLOT Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching, vol. 10, no. 2, June, pp. 192–210, viewed 10 September 2020, https://jolt.
merlot.org/vol10no2/martin_0614.pdf.
McCarthy, S, & Halley, K, 2018, TEL framework: A template for higher education institutions, Australasian Council
on Open Distance and eLearning (ACODE), viewed 14 September 2020, www.acode.edu.au/pluginfile.
php/3295/mod_page/content/9/ACODE%20TEL%20Framework%20Pilot%20Version.pdf.
Miller, C, & Bartlett, J, 2012, ‘Digital fluency’: Towards young people’s critical use of the internet’, Journal of
Information Literacy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 35–55, doi: 10.11645/6.2.1714.
Miner, S, & Stefaniak, JE, 2018, ‘Learning via video in higher education: An exploration of instructor and
student perceptions’, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–14, viewed 14
September 2020, https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol15/iss2/2.
Mitchel, ET, 2019, ‘Using debate in an online asynchronous social policy course’, Online Learning, vol. 23, no.
3, pp. 21–33, doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i3.2050.
Murray, P, 2019, The digital equity act of 2019, National Digital Inclusion Alliance, Columbus, OH, viewed 14
September 2020, www.digitalequityact.or.
North, C, 2019, SHIFT: ‘Learning designers as agents of change’, in AP Correia (ed.), Driving educational
change: Innovations in action, Pressbooks, Columbus, OH, pp. 38–51.
Pulford, B, & Webb, T, n.d., Student’s self-reflection on feedback: Case study, Leicester Learning Institute, University
of Leicester, viewed 14 September 2020, https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/lli/case-studies-and-resources/
repository/learning-and-teaching-resources/student2019s-self-reflection-on-feedback/view
Rekhari, S, 2017, Using H5P as an active learning opportunity in your content, Learning and
Teaching at Navitas. 29 November, viewed 14 September 2020, https://learningand
teaching-navitas.com/using-h5p-active-learning-opportunity-content/
Renz, A Krishnaraja, S, & Gronau, E, 2020, ‘Demystification of artificial intelligence in education – how much
AI is really in the educational technology?’, International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelli-
gence for Education, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 14–30, doi: 10.3991/ijai.v2i1.12675
Sanders, C, 2018, ‘How peer collaboration technology prepares students for careers’,
EmergingEdTech, June 14, viewed 17 September 2020, www.emergingedtech.com/2018/
06/how-peer-collaboration-technology-prepares-students-for-careers/
Sankey, M, 2017, ‘ePortfolios in today’s universities’, in S Kinash & J Bigelow (eds.), Education Technology Solu-
tions Magazine. Special University Issue, Education Technology University Learning and Teaching Solutions,
pp. 16–18, December.
Sankey, M, 2020, ‘What does best practice online learning look like?’, Higher Edu-
cation Remote Learning Series, Microsoft Education Blog, 15 April, viewed 17
September 2020, https://educationblog.microsoft.com/en-au/2020/04/higher-education-remote-
learning-support-centre/
Sankey, M, Carter, H, Marshall, S, Obexer, R, Russell, C, & Lawson, R (eds.) 2014, Bench-
marks for technology enhanced learning, Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learn-
ing, viewed 17 September 2020, www.acode.edu.au/pluginfile.php/550/mod_resource/con
tent/3/TEL_Benchmarks.pdf
Scutelnicu, G Tekula, R Gordon, B, & Knepper, HJ, 2019, ‘Consistency is key in online learn-
ing: Evaluating student and instructor perceptions of a collaborative online-course tem-
plate’, Teaching Public Administration, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 274–292, doi: 10.1177/
0144739419852759
Slade, C, & Hallam, G, 2016, ‘ePortfolios through the looking glass: Projecting our learning into the future’,
in 2016 ePortfolio forum: Connecting learning to the future – Book of papers, eLearning Services, Queens-
land University of Technology, Australia, pp. 61–67, viewed 17 September 2020, https://eprints.qut.edu.
au/104182/
TALAS, 2020, TELAS online learning, assessment & accreditation, Australasian Society for Computers in Learn-
ing in Tertiary Education, viewed 17 September 2020, www.telas.edu.au
TEQSA, 2019, Guidance note: Technology-enhanced learning. Version 1.2, Australian Tertiary Education Qualifi-
cations and Standards Agency, viewed 17 September 2020, www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/
guidance-note-technology-enhanced-learning
TKI, 2020, Digital fluency: Enabling e-learning, Te Kete Ipurangi, New Zealand Ministry of Edu-
cation, viewed 17 September 2020, https://elearning.tki.org.nz/Teaching/Digital-
fluency
UNESCO, 2019a, New report on global broadband access underscores urgent need to reach the half of
the world still unconnected, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza-
tion (UNESCO), 23 September, viewed 17 September 2020, https://en.unesco.org/news/
new-report-global-broadband-access-underscores-urgent-need-reach-half-world-still-unconnected
UNESCO, 2019b, Recommendation on open educational resources (OER), United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 25 November, viewed 17 September 2020, http://portal.unesco.
org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49556&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
US Department of Education, 2017, Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017, National Education
Technology Plan Update, January, viewed 17 September 2020, https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/
NETP17.pdf
Willems, J Farley, H, & Garner, J, 2018, ‘Digital equity in Australian higher education: How prisoners are
missing out’, in D Wache & D Houston (eds.), Research and development in higher education: (Re)valuing
higher education, vol. 41, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Adelaide,
Australia, pp. 247–256, 2–5 July.
Bates, GW, Rixon, A, Carbone, A, & Pilgrim, C, 2019, ‘Beyond employability skills: Developing professional
purpose’, Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7–26, doi: 10.21153/
jtlge2019vol10no1art794.
Bennett, D, 2018, Developing EmployABILITY, viewed 17 September 2020, https://devel
opingemployability.edu.au/starter-kit-and-employability-profile-tool/.
Bridgstock, R, 2009, ‘The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through
career management skills’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 31–44, doi:
10.1080/07294360802444347.
Bridgstock, R, & Jackson, D, 2019, ‘Strategic institutional approaches to graduate employability: Navigating
meanings, measurements and what really matters’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol.
41, no. 5, pp. 468–484, doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2019.1646378.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, Higher education standards framework (threshold standards), Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra.
European Commission Education and Training, 2010, Diploma supplement, ESECT, viewed
17 September 2020, http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1239_
en.htm.
Graduate Employability, n.d., Graduate employability and career readiness experiences (GRACES)
research, Graduate Employability, viewed 17 September 2020, https://graduateemploya
bility.com/employability-research-for-students/.
