SCHOOL OF EDUCATION REVIEW 2012 - Home | Western · PDF fileSELF ASSESSMENT REPORT ... FME Fundacion Minera Escondida GWS Greater Western Sydney ... School of Education Review 2012

SELF ASSESSMENT REPORTWritten for the cyclical review of the School of Education 1 October 2012

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION REVIEW 2012

Authored by Senior Executive of the School of Education in consultation with members of the School

October 2012

The purpose of cyclical reviews is to ensure that university activities contribute effectively to the achievement of UWS’ mission and key strategic objectives. Cyclical reviews are conducted in accordance with the UWS Reviews Policy and Guidelines (2007).

School of Education Review 2012 3

List of Figures 4

List of Tables 4

List of Appendices 5

List of Abbreviations 5

Introduction 8

Context 8

History 8

How the self-review was conducted 9

Chapter 1 University Engagement 11

Overview 11

Engagement through Learning and Teaching 11

Engagement through Research 16

Engagement through professional partnerships 18

Other Engagement Strategies 19

Conclusions 20

Chapter 2 Research 22

Overview 22

Enduring programs of research 22

Research in the School of Education 2006-2012 25

Research capacity building in the School of Education 27

Measures of research activity and performance 28

Key challenges and recommended ways to address them 34

Conclusion 35

Chapter 3 Learning and Teaching 37

Overview 37

Course Design 40

Student Support 44

Course delivery 47

What we do well in course delivery? 48

Course impact 49

Future challenges 51

Chapter 4 School Workforce Strategy 53

Overview 53

Recent Recruitment History 53

Current staff profile 55

School Academic Workloads 56

Staff Morale and Engagement 58

Attracting and retaining world class staff 59

Rewarding staff 60

Career Development and Planning 61

Future challenges 61

Conclusion 62

Chapter 5 Governance, Organisational Systems and Financial Sustainability 64

Overview 64

Philosophy of Leadership in the School of Education 65

Strategic Planning 65

School Governance and Committee Structure 66

School Organisation 68

Financial Planning Framework 68

School Financial Performance 69

Student Load Trends and Income 70

Relative Funding Outcomes for the School of Education 72

Conclusion 73

In Conclusion 75

Appendices 77

TAbLE OF CONTENTS

4 School of Education Review 2012

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 4.1 School of Education Employees by Age

Figure 4.2 School Academic Workload Profile 2012

Figure 5.1 The UWS Financial Framework

Figure 5.2 EFTSL (Taught Load) 2005 to YTD 2012

LIST OF TABLESTable 1.1 No. students in School-based Professional Experience units in Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary programs

Table 1.2Number of students in Community-based units in Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary programs, 2011 and 2012

Table 1.3 No. students undertaking International Professional Experience placement, 2010-2012

Table 1.4 Number of Stakeholder participants in the Fair Go project, 1999-2011

Table 1.5 The extent of engagement with different Chilean stakeholders and contexts through FIH

Table 2.1 ‘Research active’ members across Education 2007-2010

Table 2.2 Research Grant Income, College of Arts: Total 2005-2007

Table 2.3 Research Grant Income, School of Education/CER: 2008-2011

Table 2.4 E3/CPPE Research Benchmarked Performance Measures: averaged 2006-2011/other entities 2009

Table 2.5 HDR student completions: Education 2008-2010

Table 2.6 Weighted publications

Table 3.1 Student profile, 2008-2011

Table 3.2 Total enrolments 2008-2011

Table 3.3 Student Feedback on Unit (SFU) Survey 2010.1 – 2012.1

Table 3.4 School of Education course ratings (Academic Program Management Plan, 2012-2014)

Table 4.1 Permanent Academic Staff to Taught load ratios, 2006-12

Table 4.2 SSRs across all UWS Schools (based on 2011 load data)

Table 4.3 Classification and Distribution of Staff in the School of Education

Table 4.4 MyVoice Survey Results – Most Positive Responses

Table 4.5 MyVoice Survey Results – Most Negative Responses with Significant Points of Difference to UWS

Table 4.6 Staff awards, 2006-11

Table 5.1 School’s Expenditure by Major Category for years 2007 to June 2012

Table 5.2 Major Categories of the School’s Income for years 2007 to June 2012

Table 5.3 UWS Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) 2012 Estimated PG Load and Target Load and Revenue

Table 5.4 Comparative distribution of CGS+HECS income intended for distribution to School operational budgets - 2012


School of Education Review 2012 5 School of Education Review 2012 5

LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix 1.1 A Sample of staff publications arising from engagement units and engaged research

Appendix 1.2 Awards and grants related directly to engagement units

Appendix 2.1 UWS Education Recent Research Partners

Appendix 2.2 Seminars in 2012 2H

Appendix 2.3 Centre members

Appendix 2.4 Centres vision

Appendix 2.5 Professoriate

Appendix 3.1 Commencing retention, 2008-2011

Appendix 3.12 School of Education commencing student retention strategies v1 (Draft)

Appendix 3.2 UWS Pathways into Early Childhood Teaching

Appendix 3.3 Primary course structure

Appendix 3.4 Secondary course structure

Appendix 3.5 Master of Education suite course structure Bachelor of Arts/Master of Teaching – Secondary

Appendix 3.6 Education Studies Major as part of the Pathways to Teaching in the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science

Appendix 3.7 UWS academic standards and assessment framework for learning and teaching

Appendix 3.8 UWS Learning and Teaching Plan

Appendix 3.9 School of Education Learning and Teaching Plan aligned with the UWS L&T Plan

Appendix 3.10 2011 Annual Course Report – School Executive Summary and School snapshot

Appendix 3.11 UWS quality management framework for commencing student transition and retention

Appendix 3.12 School of Education commencing student retention strategies

Appendix 3.13 Graduation Destination Surveys 2008-2011 Part and Full Time Work

Appendix 5.1 School of Education Organisation Charts

Appendix 5.2 Agenda for School’s Strategic Planning Days & Retreats (2009-2011)

Appendix 5.3 Table showing dollar values for Income with explanatory notes:

ACR Annual Course Report

AITSL Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

ALTC Australian Learning and Teaching Council

AREP Aboriginal Rural Education Program

AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency

BEd Bachelor of Education

BOT Board of Trustees

CEQ Course Experience Questionnaire

CER Centre for Educational Research

CGS Commonwealth Grant Scheme

CPPE Centre for Positive Psychology and Education

CSA Client Service Accountant

CSP Commonwealth Supported Place

CWB Classroom without Borders

DAP Director of Academic Program

DEE Diversity, Ethics and Education

EB Equity Buddies

EC Early Childhood

EFTSL Equivalent Full Time Student Load

ERA Excellence in Research Australia

FIH Futuro Infantil Hoy

FME Fundacion Minera Escondida

GWS Greater Western Sydney

HSIE Human Society and Its Environment

KWD Knowledge, Work Democracy

L&T Learning & Teaching

LTEG Learning and Teaching Enhancement Grant

MAPS Mathematics Assistance for Pre-service Students

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


MTeach Master of Teaching

PASS Peer Assisted Study Support

PASTL Permanent Academic Staff to Taught Load

PDHPE Personal Development, Health & Physical Education

PE3 Professional Experience 3

PIRI Planning Implementation Review and Improvement

RAS Refugee Action Support

RCE Regional Centre for Expertise

RIF Research Investment Fund

ROSETE Research Oriented School Engaged Teacher-researcher Education

RQF Research Quality Framework

SAC School Academic Committee

SEECS School of Education and Early Childhood Studies

SELF Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation

SELL School of Social Ecology and Lifelong Learning

SFU Student Feedback on Units

SMAC School Management Advisory Committee

SOE School of Education

SSERP Strategic Secondary Education Research Program

SSO Student Support Officer

SSR Staff-Student Ratio

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

UWS University of Western Sydney

vUWS Online Learning Site Blackboard 9 (UWS acronym)

WSR Western Sydney Region


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CONT’D

RELATED DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED SEPARATELYSchool of Education Strategic Plan

School of Education Strategic Plan Research 2012

Centre for Educational Research Strategic Plan 2012

Centre for Positive Psychology and Education Strategic Plan 2012


IntroductIon



CONTExT

The University of Western Sydney has quickly developed into a leading-edge, metropolitan university. It is situated in Greater Western Sydney (GWS) – one of the most dynamic, culturally diverse, and economically important regions of Australia. Characterised by its creativity, productivity, global flows of migration, wealth and poverty, education is a critical resource for the development of the region and the wellbeing and prosperity of its people. The University is committed to providing leadership and partnerships through which educational provision enriches the lives of people who reside in the GWS region, and more generally in the Sydney basin. The School of Education (SoE) is a key platform in the commitment UWS has towards this goal.

In meeting the commitment of the university towards its stakeholder groups and communities, the School of Education is committed to a futures orientation for leaders and practitioners in all contexts of education and learning – particularly those in early childhood settings, schools and universities, but also those in community and non-formal contexts. Such an orientation requires the dispositions for continuing to learn new skills, making new connections between ideas and solving future problems using means that may not yet have been devised.

The School of Education at UWS comprises skilled staff who provide leadership in their own profession on a national and international level. The School is committed to building leadership capacity in all areas of education through outstanding programs in pre-service teacher education, professional learning for practising educators, and research into teaching and learning and cultural practices in educational contexts. We are committed to developing forms of practice that look to the future – for this is our greatest challenge – and that will contribute to transforming educational experience and outcomes for children, young people, and adults. In particular, we are committed to producing capable beginning teachers and emerging educational leaders.

HISTORy

The School of Education was established in 2006 with the amalgamation of two previous schools: the School of Social Ecology and Lifelong Learning (SELL) and the School of Education and Early Childhood Studies (SEECS). Although the schools had been separate units, there was already some interaction between them with staff attached to SELL teaching inside the initial teacher education programs that were administered by SEECS. The consolidation in 2006 enabled the reorganisation of delivery from three campuses to two, and eliminated duplication of programs with Bankstown campus specialising in Primary education, Penrith campus specialising in Secondary pre-service teacher education, and different components of early childhood teacher education delivered on each campus. Initially Social Ecology continued to be delivered primarily at post-graduate level in residential intensives twice a year.