Hager, P J, & Holland, S, 2006, Graduate attributes, learning and employability, Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Hammer, S, Ayriss, P, & McCubbin, A, 2020, ‘Style or substance: How Australian universities contextual-
ise their graduate attributes for the curriculum quality space’, Higher Education Research & Development,
pp. 1–16, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1761304
Holmes, L, 2013, ‘Competing perspectives on graduate employability: Possession, posi-
tion or process?’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 538–554, doi: 10.1080/
03075079.2011.587140.
Holmes, L, 2016, ‘Graduate employability: Future directions and debate’, in M Tomlinson & L Holmes (eds.),
Graduate employability in context: Theory, research and debate, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 359–369, doi:
10.1057/978-1-137-57168-7_17.
Jorre de St Jorre, T, & Oliver, B, 2018, ‘Want students to engage? Contextualise graduate learning outcomes
and assess for employability’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 44–57, doi:
10.1080/07294360.2017.1339183.
Knight, P, & Yorke, M, 2004, Learning, curriculum and employability in higher education. Routledge Farmer,
London.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, n.d., Shaping work of the future, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, viewed 17 September 2020, www.edx.org/course/shaping-
work-of-the-future.
Miller, R, 2007, Assessment in cycles of improvement: Faculty designs for essential learning outcomes, Association of
American Colleges and Universities, Washington DC.
OECD, 2019, Benchmarking higher education system performance, OECD, Paris.
Okay-Somerville, B, & Scholarios, D, 2015, ‘Position, possession or process? Understanding objective and
subjective employability during university-to-work transitions’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 7,
pp. 1275–1291, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1091813.
Oliver, B, 2015, ‘Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective
higher education in disrupted economies’, Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, vol.
6 no. 1, pp. 56–65, doi: 10.21153/jtlge2015vol6no1art573.
Oliver, B, & Jorre de St Jorre, T, 2018, ‘Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond: Recommendations for Aus-
tralian higher education providers’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 821–836,
doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1446415.
Peking University, n.d., Enhancing your career competencies, Peking University, viewed 17 September 2020, www.
edx.org/course/enhancing-your-career-competencies.
Rhodes, TL, 2012, ‘Show me the learning: Value, accreditation, and the quality of the degree’, Planning for
Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 3, p. 36.
Rothwell, A, & Arnold, J, 2007, ‘Self-perceived employability: Development and validation of a scale’, Person-
nel Review, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 23–41, doi: 10.1108/00483480710716704.
United Nations, n.d., Sustainable development goals, United Nations, viewed 17 September 2020, www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/.
University of Queensland, n.d., Student-staff partnerships, University of Queensland, viewed 17 Septem-
ber 2020, https://employability.uq.edu.au/student-staff-partnerships.
U.S. Department of Education, 2006, A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education, Department
of Education, Washington, DC.
Villa, A, González, J, Auzmendi, E, Beza-nilla, MJ, & Laka, JP, 2008, ‘Competences in the teaching and learn-
ing process’, in J González & R Wagenaar (eds.), Universities’ contribution to the Bologna process, 2nd edn,
Tuning Project, Spain, pp. 25–54.
Wellings, P, Black, R, Craven, G, Freshwater, D, & Harding, S, 2019, Performance-based funding for the common-
wealth grant scheme, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Anderson, G, Carmichael, KY, Harper, TJ, & Huang, T, 2009, ‘International students at four-year institu-
tions: Developmental needs, issues and strategies’, in SR Harper & SJ Quaye (eds.), Student engagement in
higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations, Routledge, London,
pp. 17–37, doi: 10.4324/9780203894125.
Barker, M, 2012, ‘Teaching international students’, in L Hunt & D Chalmers (eds.), University teaching in focus,
Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 199–213, doi: 10.4324/9780203079690.
Bloom, BS, 1956, Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain, David McKay Co Inc., New
York.
Braxton, JM, Milem, JF, & Sulivan, AS, 2000, ‘The influences of active learning on the college student depar-
ture process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory’, The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 569–
590, doi: 10.1080/00221546.2000.11778853
Burkhardt, L, 2015, ‘Free choice of text for first year literature assignment’, in L Thomas (ed.), Compendium of
effective practice in directed independent learning, Higher Education Academy and Quality Assurance Agency,
York.
Coates, H, 2005, ‘The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance’, Quality in Higher
Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 25–36, doi: 10.1080/13538320500074915
Comerio, G, & Gilardi, F, 2015, ‘Supporting language learners’ autonomy: The self-study hour at the Univer-
sity of Nottingham Ningbo China’, in L Thomas (ed.), Compendium of effective practice in directed independent
learning, Higher Education Academy and Quality Assurance Agency, York.
Cureton, D, Groves, M, Day, P, & Williams, C, 2017, Supporting student success: Strategies for institutional change.
University of Wolverhampton, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, London.
European Commission, 2018, Paris Communiqué, EHEA Ministerial Conference, 24–25 May 2018, Paris, Euro-
pean Commission, Brussels, viewed 24 September, 2020, www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2018_
Paris/77/1/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf
Fitzgibbon, K, Blackey, H, Smedley, J, Stocking, S, Prior, J, Boenn, G, & Jones, E, 2017, Supporting student
success: Strategies for institutional change, University of South Wales, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, London.
Hatton, P, 2015, ‘Student presentations in the “selection and use of dental materials’ ”, in L Thomas (ed.),
Compendium of effective practice in directed independent learning, Higher Education Academy and Quality
Assurance Agency, York.
HEFCE, 2013, Higher education and beyond. Outcomes from full-time first degree study, 2013/15, HEFCE, Bristol.
Herbert, C, 2013, Unconscious bias in higher education, Equality Challenge Unit, London.
Hockings, C, 2010, Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: A synthesis of research, Higher Education
Academy, York.
Jones, R, & Thomas, L, 2005, ‘The 2003 UK Government Higher Education White Paper:
A critical assessment of its implications for the access and widening participation
agenda’, Journal of Education Policy, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 615–630, doi: 10.1080/0268093050
0222477
Jones, R, & Thomas, L, 2012, Promoting social engagement. Improving STEM student transition, retention and suc-
cess in higher education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Joyce, T, & Hopkins, C, 2011, ‘Working together: The positive effects of introducing formal teams in a first year
Engineering degree’, Engineering Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 21–30, doi: 10.11120/ened.2011.06010021
Kift, S, Nelson, K, & Clarke, J, 2010, ‘Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE: A case study
of policy and practice for the higher education sector’, The International Journal of the First Year in Higher
Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–20, doi: 10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13.
Kuh, G, Kinzie, J, Schuh, J, Whitt, E, & Associates, 2010, Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Mahaffey, CJ, & Smith, SA, 2009, ‘Creating welcoming campus environments for students from minor-
ity religious groups’, in SR Harper & SJ Quaye (eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theo-
retical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations, Routledge, London, pp. 136–164, doi:
10.4324/9780203894125.