A shift in ethos and understanding of education was opened up when Social Ecology programs became part of the new integrated School of Education. Social Ecology is unique in the educational landscapes of Australia, and has a long and prestigious history of producing graduates who are leaders in community environmental and sustainability education. Gradually, since the formation of the School of Education, insights from Social Ecology have infused pre-service teacher education pathways and the research and teaching activities of the School of Education. In 2008, an Education Studies major was introduced into the Bachelor of Arts for students intending to enrol in teacher education programs after the completion of their initial degrees, through a preferential ‘Straight into Teaching’ initiative. Within the Education Studies major, most students complete the Social Ecology sequence of units (500 enrolments) producing a significant impact on pre-service teachers’ understandings of education’s responsibilities to contribute to sustainable futures in social, cultural and environmental domains. The new Centre for Educational Research has formed with a particular focus on research for sustainable futures and the recruitment of new academic staff in 2011 and 2012 attracted a number of senior academic researchers with expertise in place and sustainability education.

IntroductIon


Simultaneously, the School of Education has developed significant links internationally. The Ningbo project brings a cohort of outstanding young scholars from China to Australia each year for Masters of Education (Honours) research degrees in a partnership program with the NSW Department of Education and Communities. These research students teach Chinese language part time in western Sydney public schools and research the process of second language teaching. In addition, the Chile project has established early childhood education and leadership as central to community renewal in disadvantaged locations in Antofogasta, northern Chile and has recently expanded to poor communities in Santiago. These substantial ongoing programs are complement by the recent United Nations funded Child Friendly Cities program in Kazakhstan and leadership of the Child Friendly Asia Pacific Network housed within the new Centre for Educational Research. Locally, community engagement has been central to the design of our pre-service teacher education with substantial service learning practicum components in each of our programs. This service learning has been recognised by numerous awards at the university, national and international levels for individuals and groups, which are underpinned by the values stated above and permeate each of the separate portfolios documented in this Self Review.

HOW THE SELF-REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED

The terms of reference for the School of Education self-assessment were presented to the School of Education Executive on 28 March and over the following month some amendments were negotiated. The self-assessment process was negotiated at a School executive meeting on 1 May and the following staff took on the responsibility of a chapter: Christine Johnston, Director of International and Engagement for Chapter 1 Engagement; Wayne Sawyer, Director of Research, for Chapter 2 Research; Mary Mooney, Deputy Dean (Learning and Teaching), Chapter 3 Learning and Teaching; Steve Wilson, Dean, Chapter 4 School Workforce Strategy; and Shane Wharton, School Manager, Chapter 5 Governance, Organisational Systems and Financial Sustainability. In addition, Margaret Somerville undertook the responsibility for the conceptual coherence and final edit and Nicolette Pearson’s role was to project manage the self-assessment, liaise with the Office of Strategy and Quality and assist with the layout of the text. A key milestone in the self-assessment was the School Meeting and Special Issues Forum on 17 May which included the participation of School staff in a self-assessment of the five terms of reference. These were collated and formed the basis of the first draft by each of the chapter authors. The Self Assessment Dropbox contributed to a collegial approach to the self-assessment as all authors were able to comment on each others’ versions throughout the writing phase. During this phase, there were frequent consultations with various teams of the academic and professional staff and the final draft version was circulated to the whole school for their critical appraisal.


chapter 1UNIvERSITy

ENGAGEMENT



OVERVIEW

University engagement is a cornerstone of the mission and vision of the University of Western Sydney. In both of its Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) audits, in 2006 and 2011, UWS received commendations for its engagement with the communities of Greater Western Sydney (GWS). In the 2006 audit, the review panel found that a key feature of UWS is that it is “a university of the people”. It has a strong synergy with, and identification within, its region. Part of the University of Western Sydney Act mandates that UWS should connect with, serve, and provide leadership in the region of GWS, and this has been a significant aspect of its identity.

Indeed, as part of this ongoing mission, the University is currently undertaking a review of its community and regional engagement strategy. The UWS Self Assessment was completed in August 2012. This submission provides the context of the School’s activities with some of those activities highlighted throughout the report.

The School of Education’s work in university engagement encompasses a diverse range of activities and commitments. At base is the ways in which the School’s staff and students interact with the broader UWS, local, national and international communities through our teaching programs. Our engagement activities include classroom-based professional experience; student community engagement opportunities through academic service learning; engagement through research and research partnerships; the participation of international students with respect to both initial teacher training and research higher degrees; the provision of short and targeted courses to practising teachers and allied professionals through the Education Knowledge Network; promotion of the School of Education Alumni Association; and through participation in public media and other contributions to thought leadership.

Through its engaged work in teaching and research, the School of Education mirrors both the vision and mission of UWS to engage with and serve the communities of GWS. The School’s staff expresses, in microcosm, the passion that most staff in the broader university community bring to their commitment to UWS as an engaged university. To a significant extent, the work of the School of Education is one of the foundational building blocks of UWS’s work in engaged teaching and research. In teaching, each of our major programs contains a core unit that utilises the principles of academic service learning. Through these, in 2011-12, 2797 community-based service learning student placements for academic credit have been organised as part of our initial teacher education and Education Studies Major programs (refer to Table 1.2 below). Additionally, our coursework and research Masters and doctoral programs are characterised by an applied focus through their assessment tasks and research contexts. In our research, much of our research is undertaken in GWS and addresses significant educational issues which confront the region. Often, these projects are conducted in partnership with significant regional stakeholders. On occasions, similar projects, of an equally engaged nature, are undertaken in international contexts, in regions facing similar educational and economic issues as those confronted in GWS. All have significant community benefit.

ENgAgEmENT THROUgH LEARNINg AND TEACHINg

A key platform for the School’s engagement activities is through providing engaged learning experiences for our students through mandatory classroom-based professional experience placements (‘Prac’), and through voluntary placements in community contexts through academic service learning for academic credit. These experiences provide our students, and those with whom they work in schools and community settings, with opportunities to understand and develop a powerful nexus between theory and practice in all facets of the work of the School.

chapter 1UNIvERSITy

ENGAGEMENT

TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The extent to which the concept of engagement is at the centre of the School’s Learning & Teaching and Research strategies, and reflects the University’s commitments to engagement with the GWS community.


Engagement through School-based Professional Experience

School-based Professional Experience is a mandatory component of initial teacher education programs. The amount of professional experience is mandated by the relevant accrediting bodies. Given the numbers of students in our Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary programs, administering the school (and centre) based professional experience program is a substantial undertaking as evidenced in Table 1.1 below. This sets out the numbers of student placements and schools/settings in each of the programs over the past two years. It is an endeavour in which professional and academic staff work closely together and which provides substantial positive outcomes for our students.

There are obvious challenges in administering a Professional Experience program of this size. Indeed, the large number of placements we require presents ongoing issues for the staff involved as they work to provide quality placements and offer choice to the students undertaking this phase of their course. As a consequence, the School is currently exploring a number of approaches to increasing the number of schools and early childhood settings which have an ongoing commitment to the School and UWS.

These include: » Encouraging our alumni to “give back” to the School through the mentoring of

students on practicum; » Strengthening our recognition program of awards for schools and teachers who

support our professional experience programs; » The offering of targeted short courses through the Education Knowledge Network

to teachers who have our students in their classrooms/settings at reduced cost; and

» The trialling of an innovative mentoring program for co-operating teachers which would be accredited by the NSW Institute of Teachers and which may itself also be articulated into a Masters degree in, for example, Education Leadership.

The mentoring program is being trialled at Lansvale Public School, one of our Centres for Excellence partnership schools, in 2012. It is offered over 28 hours and has a substantial online component, and is thus a substantial undertaking for the teachers involved. The aims of the program are to: assist supervising teachers to work in a

Table 1.1 – Number of students in school- and centre-based Professional Experience units in Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary programs

Name of Professional Experience Unit 1H 2011 2H 2011 1H 2012 2H 2012

Prof. Portfolio 1 (B.Ed. 0-5) N/A 83 N/A 84

Prof. Portfolio 2 (B.Ed. 0-5) N/A 23 N/A 61

Prof. Portfolio 3 (B.Ed. 0-5) N/A N/A N/A 21

Early Childhood PE1 (M.Teach - EC) 64 28 30 49

Early Childhood PE2 (M.Teach - EC) 71 63 26 28

Primary PE (for EC) (M.Teach - EC) 23 55 47 33

Professional Practice 1 (Primary) 190 293 263 253

Professional Practice 2 (Primary) 162 218 228 293

Professional Experience 1 (Secondary) 355 139 302 192


Total 1,000 1,288 1,030 1,302

chapter 1UNIvERSITy

ENGAGEMENT


collegial relationship with their student teacher; provide opportunities for supervising teachers to review and reflect on their previous practices when working with student teachers; promote a collegial approach to working with student teachers that utilises a modified clinical supervision approach; encourage supervising teachers to practise their collegial skills in working with a student teacher, and encourage supervising teachers to reflect upon their processes in working with a student teacher and evaluate their effectiveness. The program has recently concluded and is currently under evaluation. It is intended that the program will be implemented more generally in 2013.

Community Engagement and Service Learning

The prime aim of the community engagement opportunities offered within the School of Education is to enable our students to work with children and young people in settings other than the classrooms and early childhood settings where they will predominantly spend their professional lives. In undertaking community work through education they come to see children and young people as the individuals they are and to develop an understanding of the roles played by families and communities in education. The outcome is the realisation that true and equal partnerships with families, community members and the children they teach lead to enhanced learning and exemplary teaching practice.

In expressing this commitment, the School of Education has embedded mandatory, community-based service learning units in each of its major initial teacher education programs, and in the Education Studies Major offered in the undergraduate ‘pathways into teaching’. Table 1.2 below outlines the number of units on offer which, in the period 2011-12, have provided 2797 community-based placements for our students.

These units offer a wide range of programs and placement contexts from which students can choose. Many of these are profiled on the School of Education web site at the following URL: http://uws.edu.au/education/soe/practicals#2. Many of the academic staff who have developed and manage these programs have also developed funded research projects and produced publications outputs around them. (Appendix 1.1). Staff and programs have also received recognition through UWS and external awards (Appendix 1.2). Several of these programs and the experiences they offer to students are overviewed below.

Equity Buddies: Equity Buddies (EB) is a for-credit cross-level student mentoring unit, Professional Learning Experience, developed with support from an OLT grant. In the program, UWS students are trained as mentors to mentor other, less experienced UWS students who are often from refugee, low SES or ESL students. The program delivers clear benefits for the mentors who participate as well as the mentees, including a stronger sense of ‘community’ on campus, improved writing and referencing skills, better time management, and (importantly) greater cross-cultural

Table 1.2 – Number of students in Community-based units in Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary programs, 2011 and 2012

Name of Unit 1H 2011 2H 2011 1H 2012 2H 2012

Various Early Childhood units 133 - 198 -

Learning through Community Service (Ed Studies Major) 32 53 - -

Experiential Learning in Communities (Ed Studies Major) - - 53 70

Classrooms Without Borders (Primary) 348 266 277 461


Total 715 535 772 775


understanding. An alarming finding from our research through this program is that many students seemed, through Equity Buddies, to ‘discover’ for the first time that if you use relationships as a resource you can solve problems, do better work, and feel more confident. One student said … ‘This gave me a completely different idea about what the University experience can be. It’s not just about results’. This was not an isolated comment. Many students were surprised that ‘community building’ and ‘networking’ could be so powerful.

Classrooms without Borders: This unit (CWB) is mandatory for those in the Master of Teaching (Primary) and typically has an enrolment in each semester of some 300 students. It gives students the opportunity to participate in a range of community programs, both locally and in remote locations. Some of the experiences offered to students include: Indigenous Mentoring (after-school study skills and literacy); collaborating with the charity One Laptop Per Child (in the Northern Territory); and working with the Australian Literacy Foundation in Tennant Creek. (Note: A short video clip on this project is available on the URL cited above). The aim of CWB is to build professional teaching skills by enhancing student teachers’ understandings of socio-cultural differences through the engagement of students with agencies that focus on minority and disadvantaged communities, particularly Aboriginal, migrant, ESL and refugee communities. It seeks to promote active and responsible citizenship, and an awareness of social justice and equity principles that are essential for both teaching and learning. One student, having completed the unit, said:

‘Something I learnt is that not everyone is the same. …Meeting the people you realise that they are different; their circumstances are so different. And you can’t treat everyone the same because they are so not. I’m so passionate now…some children in the primary school, you [ask] where’s your jumper and they don’t have one because they can’t afford a jumper. You have to think of those factors’. (CWB student, group interview, June 2010).

This quote is taken from a journal article which Tania Ferfolja, Diana Whitton and Clare Sidoti wrote around the impact of academic service learning on pre-service teachers (Ferfolja,T, Whitton, D. & Sidoti, C.(2010) Classrooms without Borders: Using Academic Service Learning to Enhance Pre‐Service Teachers’ Understandings of Diversity and Difference, The Australasian Journal of University-Community Engagement, 5(2), p115-125), and illustrates the commitment that School of Education staff have to promoting scholarship of university engagement through learning and teaching.

Professional Experience 3: This is an award-winning unit (see appendix 1.2) and suite of programs (PE3) that enables final-year student teachers to gain valuable experience that may give them the edge when applying for teaching positions. The chance to work with young people in community settings adds an extra dimension to our graduates’ teaching skills. Some of the streams currently on offer through PE3 include: Community Action Support - Tennant Creek NT, in which students work with young people at Tennant Creek High School to develop their capacity as mentors to improve literacy, and increase the confidence of young primary-school participants and create a positive community perception of learning and higher education; and Refugee Action Support, in which students act as study mentors to newly arrived refugee students in selected schools in western Sydney. Participants receive two days training with the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation and are then matched with a student / school to work with them each week through the semester.

Other programs available through PE3 include Mentoring Students – Next Generation; Crossing Borders – International Peer Support; and Working with Young People with Disabilities. A student involved in the Refugee Action Support program wrote:

‘One of the main reasons why I applied to be part of RAS (Refugee Action Support) was because I volunteer with children of refugee backgrounds with an organisation called ALIV. Through the RAS training I was given the opportunity to more fully grasp and understand ESL pedagogy. This opportunity showed me the significance of developing and structuring thoughtful lessons which accommodate

chapter 1UNIvERSITy

ENGAGEMENT


your students’ needs. The focus was the significance of effective scaffolding. I developed my own rapport with students on whom I hope to have had a positive effect. They also had a profound impact on my awareness and passion to assist students who have had a disadvantaged education’.

It is clear that such experiences have an effect on not just the student’s pedagogical practice but also, and just as importantly, on their values and attitudes. These comments are typical and provide powerful evidence of the efficacy of the approach taken by the School in placing community engagement at the centre of our teacher education programs.

International Professional Experience: As part of its community-based professional experience program the School of Education has traditionally offered Professional Experience Programs for our students in such countries as Fiji, Cook Islands, Malaysia and China. The opportunity to live and work in another culture broadens and deepens the students’ life experiences while encouraging reflection of their role as teachers in their own culture. The tours are open to all students enrolled in Education programs and the tours have included students from the AREP, Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary programs. Students may join the tour to complete a unit such as Professional Experience 3, a non-award unit, or as a career experience not associated with a unit, where the report is added to their portfolio. A challenge for us in this form of professional experience is to develop ways of enabling the participation of low SES students who lack the financial means to travel overseas.

Most recently, these programs have focused on Penang in Malaysia and Ningbo, in China. An overview of the numbers of students who have participated in these programs is provided in Table 1.3 below. Changes in the numbers of students participating are largely due to student interest and ability to pay the costs involved.

The Penang Malaysian tour offers students the opportunity to teach for 10 days in Malaysian schools and to experience the exotic culture of Penang Island. Malaysia has a current policy of teaching mathematics and science in English (although under review) and they welcome English speakers in their schools. Schools in Penang use English across all subjects. The China tour offers a two week program, staying at accommodation in Ningbo University and working in a range of English-speaking activities with Chinese pre-service teachers.

The benefits of student engagement through these programs are manifest. A key challenge for the School in their provision relates primarily to accessing a sufficient number of quality placements and in ensuring the consistency of their delivery and outcomes. A further challenge is for our staff to maintain the consistency and quality of relationships with the many organisations and agencies which host these placements. Currently, our staff are under pressure on many fronts, and it is difficult to maintain this quality of connection in relation to our partners who host our community-based placements.

Developing Teaching through External Partnerships

As a result of the engagement with industry partners in Telstra and Acer Computers Australia, the Ubiquitous Access Pilot is currently underway in the School. This Pilot provides an opportunity for the School and University to become familiar with the

Table 1.3 – No. students undertaking International Professional Experience placement, 2010-2012

Placement destination 2010 2011 2012

Penang, Malaysia 16 16 24

Beijing and Ningbo, China 20 11 -

Total 36 27 24


pedagogical practices and the support and infrastructure requirements around ubiquitous, personal computer access by students. The technology provides increased flexibility in teaching modes and the potential to link students online to allow them to learn, collaborate and share in new ways. Telstra and Acer have been key partners in making the pilot a reality. Both Telstra and Acer have supported the planning and implementation of the pilot with technical expertise and financial assistance. Currently one tutorial group in each of our major courses (three tutorial groups in total) have access to a highly specified Acer notebook computer and a Telstra 3G access account. School staff will need to develop new skills in operating in a technology rich environment in the context of ubiquitous personal access to online communities and collaboration tools. UWS is able to investigate issues around sustainable and scalable support and infrastructure provision. School staff are developing new skills in operating in a technology rich environment in the context of ubiquitous personal access to online communities and collaboration tools. We are also developing new modes of teaching, organising, collaborating and assessing students and School staff are able to research “next practice” first hand. This project directly supports the creation of superior and engaged learning experiences which enable students to study in their own time supported by appropriate ICT enabled resources and optimises conditions for retentions and success of students.

ENgAgEmENT THROUgH RESEARCH

The School of Education has built a considerable number of research partnerships over many years which have focused on regional issues and educational solutions to them. We consider these to be ‘engaged’ research projects because they generally focus on working collaboratively with the partners on their methodological or pedagogical approaches to service provision in the community. By working with organisations through research in this way, we feel we are contributing to an understanding of regional issues, and the improvements to practices which can assist in outcomes and capacity-building within the region.

The most common of these research partnerships and projects over the years have been with single schools in GWS, or with small clusters of schools. These research partnerships have often been funded through the Priority Schools Support Program or similar state or commonwealth funding sources. Other common forms of research partnership have been with the regional level of school systems such as the DEC or CEO, and with local government and NGOs across GWS. Some have been initially seeded through UWS Research Partnerships or UWS Research Grants schemes, and some have become successful ARC-funded projects. While being applied in nature and focused on community outcomes, our engaged research projects have also been an important source of externally funded research revenue for the School of Education. The School of Education has been one of the most successful and consistent performers of any School or Centre within UWS in attracting Category 2 (industry) research income.

Several current larger scale engaged research projects in the School and its Centres represent concrete examples of the social and educational benefits that can be achieved through prolonged engaged research partnerships. Three examples of such programs - the Fair Go project, Futuro Infantil Hoy, and the ROSETE program are described in more detail in the following chapter on research. Here we summarise their impact from an engagement perspective.