Marginson, S, 2011, ‘Equity, status and freedom: A note on higher education’, Cambridge Journal of Education,
vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 23–36, doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2010.549456
May, H, & Bridger, K, 2010, Developing and embedding inclusive policy and practice in higher education, Higher
Education Academy, York.
Nichols, AH, & Quaye, SJ, 2009, ‘Beyond accommodation: Removing barriers to academic and social engage-
ment for students with disabilities’, in SR Harper & SJ Quaye (eds.), Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations, Routledge, London, pp. 39–59, doi:
10.4324/9780203894125.
OfS, 2019, Regulatory notice 1. Access and participation plans guidance, OfS 2019.05, Office for
Students, Bristol, viewed 17 January 2020, www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/0bc
ce522-df4b-4517-a4fd-101c2468444a/regulator y-notice-1-access-and-participation-plan-
guidance.pdf.
Oldham, S, & Dhillon, J, 2012, Student voices: Perceptions of learning, assignments and achievement, DISA Briefing
Paper 12, Disparities in Student Attainment project funded by HEA.
Parkes, S, Cousins, H, & Brotherton, G, 2017, Supporting student success: Strategies for institutional change. New-
man University, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, London.
Rhodes, C, & Nevill, A, 2004, ‘Academic and social integration in higher education: A survey of satisfaction
and dissatisfaction within a first year education studies cohort at a new university’, Journal of Further and
Higher Education, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 179–193, doi: 10.1080/0309877042000206741.
Schueler, LH, Hoffman, JA, & Peterson, E, 2009, ‘Fostering safe, engaging campuses
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students’, in SR Harper & SJ
Quaye (eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations, Routledge, London, pp. 61–79, doi: 10.4324/
9780203894125.
Thomas, L, 2012, Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change. Final report
from the What works? Student retention and success programme, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, London, viewed 24
September 2020, www.phf.org.uk/publications/works-student-retention-success-final-report/
Thomas, L (ed.) 2015, Compendium of effective practice in directed independent learning, Higher Education Acad-
emy and Quality Assurance Agency, York.
Thomas, L, 2018, ‘ “I use my time more wisely. . . ” The implications for learning and teaching in higher edu-
cation of more “commuter students” ’, 4th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’18),
doi: 10.4995/head18.2018.8165.
Thomas, L, 2019, ‘I am just happy doing the work . . . Commuter student engagement in the wider higher
education experience’, Higher Education Quarterly, doi: 10.1111/hequ.12243.
Thomas, L, Hill, M, O’Mahony, J, & Yorke, M, 2017, Supporting student success: Strategies for institutional change.
What works? Student retention and success programme. Final report, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, London, viewed
24 September 2020, www.phf.org.uk/publications/works-student-retention-success-full/
Thomas, L, Hockings, C, Ottoway, J, & Jones, R, 2015, Independent learning: Student perspectives and experiences,
Higher Education Academy, York.
Thomas, L, & Jones, R, 2017, Student engagement in the context of commuter students, TSEP London, viewed 24
September 2020, www.tsep.org.uk/resources.
Thomas, L, & Quinn, J, 2003, International insights into widening participation: Supporting the success of under-rep-
resented groups in tertiary education, Institute for Access Studies, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent.
Tinto, V, 1993, Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Tinto, V, 2008, ‘Access without support is not opportunity’, Inside Higher Ed, 9 June, viewed
24 September 2020, www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/06/09/access-without-support-
not-opportunity.
Trowler, V, 2010, Student engagement literature review, Higher Education Academy, York.
Vallerand, RJ, 1997, ‘Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation’, in MP Zanna
(ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Academic Press, New York, pp. 271–360, doi: 10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60019-2.
Vossensteyn, J, Stensaker, B, Kottmann, A, Hovdhaugen, E, Jongbloed, B, Wollscheid, S, Kaiser, F, & Cre-
monini, L, in close collaboration with Thomas, L, & Unger, M, 2015, Drop-out and completion in higher
education in Europe. A report prepared by CHEPS and NIFU, European Commission, Luxembourg.
Watt, R, 2015, ‘Student-led teaching’, in L Thomas (ed.), Compendium of effective practice in directed independent
learning, Higher Education Academy and Quality Assurance Agency, York.
Yorke, M, 2016, ‘The development and initial use of a survey of student “belongingness”, engagement and
self-confidence in UK higher education’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 41, no. 1,
pp. 154–166, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.990415.
ACUR, 2020, Useful websites, Australian Council for Undergraduate Research, viewed 17 September 2020,
www.acur.org.au/acur/about-undergraduate-research/useful-websites/.
Bergmark, U, & Westman, S, 2016, ‘Co-creating curriculum in higher education: Promoting democratic val-
ues and a multidimensional view on learning’, International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 21, no. 1,
pp. 28–40, doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1120734.
Bergmark, U, &Westman, S, 2018, ‘Student participation within teacher education: Empha-
sising democratic values, engagement and learning for a future profession’, Higher
Education Research & Development, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1352–1365, doi: 10.1080/
07294360.2018.1484708
Bovill, C, 2019, ‘A co-creation of learning and teaching typology: What kind of co-creation are you plan-
ning or doing?’, International Journal for Students as Partners, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 91–98, doi: 10.15173/ijsap.
v3i2.3953.
Bovill, C, 2020, Co-creating learning and teaching: Towards relational pedagogy in higher education, Critical Practice
in Higher Education Series, Critical Publishing, Hertfordshire.
Brew, A, 2013, ‘Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: A framework for curricular and peda-
gogical decision-making’, Higher Education, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 603–618, doi: 10.1007/S10734-013-9624-X.
Cook-Sather, A, Bahti, M, & Ntem, A, 2019, Pedagogical partnerships: A how-to guide for faculty, students, and
academic developers in higher education, Elon University Center for Engaged Teaching Open Access Series,
Elon, NC, doi: 10.36284/celelon.oa1.
Cook-Sather, A, Bovill, C, & Felten, P, 2014, Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for
faculty, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Cook-Sather, A, Des-Ogugua, C, & Bahti, M, 2018, ‘Articulating identities and analyzing belonging: A multi-
step intervention that affirms and informs a diversity of students’, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 23, no.
3, pp. 374–389, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1391201.
Cook-Sather, A, Eatman, TK, Felten, P, Lambert, LM, Smith, J, & Swamy, U, 2020, ‘Creating relationship-rich
undergraduate institutions and classrooms’, Panel presented at the Conferences of the Association of American
Colleges & Universities, Washington DC, January 23.
Cook-Sather, A, Matthews, KE, Ntem, A, & Leathwick, S, 2018, ‘What we talk about when we talk about stu-
dents as partners’, International Journal for Students as Partners, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–9, doi: 10.15173/ijsap.
v2i2.3790.
Coombe, L, Huang, J, Russell, S, Sheppard, K, & Khosravi, H, 2018, ‘Students as partners in action: Evaluat-
ing a university-wide initiative’, International Journal for Students as Partners, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 85–95, doi:
10.15173/ijsap.v2i2.3576.
Damon, N, 2018, Time to teach, time to reach: Expert teachers give voice to the power of relational teaching, Relational
Schools Foundation, Cambridge, England.
de Bie, A, Marquis, E, Cook-Sather, A, & Luqueño, LP, forthcoming, Promoting equity and justice through peda-
gogical partnership, Stylus Publishers, Sterling, VA.
Deeley, SJ, & Bovill, C, 2017, ‘Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through
democratic practices’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 463–477, doi:
10.1080/02602938.2015.1126551.
Deeley, SJ, & Brown, RA, 2014, ‘Learning through partnership in assessment’, Teaching and
Learning Together in Higher Education, no. 13, viewed 13 May 2020, http://repository.bry
nmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss13/3
Felten, P, & Lambert, LM, 2020. Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college, Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Fisher, D, Frey, N, Quaglia, RJ, Smith, D, & Lande, LL, 2018, Engagement by design: Creating learning environ-
ments where students thrive, Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Healey, M, Flint, A, & Harrington, K, 2014, Engagement through partnership: Stu-
dents as partners in learning and teaching in higher education, Higher Education
Academy, York, viewed 13 May 2020, www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engagement-through-
partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher
Healey, M, Flint, A, & Harrington, K, 2016, ‘Students as partners: Reflections on a conceptual model’, Teach-
ing & Learning Inquiry, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–13, doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.3.
Healey, M, & Jenkins, A, 2009, Developing undergraduate research and inquiry, Higher Educa-
tion Academy, York, viewed 11 September 2020, www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/
developing-undergraduate-research-and-inquiry
Hunt, LYA, & Hunt, LJ, 2017, ‘The importance of a whole-of-department framework in learning partner-
ships’, International Journal for Students as Partners, vol. 1, no. 2, doi: 10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3091.
Illeris, K, 2018, ‘An overview of the history of learning theory’, European Journal of Education, vol. 53, no. 1,
pp. 86–101.
Jenkins, A, & Healey, M, 2012, ‘Research-led or research-based undergraduate curricula’, in D Chalmers &
L Hunt (eds.), University teaching in focus, Routledge, London, pp. 128–144.
Matthews, KE, 2017, ‘Five propositions for genuine students as partners practice’, International Journal
for Students as Partners, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–9, doi: 10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3315.
Matthews, KE, Mercer-Mapstone, L, Dvorakova, SL, Acai, A, Cook-Sather, A, Felten, P, Healey, M, Healey,
RL, & Marquis, E, 2019, ‘Enhancing outcomes and reducing inhibitors to the engagement of students
and staff in learning and teaching partnerships: Implications for academic development’, International
Journal for Academic Development, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 246–259, doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2018.1545233
Mayhew, MJ, Rockenbach, AN, Bowman, NA, Seifert, T, & Wolniak, GC, 2016, How college affects students: 21st
century evidence that higher education works (vol. 1), John Wiley & Sons, Boston, MA.
Stewart, M, 2012, ‘Understanding learning: theories and critique’, in L Hunt & D Chalmers (eds.), University
teaching in focus: a learning-centred approach, Routledge, London, pp. 3–20.
Anderson, J, Perry, J, Blue, C, Browne, A, Henderson, A, Khan, K, Kirkham, S, Lynam, J, Semeniuk, P, &
Smye, V, 2003, ‘Rewriting cultural safety within the postcolonial and postnational feminist project:
Toward new epistemologies of healing’, Advances in Nursing Science, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 196–214, doi:
10.1097/00012272-200307000-00005.
Asmar, C, 2011, Indigenous teaching at Australian universities, viewed 24 February 2020, www.indigenousteach-
ing.com/teaching-exemplars.
Asmar, C, & Page, S, 2018, ‘Pigeonholed, peripheral or pioneering? Findings from a national study of Indig-
enous Australian academics in the disciplines’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1679–1691,
doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1281240.
Asmar, C, Page, S, & Radloff, A, 2011, Dispelling myths: Indigenous students’ engagement with university, vol. 10,
Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE), Research Briefing, Australian Council for Educa-
tional Research (ACER), Camberwell, VIC, April, viewed 26 September 2020, https://research.acer.edu.
au/ausse/2/.
Battiste, M, 2000, Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Broome, R, 2009, ‘Bringing students and community together: Americans in the Gariw-
erd/Grampians’, audio file from presentation at the Forum on Indigenous Teaching
and Learning, Melbourne, 11 December, viewed 24 September 2020, http://indigenoust
eaching.com/forum-indigenous-learning-and-teaching.
Campbell, M, & Christie, M, 2008, Indigenous community engagement at Charles Darwin University, viewed 24
September 2020, www.cdu.edu.au/centres/ice/.
Campbell, M, & Christie, M, 2009, ‘Researching a university’s engagement with the Indigenous communities
it serves’, Learning Communities; International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts – Special Edition: Indige-
nous Community Engagement Edition, no. 1, pp. 2–22, viewed 24 September 2020, www.cdu.edu.au/sites/
default/files/the-northern-institute/ijlsc_5_dec2009.pdf.
Cass, A, Lowell, A, Christie, M, Snelling, PL, Flack, M, Marrnganyin, B, & Brown, I, 2002, ‘Sharing the true
stories: Improving communication between Aboriginal patients and healthcare workers’, Medical Journal
of Australia, vol. 176, no. 10, pp. 466–470, doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04517.x.
Christie, M, 2006, ‘Transdisciplinary research and Aboriginal knowledge’, Australian Journal of Indigenous
Education, vol. 35, pp. 1–12, doi: 10.1017/S1326011100004191.
Christie, M, 2008, ‘Digital tools and the management of Australian Desert Aboriginal knowledge’, in P Wil-
son & M Stewart (eds.), Global Indigenous media: Cultures, practices and politics, Duke University Press, Dur-
ham, pp. 270–286, doi: 10.1215/9780822388692-019.
Christie, M, 2010, ‘Money matters: “Payment for the participation of Aboriginal knowledge authorities
in academic teaching and research work” ’, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in
Social Contexts, no. 2, pp. 60–66, viewed 24 September 2020, www.cdu.edu.au/northern-institute/lcj/
learning-communities-journal-archive#issue2-2010.
Christie M (ed.) 2011, Teaching from country, Charles Darwin University and Australian Learning and Teach-
ing Council, Darwin, viewed 25 September 2020, http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/inc/tfc/report.pdf.
Clark, DJ, 2002, ‘Towards an Aboriginal environmental health pedagogy’, in J Cameron, G Shaw, & A. Arnott
(eds.), Tertiary teaching: Doing it differently, doing it better, Northern Territory University Press, Darwin,
pp. 83–91.