The Fair Go project has evolved from its beginnings in 1999 as an unfunded engagement between School of Education academics and low SES schools in Western Sydney to a major long term partnership with the Department of Education and Communities, large numbers of local schools and teachers, and funding through the Australian Research Council. The following table summarises the direct engagement of schools, teachers, and students up until 2011. A further three years funding of $450,000 has been received by the large scale inter-university Bridges to Higher Education Program to continue this engaged research from 2012-2015.

chapter 1UNIvERSITy

ENGAGEMENT


The Fair Go project contributes to addressing issues of poverty and disadvantage by empowering teachers in these schools to engage in a continuous cycle of reflection and action towards attainging the highest quality of education for these children and communities.

The Futuro Infantil Hoy (FIH) is a flagship program of international engaged research within UWS which has been developed within an international collaboration in Chile between Fundacion Minera Escondida, (a social responsibility foundation), the Chile National Board of Early Childhood, and researchers from the School of Education at UWS. The program began after Associate Professor Christine Woodrow, Prof. Steve Wilson, Dr June Wangmann and Prof. Bronwyn Davies were invited to present at an international conference in Santiago convened by the Ministry of Education in Chile in 2006. Staff who have subsequently participated in the program include A/Prof. Christine Woodrow, (Project leader), Dr Leonie Arthur, Ms Kerry Staples, Prof. Michael Singh, and Prof. Steve Wilson. The following table summarises the numbers of early childhood centres, educators and children who participate in these programs.

Through FIH, UWS has developed an excellent reputation with FME and other Chilean stakeholders, including government and universities. It is expected that new opportunities will also arise from this collaboration at the conclusion of the current engagement. Futuro Infantil Hoy is an international collaboration which showcases the best of international engagement practices.

The Research Oriented School Engaged Teacher-researcher Education (ROSETE) partnership and research program was initiated in May 2007 when a joint delegation from UWS (Professor Michael Singh), the Western Sydney Region (WSR) and the NSW DET Deputy Director-General met with the Ningbo Municipal Education Bureau in China. These three partner organisations signed a Memorandum of Understanding

Table 1.4 – Number of Stakeholder participants in the Fair Go project, 1999-2011

Phase of Fair Go projectNo. Schools

involvedNo. teachers

involvedNo. School students

involved

Phase 1 1999 - 2002 4 8 240

Phase 2, 2002 - 2005 8 18 540

Phase 3, 2008 - 2010 27 28 840

Phase 4, 2010 - 2011 3 9 270

Total 42 63 1890

The extent of engagement with different Chilean stakeholders and contexts through FIH is outlined in Table 1.5 below

Phase of Futuro Infantil Hoy Project

Geographical focus (Chile)

No. Centres & communities participating

No. EC educators participating

No. children benefiting

Phase 1 2008 – 2010 Antofagasta 5 40 210

Phase 2, 2011 - 2013Antofagasta,

Topocilla17 180 1400

Phase 3, 2012 – 2014 (awaiting sign-off- this project also involves Year 1)

Quillicura(in Santiago)

16 300 3032

Total 38 520 4642


for a local/international a community capacity building project which would involve university graduates from Ningbo Municipal Education Bureau volunteering to study for a Master of Education (Honours) at UWS, a degree which focused directly on their efforts to stimulate the teaching and learning of Chinese in WSR. The outcomes of the program have been manifold, including:

» Having primary and secondary schools students’ learn Chinese as a second language by focusing on how cross socio-linguistic similarities between their first language (English in most cases) and the target language (Chinese) can be used to maximise the learnability of the language;

» Contributing to the Ningbo Volunteers capabilities as teacher-researchers to produce research-based knowledge of, and to make informed decisions about curriculum and pedagogically knowledge required to improve the second language learning and learning outcomes of some 5,000 students in Western Sydney Region schools, and

» Stimulating the study of Chinese in 18 Western Sydney Region schools through the teaching of 4,017 primary students and 1,358 secondary students.

To date, ROSETE candidates have achieved 100% on-time submission of theses and 100% success in the examination of their theses. The 27 ROSETE graduates in the past three years have either returned to China where all have gained full-time employment in areas related to their studies in Australia, or have started their own family (2 students). There are three exceptions; students who have stayed on at the University of Western Sydney to undertake their PhDs.

Through the ways in which it operates, the ROSETE program is a powerful example of how positive outcomes can be achieved for all engaged in such a partnership. The Western Sydney Region of DEC has access to highly skilled teachers of Mandarin who are engaged in researching their own practice; the Ningbo Municipal Education Bureau to high quality research training for their educators; and the School (through CER) to a motivated cohort of Higher Degree Research students and a highly relevant and meaningful program of research. The viability of extending the program to other countries is currently being explored.

ENgAgEmENT THROUgH pROFESSIONAL pARTNERSHIpS

The Fair Go and ROSETE partnerships are examples of the ways in which the UWS School of Education has engaged strongly with public education in the Western Sydney and South West Sydney regions of the DEC. These partnerships were strengthened in 2006-07 through the development of Committees of Cooperation with each region, with these two committees were amalgamated into a single committee of cooperation in 2009. Other projects have developed within this framework, including the Secondary Schools Strategic Research Project (SSERP), and the Lachlan Macquarie College maths and science initiative, which is now promoted by UWS through our Schools Engagement Program. A URL to SSERP can be accessed at http://learning21c.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/new-secondary-research-program-at-uws-innovation-and-the-future-learner/

A URL to the Lachlan Macquarie College program can be accessed at: http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/189491/SEN1816_LMC_3_HR.pdf

A similar professional engagement partnership exists between the School of Education and the Mittiga Centre. In this, the School of Education with support from the University has an ongoing partnership with the Cerebral Palsy Alliance. Jointly, they have established the Mittiga Centre on the UWS campus at Penrith. The Mittiga Centre was officially opened in November 2007. Currently 250 families of children with Cerebral Palsy attend the centre to access support from a trans-disciplinary team of Speech Pathologists, Physiotherapists, Occupational Therapists, Physiotherapists, Family Support Workers, Psychologist, Exercise Psychologist and an Early Educator.

Professional Staff

chapter 1UNIvERSITy

ENGAGEMENT


Students and staff from UWS have a presence at the Mittiga Centre in several ways. Two offices within the Centre are dedicated UWS spaces occupied by Post Graduate Students and Research Assistants. Special Education academics have utilised the Centre’s Meeting Room for summer schools, in-service programs and meetings with community stakeholders (none of which was connected to the work of the Mittiga Centre). The recipient of a PhD scholarship jointly offered by the then Spastic Centre and UWS, is currently writing up her thesis for submission. The topic was chosen by the Cerebral Palsy Alliance as relevant to their work.

One of the first projects where a specific partnership between students of the School of Education and clients of the Mittiga Centre was established was with the Secondary Teaching Program’s Professional Experience 3 (PE3) program, where students provide support to clients of the Spastic Centre with homework. This component will grow in the coming year.

It is also worth noting that the School of Social Sciences and Psychology is in the process of extending this partnership across the university with the building of a student centre on the Cerebral Palsy Alliance’s Prairiewood Campus; an example of how projects grow and offer increasing opportunities right across the university community.

An ongoing issue with this and other projects is the lack of a critical resource: time. This is critical in two ways with respect to engagement. Firstly, setting up new projects and opportunities is generally a lengthy process and demands a commitment from all parties that can be difficult to achieve. Secondly, in a crowded curriculum that must meet the requirements of external accreditation and where the majority of students have work and family fitting opportunities for student engagement into the program can itself be a challenge. These are challenges which are worth solving given the positive effects they bring to the work of the School.

OTHER ENgAgEmENT STRATEgIES

The School of Education has developed other strategies to promote the engagement of staff with the broader community, and to benefit the community through our engagement. We do this through our program of short courses for teachers provided through our Education Knowledge Network program; through promoting and sustaining the Education Alumni Chapter; through our media commentary, and through our Education blog, 21st Century Learning. These are outlined briefly below.

The Education Knowledge Network: The EKN offers short, targeted courses for teachers, students, allied professionals and parents who focus on many aspects of teaching and learning. These courses are recognised by the NSW Institute of Teachers, as the School is an endorsed provider of professional development for the maintenance of accreditation at Professional Competence. Courses are offered by both staff within the School and external providers. The Education Knowledge Network program of courses for 2012 can be accessed on our web site at: http://uws.edu.au/education/soe/education_knowledge_network/education_knowledge_network_meetings

In the years 2009-2011 EKN offered a total of 54 short courses, engaging 1,484 teachers and a further 191 UWS student teachers. To this point in 2012, EKN has offered 13 short courses engaging 276 teachers and 7 UWS student teachers.

To date, the scope of the courses offered has been relatively limited and focussed on issues related to Primary Education. This has been largely as a consequence of staff willingness and availability to be involved. There is recognition that expansion of the EKN is desirable since it could offer a means of expanding enrolment in the coursework Masters programs (through articulation of the short workshops offered into assessable courses for which credit might be given) and a small income stream for the School unrelated to student enrolments in the major programs. The EKN also provides another opportunity for the community to become aware of the work being done within the School. The expansion of the Education Knowledge Network is a key element of the operational plans for the Engagement and International portfolio.


School of Education Alumni Association: The UWS Education Alumni Association has the aim of ensuring that graduates from Education programs at UWS can retain their links to the University of Western Sydney and receive benefits from doing so. To date, however, the School has not been as proactive as it might be in making it possible and advantageous for alumni to be engaged in the ongoing work of the School. Ways of achieving this are now being explored. Initiatives being considered include the encouragement of alumni to become co-operating teachers within our professional experience programs; discounted access to courses offered within the Education Knowledge Network; access to research seminars run within the School and its Centres, and social events designed to enable networking amongst alumni, current students and staff of the School. The Education Alumni URL is: http://uws.edu.au/alumni/chapters/education_alumni_network_ean

It should be noted that the Centre for Positive Psychology and Education (CPPE) has also recently set up its own alumni association to encourage ongoing engagement with its research graduates. Our social ecology graduates also have a strong alumni group with whom we need to engage more. This group is a chapter within the old Hawkesbury Alumni Association.

Engagement with the Media: Engagement with the media has been a feature of the School since its inception. Staff are regularly called upon to comment on issues in the print and electronic media. The School has its own nominated Media Officer who is one of the academic staff, and also benefits greatly from the work of the university’s media unit and, in particular, the work of Danielle Roddick. To date in 2012 the number of articles written by School of Education staff or media mentions about their work has increased by over 200% over 2011 engagements. This includes a pleasing increasing exposure in national media. In the period January – July 2012, 25 staff in the School have written, or been cited, in 114 separate media outputs. Additionally, the work of our research students has been cited 21 times in this period.

In addition, since 2009 the School has circulated a quarterly e-newsletter called EdNews which contains news of the achievements of our students and staff, and events, projects and partnerships the School of Education is undertaking. This is sent out to schools, alumni and other stakeholders. Past editions of EdNews can be accessed from the School of Education web site at: http://uws.edu.au/education/soe/school_of_education_enewsletter

21st Century Learning: Finally, the School has been publishing a blog entitled 21st Century Learning since February 2010. Along with our general media strategy, the blog is designed to provide general community access to the research and ideas of our staff, and enable our staff to engage in thought leadership on educational issues, while enabling the community to respond to these issues through comment on the blog. A new contribution is posted every two weeks. On Friday August 10th we had posted 65 articles on 21st Century Learning, which had attracted 50,233 hits, 191 comments and 137 Followers. Most academic members of the School have contributed a blog article, which are commonly accessed through Google and other searches, with 25 to 35 separate posts typically accessed each day. The Blog provides yet another avenue for engagement with the community, and have also been accessed by the media as a source of education content. Additionally, some staff have picked up small research consultancies and speaking engagements as a result of what they have written on the Blog. 21st Century Learning is accessed at: http://learning21c.wordpress.com/

CONCLUSION

As stated at the beginning of this report, the commitment of the School of Education to engagement at a local and international level is real. It defines much of the work of the School in its teaching and research. The outcomes of that engagement have been and will continue to be profound for our students, our staff and the communities with whom we engage. We believe that the engagement which underpins much of our work helps to define our character as a School of Education, and is a distinctive feature of the way we practise Education.

chapter 1UNIvERSITy

ENGAGEMENT


chapter 2RESEARCH



OVERVIEW

Research in the School of Education is underpinned by the mandate of the University of Western Sydney to enhance the region’s cultural, economic, environmental and educational development. Because of this mandate, research activities in the School of Education reflect researcher engagement with major educational questions that arise from the region’s characteristics. The Greater Western Sydney (GWS) region has a population of 1.9 million people and is one of the fastest growing urban populations in Australia. It covers 14 diverse local government areas that extend from Windsor in the north to Campbelltown in the south, and from Parramatta in the east to Penrith and the Blue Mountains in the west. The population of the region is characterised by high cultural diversity with the majority of new immigrants (60%) that come to Australia settling in GWS. 35% of the total population come from overseas, from more than 170 countries, and speak over 100 different languages. The region is also home to the Indigenous Darug, Tharawal and Gandarra peoples, and has the largest single Indigenous community in the country with Indigenous people who have relocated from all over Australia.

Despite the fact that GWS’s economy is the third largest in Australia behind the Sydney CBD and Melbourne, the region has higher than average unemployment and lower than average salary levels. GWS also has high levels of mortgage stress as well as rental stress. Seven of the ten local government areas are rated as having the highest levels of disadvantage on the SEIFA index. Economic disadvantage is related to poor health outcomes and education is the single factor that has been found to influence these outcomes. The high cultural diversity, especially successive waves of incoming migration, produces pressure on early childhood, school and community education provision in terms of language and basic social integration skills. The challenges facing students with refugee backgrounds are especially acute. Educational achievement is also marked by the low socio-economic status of many communities in the region. The overall high school retention rates for years 7 to 12 are the lowest in the Sydney metropolitan area (69.5% compared to 95.2% in Northern Sydney). In 2009, twice as many people in GWS aged 15 or older had not attended school at all compared to the rest of Sydney and NSW. UWS is the only university in the region and offers a range of courses and research programs to some 36,000 students. As described in the following Chapter 3, the School of Education provides teacher education courses in early childhood, primary and secondary, as well as community education to this constituency, and educational researchers engage with the major challenges posed for educational practice across these sectors.

While the narrative of the period 2006-2012 is contained below, it is worth highlighting first that Education at UWS has developed a number of long term, enduring programs of research which reflect the issues arising from researchers’ engagement with the region and their expertise in researching questions of local, regional and international significance. These also show that even while research engagement is embedded in the region it serves, the rich cultural and language diversity of that region has generated substantial long term international research as well.

The following provides a brief summary of some of these enduring research programs before beginning a narrative of the period 2006-2012.

ENDURINg pROgRAmS OF RESEARCH

The Fair Go Project

This project had its genesis in 1999 with a number of Education academics from the Bankstown campus establishing it as an unfunded research partnership with local low SES schools. It progressed to being a well-established research project with funding provided through the ARC, developing unique and innovative approaches to the conduct of that research. Teachers, who apply to be part of the project, are trained as

chapter 2RESEARCH

TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The extent to which the School’s research strategy and performance meet the University’s strategic objective of being a research-led institution.


co-researchers thus enhancing their own skills in the application of evidence-based practice in the classroom. Students in Fair Go classrooms benefit from the enhanced pedagogies and learning environments that evolve from the close collaboration between teachers and researchers.

In the most recently completed phase of the project, Associate Professor Geoff Munns and Professor Wayne Sawyer collaborated with partner investigators from the Priority Schools Program of the NSW Department of Education and Communities to explore how teachers improve outcomes for students in poverty. The Fair Go project contributes to the National Research Priority of strengthening Australia’s Social and Economic Wellbeing by making a difference for communities of the region that continue to be locked in entrenched disadvantage through the persistent cycle that links poverty with restricted educational opportunities and outcomes (see a short YouTube clip on the School’s website at http://uws.edu.au/education/soe/research. Clips of Fair Go case studies are also available from the NSWDEC at: http://www.lowsesschools.nsw.edu.au/DetailViewT.aspx?id=29)

The ROSETE Program of Research

In May 2007, Professor Michael Singh led a joint delegation from UWS with representatives from the Western Sydney Region of the NSW DET, and the Deputy Director-General, DET, to meet with the Ningbo Municipal Education Bureau in China. These three partner organisations signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a local/international community capacity building project which would involve university graduates from Ningbo Municipal Education Bureau studying a Master of Education (Honours) degree at UWS with their research focused on their efforts to stimulate the teaching and learning of Chinese in Western Sydney schools. The Research Oriented School Engaged Teacher-researcher Education (ROSETE) Partnership and research program was established, and has been sustained since by regular annual visits between Sydney and Ningbo, China, by the three partner organisations.

The first intake of Ningbo research students arrived in mid-2008. In 2012, a new five year agreement was signed that will continue to see ten graduate students per annum coming to UWS to study in the MEd (Honours), and to undertake research in Western Sydney schools as volunteers teaching Mandarin to Australian children. The ROSETE team is undertaking major research projects with respect to such areas as: making Chinese learnable for beginning second language learners; the uses of Chinese critical theorizing capabilities in Western, Anglophone research, and the development of teacher-researcher methods through designed research impact. These projects, and the work of the MEd (Honours) students, are generating new and important understandings about transnational knowledge exchange.

The Futuro Infantil Hoy Project

Futuro Infantil Hoy (FIH) is a flagship program of international engaged research led by Professor Christine Woodrow, which has been developed within an international collaboration in Chile between Fundacion Minera Escondida, (a social responsibility foundation), the Chile National Board of Early Childhood, and researchers from the School of Education at UWS. FIH began as a three year pilot program in 2008 involving the staff and communities of five early childhood centres in very poor communities in the Northern Chile city of Antofagasta. The focus of the FIH program is to improve the learning outcomes of young children in disadvantaged communities through strengthening pedagogical strategies and leadership, and particularly literacy strategies. It also seeks to establish meaningful partnerships between educators, families and communities, bringing the active participation of families into children’s learning, and linking children’s learning to the children’s and families’ ‘funds of knowledge’ to local places, communities and events. The approach involves UWS researchers facilitating Chilean practitioners in researching their local communities. Later phases of the program have utilised Chilean participants from Phase 1, who have become local ‘experts’ in project methodologies, to lead the development of new


practices in other centres and locations. Because of the success of Phases 1 and 2, Phase 3 of FIH is about to be launched in Quillicura, a large, poor outer suburb of Chile’s capital, Santiago.

The impact of FIH includes evidence of significant improvements in young children’s performance on national school literacy and mathematics tests. The Phase 1 results showed that 81 % of children in year 1 classes whose teachers had participated in the FIH program for their 2 preschool years achieved key benchmarks on a range of language, writing and comprehension subtests - compared to 30% of children in class B and 23% in class C whose teachers had not participated in the program. These results were mirrored in Mathematics. A number of participating centres also achieved significant improvements in their ratings on national quality assessments. In addition, parent data shows improved and high levels of parent satisfaction with, and engagement in, the centres and their children’s learning. Teachers have reported significant changes in their pedagogies and a sense of greater pride and satisfaction in their work.

Research on the educational experiences of refugees

A focus on border protection has obscured Australia’s ability to take a broader view of the global context confronting refugees, the scale of the refugee problem, and the kinds of measures that might make a difference for refugees themselves, especially in terms of educational provision in settlement countries like Australia. Led by Professor Vickers and A/Professor Reid, since 2007 the School has developed a research focus on students with refugee backgrounds, examining overall policy dilemmas, identifying pedagogical practices that respond to their needs, and evaluating the effectiveness of coaching and mentoring programs such as those provided through the RAS and Equity Buddies programs described above. The UWS researchers involved in this program of research over the past six years have focused on refugee and immigrant students in schools as well as at the university level. Additionally, they are also examining the phenomenon of immigrant and emigrant teachers, and teaching as a global profession.