Craven, R, d’Arbon, M, & Wilson-Miller, J, 2011, ‘Developing teaching activities’, in R. Craven (ed.), Teaching
Aboriginal Studies: A practical resource for primary and secondary teaching, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin: Crows
Nest, pp. 289–314.
Craven, R, Tucker, A, Munns, G, Hinkley, J, Marsh, H, & Simpson, K, 2005, Indigenous students’ aspirations:
Dreams, perceptions and realities, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Denzin, N, Lincoln, Y, & Smith, L, 2008, Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, doi: 10.4135/9781483385686.
DiGregorio, K, Farrington, S, & Page, S, 2000, ‘Listening to our students: Understanding the factors that
affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ academic success’, Higher Education Research and
Development, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 297–309, doi: 10.1080/758484344.
Douglas, H, 2005, ‘How Australian law schools Endeavour to support Indigenous students’, in G Shaw (ed.),
Tertiary teaching and learning: Dealing with diversity, Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin, pp. 177–186.
Ellison-Loschmann, E, 2003, ‘Irihapeti Ramsden’, BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 327, p. 453, viewed 25
September 2020, www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25455346.pdf.
Farrington, S, Digregorio, K, & Page, S, 1999, ‘Yooroang Garang issues in Aboriginal health worker training:
Listening to students’, Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 17–20.
Ford, PL, 2010, Aboriginal knowledge narratives & country: Marri Kunkimba Putj Putj Marrideyan, Post Pressed,
Mt Gravatt.
Ford, PL, Prior, J, Coat, B, & Warton, L, 2014, ‘The incorporating Indigenous knowledge LibGuide,
Charles Darwin University’, Embedding Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Knowledge, Cul-
ture and Language, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 111–120, doi:
10.1080/00048623.2014.910859.
Gurruwiwi, D, 2010, ‘Teaching students to know themselves’, Learning Communities: International Journal of
Learning in Social Contexts, no. 2, pp. 23–25.
Gurruwiwi, D, & Guyula, Y, 2010, ‘Intellectual properties’, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learn-
ing in Social Contexts, no. 2, pp. 50–59.
Harrison, N, 2011, Teaching and learning in Aboriginal education, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, South
Melbourne.
Hussin, F, 2002, ‘Killing off Captain Cook – Indigenous law students at Northern Territory University’, in J
Cameron, G Shaw, & A Arnott (eds.), Tertiary teaching: Doing it differently, doing it better, Northern Territory
University Press, Darwin, pp. 118–127.
Kincheloe, J, & Steinberg S, 2008, ‘Indigenous knowledges in education: Complexities, dangers and pro-
found benefits’, in N Denzin, Y Lincoln, & L Smith (eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 135–156, doi: 10.4135/9781483385686.n7.
Leonard, B, & Mercier, OR, 2016, ‘Indigenous struggles within the colonial project: Reclaiming Indigenous
knowledges in the Western academy’, Knowledge Cultures, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 99–116.
Maffie, J, 2005, ‘Ethnoepistemology’, in J Fieser & B Dowden (eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy, viewed
25 September 2020, www.iep.utm.edu/ethno-ep/.
Manne, R, 2009, ‘The history wars’, The Monthly, November, viewed 25 September 2020, www.themonthly.
com.au/issue/2009/november/1270703045/robert-manne/comment.
Ma Rhea, Z, Anderson, P, & Atkinson, B, 2012, Improving teaching in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander edu-
cation: National professional standards for teachers standards focus areas 1.4 and 2.4, Australian Institute for
Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne.
Marika, R, Ngurruwutthun, D, & White, L, 1992, ‘Always together, yaka gana: Participatory research as part
of the development of a Yolngu education’, Convergence, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 23–39.
McConaghy, C, 2000, Rethinking indigenous education: Culturalism, colonialism and the politics of knowing, Post
Pressed, Flaxton.
Nakata, M, 2007, ‘The cultural interface’, The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, vol. 36, no. S1,
pp. 7–14, doi: 10.1017/S1326011100004646
Nakata, M, Nakata, V, & Chin, M, 2008, ‘Approaches to the academic preparation and support of Australian
Indigenous students for tertiary studies’, The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, vol. 37, no S1,
pp. 137–145, doi: 10.1375/S1326011100000478
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC) 2018, Indig-
enous higher education units 2018, viewed 23 September 2020, https://natsihec.edu.au/members/
indigenous-units/.
Ngurruwutthun, D, 1991, ‘The Garma project’, in R Bunbury, W Hastings, J Henry, & R McTaggart (eds.),
Aboriginal pedagogy: Aboriginal teachers speak out, Deakin University Press, Melbourne, pp. 107–122.
Ober, R, & Bat, M, 2007, ‘Both-ways: The philosophy’, Ngoonjook: A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, no. 31,
pp. 64–86, viewed 23 September 2020, www.academia.edu/2088220/paper_1_both-ways_the_philosophy.
Page, S, & Asmar, C, 2008, ‘Beneath the teaching iceberg: Exposing the hidden support dimensions of
Indigenous academic work’, Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, vol. 37, no. S1, pp. 109–117, doi:
10.1375/S1326011100000442
Polaschek, N, 1998, ‘Cultural safety: A new concept in nursing people of different eth-
nicities’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 27, 3 March, pp. 452–457, doi: 10.1046/
j.1365-2648.1998.00547.x
Rasmussen, L, 2001, Towards reconciliation in Aboriginal health: Initiatives for teaching medical students about Abo-
riginal issues, The VicHealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, The University
of Melbourne, Parkville.
Reddy, M, 1979, ‘The conduit metaphor – a case of frame conflict in our language about language’, in
A Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 284–324.
Smith, B, 2011, ‘Community involvement’, in R Craven (ed.), Teaching Aboriginal studies: A practical resource for
primary and secondary teaching, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, pp. 194–209.
Smith, L, 2012, Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples, 2nd edn, Zed Books, London.
Stewart, M, 2012, ‘Understanding learning: Theories and critique’, in L Hunt & D Chalmers (eds.), University
Teaching in Focus, Routledge, London, pp. 3–20.
Trudgett, M, 2009, ‘Build it and they will come: Building the capacity of Indigenous units in universities to
provide better support for Indigenous postgraduate students’, Australian Journal of Indigenous Education,
vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 9–18, doi: 10.1375/S1326011100000545
Universities Australia, 2017, Good practice principles for course accreditation and review of Indig-
enous curriculum, viewed 26 September 2020, www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/
w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 9 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 9 1 2 0 3 - P r i n c i p l e s - f o r- I n d i g e n o u s - c o u r s e - a c c r e d i t a
tion-and-curriculum.pdf.
Worby, G, Rigney, L, & Tur, S, 2010, ‘Where salt and fresh waters meet: Reconciliation and
change in education’, Australian Cultural History, vol. 28, no. 2–3, pp. 201–224, doi: 10.1080/
07288433.2010.582236.
Alkema, A, 2011, A tertiary practitioner’s guide to collecting evidence of learner benefit, Ako Aotea-
roa – The National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence, New Zealand, viewed Sep-
tember 2020, https://ako.ac.nz/knowledge-centre/collecting-evidence-of-learner-benefit/
a-tertiary-practitioners-guide-to-collecting-evidence-of-learner-benefit/.
Andresen, LW, 2000, ‘A useable, trans-disciplinary conception of scholarship’, Higher Education Research and
Development, vol. 19, pp. 137–153, doi: 10.1080/072943600445619.
Ashwin, P, & Trigwell, K, 2004, ‘Investigating staff and educational development’, Chapter 7 in D Baume & P
Kahn (eds.), Enhancing staff and educational development, RoutledgeFalmer, London.
Astin, AW, & Antonio, AO, 2012, Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation
in higher education, American Council on Education, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, New York.
Biggs, JB, 1996, ‘Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment’, Higher Education, vol. 32, pp. 347–364,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00138871.
Biggs, JB, & Tang, C, 2007, Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd edn, SRHE and Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Boyer, EL, 1990, Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-
ment of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Brookfield, SD, 1995, Becoming a critically reflective teacher, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Chalmers, D, 2011, ‘Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the scholarship of teach-
ing in higher education’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 25–38, doi:
10.1080/07294360.2011.536970
Cohen, L, Manion, L, & Morrison, K, 2017, Research methods in education, 8th edn, Routledge, New York.
Crawford, K, Gordon, S, Nicholas, J, & Prosser, M, 1994, ‘Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned:
The perspectives of students entering university’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 4, pp. 331–345, doi:
10.1016/0959-4752(94)90005-1.
Crawford, K, Gordon, S, Nicholas, J, & Prosser, M, 1998a, ‘Qualitatively different experiences of learning math-
ematics at university’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 8, pp. 455–468, doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00005-Xt.
Crawford, K, Gordon, S, Nicholas, J, & Prosser, M, 1998b, ‘University mathematics students’ conception of
mathematics’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 23, pp. 87–94, doi: 10.1080/03075079812331380512.
Fanghanel, J, McGowan, S, Parker, P, McConnell, C, Potter, J, Locke, W, & Healey, M, 2015, Defining and sup-
porting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector-wide study. Higher Education Academy, York,
viewed September 2020, http://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/2065/.
Friedman, DB, Crews, TB, Caicedo, JM, Besley, JC, Weinberg, J, & Freeman, ML, 2010, ‘An exploration into
inquiry-based learning by a multidisciplinary group of higher faculty’, Higher Education, vol. 59, pp. 765–
783, doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9279-9.
Glassick, CE, Huber, MT, & Maeroff, GI, 1997, Scholarship assessed, evaluation of the professoriate, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Guba, EG, & Lincoln, YS, 1985, Naturalistic inquiry, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Healey, M, Matthews, KE, & Cook-Sather, A, 2019, ‘Writing scholarship of teaching and learning arti-
cles for peer-reviewed journals’, Teaching & Learning Inquiry, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 28–50, doi: 10.20343/
teachlearninqu.7.2.3
Healey, M, Matthews, KE, & Cook-Sather, A, 2020, Writing about learning and teaching in higher education: Cre-
ating and contributing to scholarly conversations across a range of genres, Elon University, Centre for Engaged
Learning, Open Access Books, viewed September 2020, www.centerforengagedlearning.org/books/
writing-about-learning/.
Hutchings, P, & Shulman, L, 1999, ‘The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments’,
Change, vol. 31, September/October, pp. 10–15.
Knight, PT, 2002, Small scale research: Pragmatic inquiry in social science and the caring professions, Sage, London.
Kreber, C (ed.) 2001, Scholarship revisited: Perspectives on the scholarship of teaching, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kreber, C, 2002, ‘Controversy and consensus on the scholarship of teaching’, Studies in Higher Education, vol.
27, pp. 151–167, doi: 10.1080/03075070220119995.
Kreber, C, 2013, ‘The transformative potential of the scholarship of teaching’, Teaching and Learning Inquiry,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–8, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.5.
Kreber, C, & Cranton, PA, 2000, ‘Exploring the scholarship of teaching’, Journal of Higher Education, vol. 71,
pp. 476–495, doi: 10.1080/00221546.2000.11778846.
Mårtensson, K, Roxå, T, & Olsson, T, 2011, ‘Developing a quality culture through the scholarship of
teaching and learning’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 51–62, doi:
10.1080/07294360.2011.536972.
Pearson, ML, Albon, SP, & Hubball, H, 2015, ‘Case study methodology: Flexibility, rigour, and ethical consid-
erations for the scholarship of teaching and learning’, Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, vol. 6, no. 3 Article 12, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1084596.
Perry, WG, 1970, Forms of intellectual and ethical development, Holt Reinhardt and Winston, New York.
Potter, MK, & Kustra, EDH, 2011, ‘The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinc-
tions, and clarifications’, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 5, no. 1,
Article 23, doi: 10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050123
Prosser, M, & Trigwell, K, 1999, Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education, SRHE
and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Prosser, M, Trigwell, K, Hazel, E, & Gallagher, P, 1994, ‘Students’ experience of teaching and learning at the
topic level’, Research and Development in Higher Education, vol. 16, papers from the 16th Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australasia Annual International Conference, pp. 471–480.
Rice, RE, 1992, ‘Towards a broader conception of scholarship: The American context’, in T Whiston & R
Geiger (eds.), Research and higher education: The United Kingdom and the United States, SRHE and Open
University Press, Buckingham, pp. 117–129.
Rowland, SL, & Myatt, PM, 2014, ‘Getting started in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A “how to”
guide for science academics’, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 6–14, doi:
10.1002/bmb.20748.
Shulman, LS, 1987, ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’, Harvard Educational Review,
vol. 57, pp. 1–22, doi: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.
Shulman, LS, 2000, ‘Inventing the future’, in P Hutchings (ed.), Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of
teaching and learning, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, CA.
Shulman, LS, 2004, Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Tight, M, 2012, Researching higher education, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead, ISBN:
0335241840, 9780335241842.
Trigwell, K, 2013, ‘Evidence of the impact of scholarship of teaching and learning purposes’, Teaching and
Learning Inquiry, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 95–105, doi: 10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.95
Trigwell, K, Martin, E, Benjamin, J, & Prosser, M, 2000, ‘Scholarship of teaching: A model’,
Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 19, pp. 155–168, doi: 10.1080/
072943600445628.