Educational psychology and self-concept research

E3/CPPE’s1 research agenda has focused on the enhancement of learning skills, social and emotional capability, relationships, and engagement in learning. Their empirical research aims to ensure that all students realise their full educational and social potential. This has included implementing research-derived interventions which capitalise on advances in educational psychology theory and research. Utilising a positive psychology perspective has also helped explicate an understanding of the major contributing factors to effective health and medical education and the efficient and accurate selection, assessment and career trajectories of health and medical professionals. The international SELF Research Centre, which is housed in CPPE and at Oxford University, is recognised internationally as the lead organisation of an international program (450 members from 45 countries) dedicated to the study of self-beliefs, motivation and related psycho-social constructs. There is a strong established track record of collaborative research among international members of SELF including collaborative funding, reciprocal visiting scholars and co-authored publications in leading international research journals. E3/CPPE is also interested in developing innovative methodologies which have helped to maintain the status of CPPE researchers as world leaders in their fields. E3/CPPE research in one of the highest urban Indigenous population regions in Australia has also sought in particular to strengthen Indigenous Studies and build the research capability of Indigenous researchers.

1 See below for explanation of E3/ CPPE

chapter 2RESEARCH


RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION 2006-2012

Research is structured within the University of Western Sydney in Institutes, Centres and Groups. Research is also carried on by academics in Schools who are not members of these research concentrations. Research Institutes are the highest level of nationally benchmarked research excellence at significant scale within the University. Research Centres have achieved significant research maturity through external review and benchmarks for quality and excellence. Research Groups are developing areas of research strength with the potential to become Research Centres. The following review reveals that research concentrations can be porous with educational research and higher degree supervision collaborations common across these different entities.

In 2006, a University Research Group located in the School of Education and focusing on Education and Social Change combined with the former Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Centre to form the Centre for Educational Research (CER). The Centre’s research interests revolved around educational change to create and sustain individual, family and community strength and viability. The research agenda formed around questions of how individual lives were caught up in patterns of power and powerlessness and through what social and discursive practices social stability and social movement were made possible. A review of the documentation of funded research projects during the period 2006-2011 reveals many joint projects across the School and the Centre for Educational Research. Each entity shared a broad agenda of educational and social change to address issues of social justice and the inequality of educational outcomes arising from the specific needs of students in the western Sydney region.

Within this broad focus funded research projects in CER were concerned with self-concept; motivation; positive behaviour for learning; bullying; boys’ education; refugee education; school retention and school leaving ages; Indigenous education and Indigenous perspectives on aspects of curriculum, and teacher movement in multicultural Australia.

In the same period in the School of Education itself, funded research was concerned with a range of topics with many similar and overlapping interests. Recorded research projects show topics projects on: the pedagogies of teaching and learning in the senior secondary years; the labour market and education; school transitions; communities and education; resource access in schools; teacher professional learning; adolescent diabetes; large scale curriculum evaluation; e-learning; intellectual disability; teacher movement in multicultural Australia; childhood and sexuality; teacher education; leadership capacity; pedagogy in particular curriculum areas; beginning school; boys’ education; ICT; eating disorders; public housing; gender; family diversity, and early childhood education. From 2009-2011, the Centre for Educational Research became an umbrella for three separate programs of research: Educational Excellence and Equity (E3- led by Professor Rhonda Craven); Diversities, Ethics and Education (DEE- led by Professor Christine Halse and then Professor Moira Carmody) and Knowledge, Work Democracy (KWD - led by Professor Michael Singh). Neither the Centre, nor the groups within it, were formally attached to the School of Education.

The current story of research in Education at UWS is about new beginnings. During 2011, the School of Education underwent a large recruitment exercise with an emphasis on employing strong researchers at all levels, including early career researchers. This recruitment also brought a number of new Professors into the School. At the same time, a university re-structure brought Research Centres into Schools. There are now two distinct Research Centres within the School. From 2012, the previous E3 program has become a separate Centre for Positive Psychology and Education (CPPE), continuing under the Directorship of Professor Craven. CPPE has expanded to include the high profile Distinguished Professor2 Herb Marsh and

2 ‘Distinguished Professor’ is a university title at UWS. Professor Marsh is one of two.


other new Professors. Members of CPPE have well established, strong international reputations in educational psychology. For CPPE, the programs of research are: Positive Lifelong Education; Positive SELF and Well-Being; Positive Psychology in Health and Medical Education; Positive Indigenous Studies; Positive Substantive-Methodological Synergy, and Positive Psychology and Maladaptive Behaviour.

In addition, a new, unified Centre for Educational Research with a focus on educational research for sustainable futures has been formed under the Directorship of Professor Margaret Somerville3. The newly formed CER embraces three intertwined thematic programs of research operating within a single coherent identity:- Globalisation and Educational Practice; Sustainability Education and Equity in Educational Outcomes4, incorporating areas of expertise of both continuing and new members. The thematic programs continue to reflect key educational issues of importance to Greater Western Sydney (GWS) with members of CER researching across the thematic programs.

As argued above, UWS has developed a strong reputation coalescing around long term, enduring programs of research, some of which have been previously identified. These research programs have both been built from, and reflect, particular key themes in the research agenda of Education at UWS, some of which are unique These broader themes include:

Educational psychology: as reflected especially in the E3/CPPE research program

Global children, families and communities and education: with a focus on processes of globalisation as they impact on educational outcomes in the region. This includes the work on refugee education previously described as well as research on processes of globalisation as they impact more generally on the local in terms of ethnicity and education. A current project by A/Prof Reid, for example, examines the impact of the new compulsory school leaving age on ethnically diverse high schools

Transnational knowledge exchange: arising in particular from the high profile ROSETE and Futuro Infantil Hoy projects which have coalesced to develop significant educational theorising of globalisation from a non-Eurocentric perspective.

Equity of educational outcomes: a focus on initiatives that aim to improve outcomes for children and young people from low SES backgrounds. A significant contribution has been from the Fair Go project, with its long history of research collaboration with schools in the region in developing pedagogies for low SES communities. In addition, the program of research on refugee experiences as well as a focus on broader issues of education and diversity in Greater Western Sydney, have also reflected a broad theme of equity of educational outcomes. youth transitions and high school completion. This reflects other themes such as Equity of educational outcomes and Global communities, but also needs to be recognised in its own right. Members of the School of Education have made significant contributions to policy-related research on this topic gaining three ARC-grants and two LSAY grants and disseminating through the NSW Business Chamber review and national COAG forums and provoking a Parliamentary inquiry into the impact of part-time student employment. This work (led by Professor Margaret Vickers and more recently by A/Professor Carol Reid) is identifying the institutional reforms needed to lift Australia’s high school completion rates above the 75% where they have remained for the past 20 years.

3 Membership of these Centres is listed in Appendix 2.3. Centre websites are at: http://www.uws.edu.au/centre_for_educational_research/cer http://www.uws.edu.au/cppe/home4 Details of the Centres and their vision are contained in Appendix 2.4. As can be seen from Appendix

2.4, themes in both Centres strongly pick up the UWS mission.

chapter 2RESEARCH


Social ecology: a distinctive feature of educational research at UWS is having the teaching and research program of Social Ecology inside the School of Education. The Social Ecology program has been characterised during this period as a high profile unique program of engaged research that has produced leading graduates in the fields of community development for sustainability, now a thematic program of research in CER.

Such areas of research strength – the enduring programs of research and the broader themes which they reflect and for which educational research at the University of Western Sydney is recognised - are now gathered together strategically under the two Centres’ programs of research. The Centres are integrated into the teaching and research activities within the School through the leadership, research activities and collaborations of senior researchers. The structure of themes also represents the research interests of new senior researchers in the Centres5. The Centres thus represent a more focused research strategy for achieving research excellence and the goal of the University to be a research led institution. With the established track record of the CPPE and the new CER organised around strategic and important key programs of research, the School is well placed to have a significant impact on Australian educational research into the future, as well as having a central role in the university’s particular mission. Strategic partnerships are also developing between the three research entities themselves.

RESEARCH CApACITy bUILDINg IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

The School and its Centres are undertaking a program of research capacity building across the three entities. Senior researchers are required by workload policy to engage in mentoring through a program of research activities which are open to all staff across the School and, where appropriate, to other staff outside the School of Education. Capacity building activities include seminar presentations and associated workshops for Early Career Researchers, reading groups and cohort supervision in CER. The new CER hosted its first visiting Professor in 2012 with a seminar presentation and a Writing-for -Publication workshop that involved early career researchers from the School of Education, the Institute of Cultural Studies and other Schools across the University. The Writing-for-Publication Series will be an ongoing strategy to build research excellence within and beyond the Centre. CPPE engages in specialised mentoring of ECRs and less experienced HDR co-supervisors as well as collaborative grant writing. CPPE includes School members in research grant applications and projects and co-publications. They also run statistical workshops, seminars (including with international visiting scholars) and workshops on authorship rules, media and intellectual property for all academic staff in the School. CPPE conducts a Special Interest Group in quantitative research methods that meets regularly and is open to all School members.

The School has a history of providing research capacity building for staff within the School who are not members of Centres. Research activities include writing-for-publication workshops and retreats, post-doctoral teaching relief ‘scholarships’ for publication purposes, grant writing workshops and training in the use of specific software programs.

The School also provides the pathway into research through the Honours program in the Master of Teaching degree and support for higher degree research students in Masters and Doctoral programs. From 2012 the School is running an annual HDR student conference in place of an event formerly run by the College of Arts. CPPE has an internal HDR committee that organises such events as a 3-minute thesis competition, poster competitions, seminars, conference presentations and student recruitment.