Trigwell, K, & Shale, S, 2004, ‘Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching’, Studies in Higher
Education, vol. 29, pp. 523–536, doi: 10.1080/0307507042000236407.
Vardi, I, & Quin, R, 2011, ‘Promotion and the scholarship of teaching and learning’,
Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 39–49, doi: 10.1080/
07294360.2011.536971.
Advance HE, 2019, Fundamentals of external examining, viewed 15 March 2020, www.hea
c a d e m y. a c . u k / s y s t e m / f i l e s / d o w n l o a d s / F u n d a m e n t a l s % 2 0 o f % 2 0 E x t e r n a l % 2 0 E x a m i n
ing%20AHE%20-%20%20Feb%202019%20v2.pdf.
American Council on Education, 2011, Tuning USA, viewed 18 August 2020, www.aacu.org/
publications-research/periodicals/tuning-disciplines.
Anderson, G, 2006, ‘Assuring quality/resisting quality assurance: Academics’ responses to ‘qual-
ity’ in some Australian universities’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 161–173, doi:
10.1080/13538320600916767
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), 2018, 2013 eligibility procedures and accredi-
tation standards for Business accreditation (date last revised: July 1, 2018), viewed 16 March 2020, www.aacsb.
edu/accreditation/standards/business.
Barrie, S, Ginns, P, & Symons, R, 2008, Student surveys on teaching and learning, ALTC, Syd-
ney, viewed 15 August 2020, https://ltr.edu.au/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?TN=re
s o u r c e s & R F = F u l l + D i s p l a y & AC = Q B E _ QU E R Y & XC = % 2 F d b t w - w p d % 2 F e x e c % 2 F d b t w p u b .
dll&QY=find+systemid+ct+365626.
Bell, A, & Thomson, K, 2018, ‘Supporting peer observation of teaching: Collegiality, conversations,
and autonomy’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 276–284, doi:
10.1080/14703297.2016.1212725.
Bendermacher, G, oude Egbrink, M, Wolfhagen, I, & Dolmans, D, 2017, ‘Unravelling quality culture in
higher education: A realist review’, Higher Education, vol. 73, pp. 39–60, doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9979-2.
Blackmore, J, 2009, ‘Academic pedagogies, quality logics and performative universities: Evaluat-
ing teaching and what students want’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 857–872, doi:
10.1080/03075070902898664.
Blackmore, J, & Sachs, J, 2007, Performing and reforming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring and organisa-
tional change, SUNY Press, New York, doi: 10.1080/15700760802478388.
Brink, C, 2010, ‘Quality and standards: Clarity, comparability and responsibility’, Quality in Higher Education,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 139–152, doi: 10.1080/13538322.2010.487698.
Brown, R, 2010, ‘The current brouhaha about standards in England’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 16, no.
2, pp. 130–137, doi: 10.1080/13538322.2010.487699.
Chalmers, D, 2007, A review of Australian and international quality: Systems and indicators of learning and teaching,
ALTC, Sydney, viewed 13 August 2020, www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A54714.
Cheng, M, 2016, Quality in higher education: Developing a virtue of professional practice, Sense Publishers, Rotter-
dam, doi: 10.1007/978-94-6300-666-8.
Elken, M, & Stensaker, B, 2018, ‘Conceptualising ‘quality work’ in higher education’, Quality in Higher Educa-
tion, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 189–202, doi: 10.1080/13538322.2018.1554782
Engineers Australia, 2018, Accreditation principles, viewed 10 March 2020, www.engineersaus
tralia.org.au/About-Us/Accreditation/AMS-2019.
Ewell, P, 2010, ‘Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What’s happened and
what’s different?’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 173–203, doi: 10.1080/
13538322.2010.485728.
Gibbs, G, 2010, Dimensions of quality, The Higher Education Academy, viewed 22 August 2020, www.advance-he.
ac.uk/knowledge-hub/dimensions-quality
Halonen, J, & Ellenberg, G, 2006, ‘Teaching evaluation follies: Misperception and misbehaviour in student
evaluations of teachers’, in P Seldin (ed.), Evaluating faculty performance, Anker, Bolton, MA, pp. 150–165.
Harris, K, Farrell, K, Bell, M, Devlin, M, & James, R, 2008, Peer review of teaching in Australian higher edu-
cation: Resources to support institutions in developing and embedding effective policies and practices, viewed 20
August 2020, https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/archived-research/peer-review.
Harvey, L, & Green, D, 1993, ‘Defining quality’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 9–34, doi: 10.1080/0260293930180102.
Harvey, L, & Williams, J, 2010, ‘Editorial: Fifteen years of quality in higher education’, Quality in Higher Edu-
cation, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–36, doi: 10.1080/13538321003679457.
Houston, D, 2007, ‘Achievements and consequences of two decades of quality assurance in higher edu-
cation: A personal view from the edge’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 177–180, doi:
10.1080/13538322.2010.485730.
Ingvarson, L, Elliott, A, Kleinhenz, E, & McKenzie, P, 2006, Teacher education accreditation: A review of national
and international trends and practices, Teaching Australia, Canberra, viewed 22 August 2020, https://
research.acer.edu.au/teacher_education/1/.
Knapper, C, & Cranton, P (eds.) 2001, Fresh approaches to the evaluation of teaching, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Knight, P, & Trowler P, 2000, ‘Department-level cultures and the improvement of learn-
ing and teaching’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 69–83, doi: 10.1080/
030750700116028
Krause, K, 2009, ‘Interpreting changing academic roles and identities in higher education’, in M Tight (ed.),
International handbook of higher education, Routledge, London, pp. 413–426, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2.
Krause, K, 2011a, ‘Transforming the learning experience to engage students’, in L Thomas & M Tight (eds.),
Institutional transformation to engage a diverse student body, Emerald, Bingley, pp. 199–212.
Krause, K, 2011b, ‘Using student survey data to shape academic priorities and approaches’, in L Stefani (ed.),
Evaluating the effectiveness of academic development, Routledge, New York, pp. 59–72.
Krause, K, with Kilsby, E, & Grimmer, C, 2008, Documenting evidence of good teaching prac-
tice: A good practice guide, viewed 10 August 2020, www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=
j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjLwa3IsPzrAhVLaCsKHZO_CJc
Q F j A A e g Q I B B A B & u r l = h t t p s % 3 A % 2 F % 2 F w w w.w e s t e r n s y d n e y. e d u . a u % 2 F _ _ d a t a %
2 F a s s e t s % 2 F p d f _ f i l e % 2 F 0 0 0 4 % 2 F 4 7 9 0 7 4 % 2 F G P G E v i d e n c e o f G o o d _ Te a c h i n g F I N A L .
PDF&usg=AOvVaw2bNNy1mspKeiYze3SR60tG.