5 Members of the Professoriate – standing as one group representing both new and established areas of research interest in Education - are listed in Appendix 2.5 with their Centre or School affiliation and research interests


Research capacity building activities were funded prior to 2011 through research performance funds (RIF), but have become increasingly curtailed as performance funding has been allocated to high performing Institutes and Centres within the university under the University policy of ‘selectivity and concentration’. It is unclear how the allocation of resources will affect research capacity building for excellence as 2012 is a year of transition to new structures. This includes the broader restructuring of the University with the removal of the College structure and the incorporation of Centres within Schools. The devolution of responsibilities for research and higher degree research students to Schools has put significant pressure on both administrative and academic staff with the formation of new research and higher degree research committees and the management of their functions with no additional resources.

Research activities within the School of Education are supported by the RIF funds provided by the University. The following table shows the income received for the School, the Centre for Positive Psychology in Education, and the ROSETE program in 2011.

Funds gained through the RIF are a significant factor in research productivity. In CPPE all senior researchers are fully funded research positions and RIF supports a number of administrative support staff and research activities. The newly formed Centre for Educational Research has not yet received funding support for its senior researchers who all contribute to the teaching and administrative leaderships of the School. The ROSETE program, as the only ongoing part of the previous CER which is within the current CER, continues to be supported with RIF funding.

mEASURES OF RESEARCH ACTIVITy AND pERFORmANCE

Measures of research activity and performance for the School of Education are difficult to access and interpret for the 5 year review period, especially in relation to their meaning for present research performance, because of the changing structures. The main research generating body, the Centre for Educational Research, was previously outside and independent of the School of Education, and no longer exists in this previous form. The newly formed Centre for Positive Psychology in Education was a part of the previous CER but has expanded in 2012. The new Centre for Educational Research is formed around 12 senior researchers. Five of the 12 senior researchers are new to UWS so the research performance data for CER as a whole is a work in progress. Both Centres are now structurally positioned within the School and the flow of resources and data is not yet clear. All three entities are working to establish sound baseline data within and for the new structures.

Academics in the School of Education are employed to undertake teaching and research, and research workload is allocated according to each staff member’s research outcomes for the previous triennium. Research outcomes include research grant income, publications data and completion of higher degree research students. UWS maintains a register of research activity in which researchers are classified according to their achievement of ‘research active’ status which denotes their meeting minimum benchmarks of research performance on the three criteria of research outcomes. Table 2.2 shows the proportion of research active staff in the period 2007-2010 (the distinction is between the School of Education and the former Centre for Educational Research).

chapter 2RESEARCH

Table 2.1 – Research support income for the School of Education 2011

ROSETE program $611,634

CPPE $1,440,549

Total RIF allocation $2,052,163

DIISR performance return $536,523

Total research support income $2,588,685


The most well developed benchmarking data for the period 2006-2011 is available for the E3 strand of the previous CER which continues as CPPE. Table 2.3 below contains specific benchmarking for E3/CPPE (per academic FTE) from 2006-2011, which shows higher income, higher HDR completions per load and higher publications than all other entities being compared (ie all UWS; all UWS research centres; the sector; Go8 universities; IRU universities and ATN universities – using the latter’s 2009 figures).

E3/CPPE has been particularly successful in attracting research partnership funds ($871,882 over 6 years) from leading stakeholders and held 17 external grants in the period (15 competitive ARC, 1 research consultancy, and 1 UWS Partnership grant).

In addition, the increase in research income per FTE p.a. between ERA 1 and ERA 2 in Education overall was well above UWS figures (viz: $402-UWS; $8,233- SoE).

The best available data for the new Centre for Educational Research has been compiled using verified performance data from the previous universities of the five new members of UWS staff and performance data from UWS for the members who were previously employed at UWS. The data for new staff only covers the period 2006 – 2011 and that for existing staff 2005-2011, however the averages have been made on the assumption that all data can be roughly compared to ERA 1 outcomes on order to provide some baseline performance data as follows. Table 2.4 shows the total grant income across the categories of ARC Discovery Grants, HERDC Category 1, 2, and 3 Grant income and ARC Linkage for all members of the new CER. In order to arrive at a comparative figure the total grant income is divided by the number of senior researchers for whom these data were calculated. The table shows that the average research grant income for the 14 members is more than double the UWS research grant income recorded for all Education FOR codes and more than 1.5 times the total for the sector. These data provide an indication of grant income performance trends for the new CER.

Table 2.2 – ‘Research active’ members across Education 2007-2010

Triennium Entity No. Registered % Qualified % New to Register % Open

2007-2009School of Education 37 51 8 41

Centre for Educational Research 25 64 12 24

2008-2010School of Education 46 57 2 41

Centre for Educational Research 15 67 20 13

(Source: Register of research activity/ College of Arts/ Office of Research Services)

Table 2.3 - E3/CPPE Research Benchmarked Performance Measures: averaged 2006-2011/other entities 2009

Per academic FTE All UWS 2009

UWS URC 2009

Sector 2009

Go8 2009 IRU 2009

ATN 2009

E3/CPPE average 2006-2011

Income $20,639 $54,066 $71,347 $105, 604 $55,277 $47,655 $132,290

Publications 1.5 2.35 1.35 1.54 1.2 1.3 9.9

Publications – excluding E1

1.14 1.78 1.1 1.31 1.02 0.9 5.4

HDR completions per load

0.4 0.2 0.18 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.24

(Source: 2011 CPPE Annual Report)


Table 2.5 below shows the combined publication performance data by the senior researchers in the new CER. While citation data for publication in educational research is not necessarily the best measure of impact in the field, as the previous Research Quality Framework demonstrated, it is the best available quantitative data at this point in time. It provides one measure of the performance of the new Centre members, again as a baseline for developing more sophisticated benchmarking tools as the development of the Centre progresses.

This Table also shows that CER has a strong performance on publication data as measured by average citation rates compared with the average cites for the sector for each of the Education FOR codes and the average cites for FOR 1608. They also compare strongly with the average citation rates in these codes for UWS, which reflect the number of academic staff outside the area of Education who are not qualified in the discipline but who occasionally publish in Education because of their teaching related research.

Over the last five years there has been a continuous focus on improving the research outcomes of the School of Education. Both the School and the previous CER attempted to be responsive to the changing research environments represented by the former Research Quality Framework (RQF) and the current Excellence in Research Australia (ERA). Research performance based on grant income from 2005-2007 was strong in both the School and CER relative to the then College of Arts. The data presented in Table 2.6 below show the School of Education as the highest performing School within the College. CER was also the third highest performing research entity in the College after two Centres which are now Research Institutes (viz the present Institute for Culture and Society and the present MARCS Institute for Brain and Behaviour).

chapter 2RESEARCH

Table 2.4 – New CER member grant income performance benchmarking 2005-2011

ARC 2006-12 HERDC 2005-2010 ARC Linkage

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Total

$1,924,317 $1,114,136 $2,024,252 $545,193 $3,683,581 $804,041

ERA 1 Income pa FOR 13 1301 1302 1303

Sector $16,692 $26,632 $11,443 $23,672

UWS $11,320 $5629 $2215 $20,016

Av CER $26,313

Table 2.5 – New CER member publication performance benchmarking 2005-2011

2005-2010

FOR 1301 1302 1303 1608

Sector Av. Cites 3.2 4.5 4.4 4.4

UWS Av. Cites 2.04 1.02 1.84 3.24

CER Av. Cites 4.79

Table 2.4 – New CER member grant income performance benchmarking 2005-2011

ARC 2006-12 HERDC 2005-2010 ARC Linkage

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Total

$1,924,317 $1,114,136 $2,024,252 $545,193 $3,683,581 $804,041

ERA 1 Income pa FOR 13 1301 1302 1303

Sector $16,692 $26,632 $11,443 $23,672

UWS $11,320 $5629 $2215 $20,016

Av CER $26,313


Table 2.7 below shows that for the period 2008-2010 research grant income for the School of Education was more fluctuating in terms of absolute income and as a percentage of College and UWS income. However, this was at a time when all senior researchers in Education were either wholly or partly within the Centre, but all had research performance credited to the Centre. Total grant income in the period 2008-2010 was $3,756,909 – an increase of $1,988,888 over 2005-2007. In 2010, CER brought in 25.7% of the research income of the College and 9.1% of UWS research income.

A highlight of research grant income during the whole period is the number and quality of research partnerships. Appendix 2.1 contains a list of recent local, state and national research partner organisations across the three research entities. The School of Education, as argued above, is committed to the UWS mission of servicing the local GWS community. However, it also has a strong and growing internationalisation agenda as evident in research partnerships with China and Chile.

Performance data for publications are high across UWS and the publications record in Education reflects this. In recent years there has been a slight fall in output as staff targeted higher ranking journals with a slower acceptance and higher rejection rate. Weighted publication outputs are represented in Table 2.8 below.

Table 2.6 – Research Grant Income, College of Arts: Total 2005-2007

Total % of UWS

MARCS $3,683,187 9.1

Centre for Cultural Research $3,675,291 9.1

Centre for Educational Research $1,768,021 4.4

Social Justice and Social Change Research Centre $632,979 1.6

Writing and Society Research Group $270,420 0.7

School of Education $1,408,401 3.5

School of Psychology $808,836 2

School of Communication Arts $520,463 1.3

School of Humanities and Languages $371,497 0.9

School of Social Sciences $254,726 0.6

(Source: College of Arts /’Sum Income’/ Office of Research Services)

Table 2.7 – Research Grant Income, School of Education/CER: 2008-2010

year Australian competitive grants Other public sector Industry and other funding Total

2008SoE $ 96,083 $80,509 $156,441 $333,033

CER $787,386 $163,911 $204,463 $1,155,759

2009SoE $59,857 $101,324 $366,660 $536,841

CER $943,221 $118,136 $10,855 $1,072,212

2010SoE $53,267 $50,000 $240,519 $343,786

CER $1,205,501 $151,778 $171,659 $1,528,938

(Source: School of Education/ Centre for Educational Research/’Research Performance’ data on Researchers’ Portal/ Office of Research Services)


Results in ERA 1 for the FOR codes 1301 and 1303 were categorised as at ‘world standard’ ‘3’, which put Education in UWS above the sector average score for these FOR codes (the sector averages being ‘2.1’ and ‘2.3’ respectively). Only 31% of the sector scored ‘3’ or above in 1301 while only 47% of the sector scored ‘3’ or above in 1303. Since its AUQA 1 audit, UWS has also developed a ‘key’ benchmarking relationship with Griffith University for its similar characteristics as a multi-campus university operating in a similar demographic with a high proportion of low SES enrolments, strong track record in sustainability activities, commitment to Indigenous education and focus on supporting student success. There has also been a parallel relationship with La Trobe, which is also multi-campus. ERA 1 results for UWS were identical to both universities in FOR code 1303. FOR code 1301 at UWS was below Griffith’s ‘4’ though, as previously stated, above national average (1301 was N/A for La Trobe).