Krause, K, Scott, G, Carroll, M, Deane, E, Nulty, D, Pattison, P, Probert, B, Sachs, J, Vaughan,
S, & Aubin, K, 2011, A sector-wide model for assuring final year subject and program achieve-
ment standards through inter-university moderation, viewed 10 August 2020, https://ltr.edu.
a u / d b t w - w p d / e x e c / d b t w p u b . d l l ? T N = p r o j e c t s & R F = F u l l + D i s p l a y & AC = Q B E _ QU E R Y & X
C=%2Fdbtw-wpd%2Fexec%2Fdbtwpub.dll&QY=find+ProjectID+ct+SP10-1843.
McAlpine, L, & Harris, R, 2002, ‘Evaluating teaching effectiveness and teaching improvement: A language
for institutional policies and academic development practices’, The International Journal of Academic Devel-
opment, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 7–17, doi: 10.1080/13601440210156439.
Middlehurst, R, 1997, ‘Enhancing quality’, in F Coffield & B Williamson (eds.), Repositioning higher education,
SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Newton, J, 2002, ‘Views from below: Academics coping with quality’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 8, no. 1,
pp. 39–61, doi: 10.1080/13538320220127434.
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, 2017, Registration standards, viewed 10 March 2020, www.nursing-
midwiferyboard.gov.au/Registration-Standards.aspx.
Office for Students, 2020, What is the TEF, viewed 11 March 2020, www.officeforstudents.org.uk/
advice-and-guidance/teaching/what-is-the-tef/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2011, Testing student and university
performance globally: OECD’s AHELO, viewed 11 August 2020, www.oecd.org/document/22/0,3746
,en_2649_35961291_40624662_1_1_1_1,00.html.
Quality Assurance Agency, 2019, Quality and standards review for providers registered with
the Office for Students: Guidance for providers, viewed 13 March 2020, www.qaa.ac.uk/
e n / r e v i e w i n g - h i g h e r- e d u c a t i o n / t y p e s - o f - r e v i e w / q u a l i t y - a n d - s t a n d a r d s - r e v i e w / p r o v i d
ers-registered-with-the-ofs.
Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching, 2020, QILT: Quality indicators for learning and teaching, viewed
10 March 2020, www.qilt.edu.au/.
Sachs, J, & Parsell, M (eds.) 2014, Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education: International perspec-
tives, Springer, Berlin, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7639-5.
Seldin, P, 2006, Evaluating faculty performance, Anker, Bolton, MA.
Social Research Centre, 2020, Quality indicators for learning and teaching, viewed 15 March
2020, www.srcentre.com.au/our-research/quality-indicators-for-learning-and-teach
ing-qilt.
Swinglehurst, D, Russell, J, & Greenhalgh, T, 2008, ‘Peer observation of teaching in the online environ-
ment: An action research approach’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 24, pp. 383–393, doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00274.x.
Teelkens, C, 2018, ‘Teaching assessment and perceived quality of teaching: A longitudinal study among aca-
demics in three European countries’, European Journal of Higher Education, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 382–399, doi:
10.1080/21568235.2018.1490661.
Tehan, D, 2019, The future of Australian universities focuses on achievement, viewed 8 April 2020, https://minis-
ters.dese.gov.au/tehan/future-australian-universities-focuses-achievement.
Victoria University, 2016, Quality and standards framework, viewed 12 March 2020, www.vu.edu.au/
learning-teaching/about-learning-teaching-at-vu#vu-quality-standards-framework.
Walker, R, & Forbes, D, 2018, ‘Cross-institutional peer observations by online tutors: Sharing practice “out-
side the family” ’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 285–293, doi:
10.1080/14703297.2017.1281751.
Bereiter, C, & Scardamalia, M, 1993, Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise,
Open Court, Chicago and La Salle.
Blackmore, P, 2012, ‘Leadership in teaching’, in L Hunt & D Chalmers (eds.), University teaching in focus:
A learning-centred approach, Routledge, London.
Chalmers, D, Cummings, R, Elliott, S, Stoney, S, Tucker, B, Wicking, R, & Jorre de St Jorre, T, 2014, Austral-
ian university teaching criteria and standards project, viewed 10 September, https://ltr.edu.au/resources/
SP12_2335_Cummings_Report_2014.pdf. Viewed 10 September 2020, http://uniteachingcriteria.edu.
au/.
Chalmers, D, & Hunt, L, 2016, ‘Evaluating teaching’, HERSDA Review of Higher Educa-
tion, vol. 3, pp. 25–55, viewed 10 September 2020, http://herdsa.org.au/herdsa-
review-higher-education-vol-3/25-55.
Devlin, M, & Samarawickrema, G, 2010, ‘The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education con-
text’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 111–124, doi: 10.1080/07294360903244398.
Ericsson, KA, 2017, ‘Expertise and individual differences: The search for the structure and acquisition of
experts’ superior performance’, WIREs Cognitive Science, vol. 8, doi: 10.1002/wcs.1382.
Ericsson, KA, Charness, N, Feltovich, PJ, & Hoffman, RR (eds.) 2006, The Cambridge handbook of expertise and
expert performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ericsson, KA, Hoffman, RR Kozbelt, A, & Williams, AM (eds.) 2018, The Cambridge handbook of expertise and
expert performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ericsson, KA, Krampe, RT, & Tesch-Romer, C, 1993, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert
performance, Psychological Review, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 363–406, doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.100.3.363.
King, H, 2018, Fostering a culture of learning about teaching: Ideas from research on expertise, October, viewed 10
September 2020, https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/858348.
King, H, 2019, ‘Continuing professional development: What do award-winning academics do?’, Educational
Developments, SEDA, vol. 20, 2 June, pp. 1–5.
Marsh, HW, 2007, ‘Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential
bias and usefulness’, in RP Perry & JC Smart (eds.), Scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education:
An evidence-based perspective, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 319–383.
McMillan, WJ, 2007, ‘Then you get a teacher’: Guidelines for excellence in teaching’, Medical Teacher, Interna-
tional Journal of Medical Education, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 209–218, doi: 10.1080/01421590701478264.
Mu, F, & Hatch, J, 2020, ‘Becoming a teacher scholar: The perils and promise of meeting the promo-
tion and tenure requirements in a business school’, Journal of Management Education, pp. 1–26, doi:
10.1177/1052562920939612.
Saroyan, A, & Trigwell, K, 2015, ‘Higher education teachers’ professional learning: Process and outcome’, Studies in
Educational Evaluation, vol. 46, pp. 92–101, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.03.008.
Schön, D, 1982, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, Routledge, London.
Theall, M, 2010, ‘Evaluating teaching: From reliability to accountability’, New Directions for Teaching and Learn-
ing, vol. 123, Fall, pp. 85–95, doi: 10.1002/tl.412.