In reference to publication outputs, ERA 1 made it clear that more researchers submit publications to FOR 13 than are identified with Faculties and Schools of Education. Education researchers currently have limited understanding of who these people are or what their research backgrounds are. In addition, some researchers in Education academic units submitted publications to discipline codes outside FOR 13 but we do not know how extensive this is, nor how it is directed. Consequently, UWS is involved in the current ACDE/AARE exercise of mapping Australian educational research. Both of these phenomena are similarly reflected in the ERA results within UWS, therefore the outcome of ERA 1 is not a sufficient benchmark for evaluating performance within the School of Education.

chapter 2RESEARCH

Table 2.8 – Weighted publications

year BooksBook

chaptersJournal articles

Conference papers

% College

% UWS

%A/A*(among own total)

2005 SoE 5 11.27 74.13 26.18

CER - 7.64 15.83 12.75

2006 SoE 11 13.9 44.8 32.95

CER - 0.83 25.53 138.59

2007 SoE 5 12.33 42.74 13.1

CER - 3.16 16.18 2.93

2008 SoE 5 17.38 34.67 12.22 15.85 6.75 21.17

CER - 8.59 15.05 4.01 6.33 2.7 11.72

2009 SoE 10 10.85 24.73 10.17 11.26 4.68 19.22

CER 1 3.46 13.13 24.22 8.44 3.51 51.43

2010 SoE 1 13.79 24.62 3.43 8.84 3.63 Not available

CER - 5.5 21.23 3.5 6.4 2.63 Not available

(Source: College of Arts 2005-2007 /’All Pubs’ AND School of Education/ Centre for Educational Research/’Research Performance’ data on Researchers’ Portal/ ALL Office of Research Services)


The School of Education has a strong reputation in developing cohort models of research training and research supervision. There is an innovative cohort model of the EdD composed of Principals and educational leaders from the South-Western Sydney region of the NSWDEC, currently co-ordinated by Dr Tania Ferfolja and two cohorts of international HDR students. The ROSETE program has developed a cohort model with weekly full-cohort-and-supervisors seminars as research training. This program has a record of 100% on-time completions and100% success rate. A cohort of students from Saudi Arabia led by A/Professor Reid also has cohort seminars as research training.

CPPE, and its previous manifestation as E3, has a particularly strong record of graduating Indigenous research students and mentoring them into post-doctoral positions. Ten Indigenous PhD students in CPPE have been awarded ARC Indigenous Discovery grants, establishing UWS as the most successful university in attracting ARC Indigenous Discovery grants. Dr Bodkin-Andrews of CPPE was awarded the AARE Betty Watts Award and the AARE Early Career Researcher Award and is the first Indigenous Australian researcher to be awarded these simultaneously. CPPE has achieved four ARC-funded postdoctoral positions for its Indigenous researchers: an ARC Postdoctoral Fellowship (Seaton), an ARC Indigenous Research Fellowship (Dillon), an ARC Australian Indigenous Research Fellowship, and an Australian Indigenous Researcher Postdoctoral Fellowship (Bodkin-Andrews). This research activity reflects the needs and aspirations of the largest urban Indigenous community in Australia located in the region.

Apart from the above qualitative data in regard to HDR outcomes, there is little data across the sector to benchmark HDR completions. Table 2.9 below shows the numbers of HDR student completions for Education from 2008-2010.

These figures show a similar pattern from year to year, with a relatively high proportion of UWS Doctoral completions from Education, especially in 2008-9. The proportions of Masters Honours as a percentage of UWS and College completions reflects growth in the numbers within the ROSETE cohort.

Table 2.9 – HDR student completions: Education 2008-2010

2008 2009 2010

No. % College % UWS No. % College % UWS No. % College % UWS

School of Education

Masters Honours

3 50 20 7 87.5 53.9

Doctoral 10 17.9 10 9 17.7 9.3 5 12.2 6.5

CER Masters Honours

1

Doctoral 5 8.9 5.1 5 9.8 5.2 3 7.3 3.9

(Source: School of Education/ Centre for Educational Research/’Research Performance’ data on Researchers’ Portal/ Office of Research Services)


KEy CHALLENgES AND RECOmmENDED WAyS TO ADDRESS THEm

An obvious challenge is the implementation of the new structure, from 2012, which incorporates University research Centres inside the School for the first time. While this requires significant re-organisation of resources and personnel, it has potential to be a great strength, both in terms of intellectual work and research resource rationalisation and is already being addressed in a number of ways, such as: » a common Research Committee across the whole School with Centre

representation » regular meetings between the Centre Directors and the Directors of Research and

HDR students in the School » common research events across the three entities (see Appendix 2.2).

A second- and major – challenge, in common with Education faculties across Australia, concerns ERA 1 results. ERA 1 results for Education at UWS on Education-related FORs other than 1301 and 1303 included ‘2’ for each of the FOR codes ‘13’, ‘1608’6[1] and ‘1701’7[2]. Each of these was: » below the sector average on each8

» below Griffith’s and La Trobe’s ‘3’ for ‘13’ » below Griffith’s ‘3’ for 1608, 1701 (equal to La Trobe on both).

1302 was the most concerning result for Education at UWS, being ranked as ‘well below world standard’. This was below Griffith’s ‘3’and La Trobe’s ‘2’. It is to the improvement of these results in particular that strategies listed below are aimed.

The UWS Research Plan lists four main research objectives. These are expected to drive School research plans. We are using these as the basis of our own plans in the context of improving research performance, especially with respect to FOR 1302, as well as 1608 and 1701. These objectives and related strategies are:

Objective 1: Increase external research income to the University; andObjective 2: Increase the number and fields of research at UWS operating above or well above world standard

Most importantly here, we would aim to support the further development and quality of our Research Centres. The School and its Centres will aim to achieve outstanding quality in research and scholarship by providing meaningful and targeted research mentoring, especially through the strategies offered by the Centres, such as seminars, workshops etc. Particular support will be provided for early career researchers. This latter is included in the brief of the School’s Director of Research, who will aim for all early career researchers to submit applications in each relevant funding round (eg UWS seed grants, DECRA grants etc) or through developing their own research partnerships. The School has awarded, and hopes to continue to award, its own grants to researchers to help build capacity. In particular we aim to increase overall research intensity and performance by building grant writing capacity and research partnership capability within the School and its Research Centres. The School hopes to continue to fund writing retreats for staff to help build track record. Importantly, the School and its Centres will pursue sources of funding other than ARC grants.

6 [1] 1608 included because of high contribution by Education researchers at UWS

7 [2] 1701 included because of high contribution by E3/CPPE researchers at UWS

8 National averages were: 2.2 (13) 2.4 (1608) 2.6 (1701)

chapter 2RESEARCH


Objective 3: Increase the number and concentration of funded research Partnerships

The School will aim to build on engaged research partnerships in Greater Western Sydney with schools and systems, as well across other NGOs and universities and internationally. This will be achieved by supporting the development of ARC Linkage grants, as well as those sources of financing which seed such grants (eg UWS partnership grants) or other sources which fund research in their own right.

Objective 4: Ensure UWS attracts and supports high quality HDR students to its areas of research strength

The School aims to provide a rich and stimulating environment for research students. This will be achieved by continuing the work of the School and its Research Centres in providing extensive and high-quality seminar programs, including presentations by distinguished visitors, which will be available to all students and staff in the School, and research partners and other external participants. From 2012, the School will be running annual student conferences. We will aim at increasing the number of domestic and international research students by promoting the School’s and its Centres’ areas of research strength, continuing to refine and build collaborative cohort models of research education. We will also look to pursuing opportunities for partner organisations to sponsor research student fees and industry-funded scholarships. The School and its Centres will develop recruitment activities that attract candidates of excellence. The School is also currently considering the expansion of its Honours programs.

The future positioning of the UWS School of Education and its Centres in terms of research is critical for the teaching profession and for the broader GWS community. HDR completion rates are steady and creditable. The continuing development of research capacity and expertise through CPPE and a re-conceptualised CER based on thematic research programs will undoubtedly extend the School’s research reputation. The nominated research programs within each Centre provide a strong strategic base for future growth. The School and its Centres have good relationships with the NSW Department of Education and Communities’ regions within its ‘drawing area’, as well as with other arms of government, charitable organisations and NGOs. Such relationships need to be built on to create further funding opportunities, especially opportunities beyond the ARC – and particularly to provide educational research which can benefit the GWS community. It is obvious to the University and to the School of Education that it needs to have broader success with research grants, to grow HDR candidates and to produce quality publications with an eye to ERA rankings, especially as ERA results increasingly determine research funding. The importance of keeping up, and going beyond, the present momentum and having the resources to continue to develop core areas of research expertise is acknowledged.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the School of Education and its associated Research Centres have long term, enduring programs of research excellence which are well recognized nationally and internationally. These programs have been developed and sustained through a number of university, School and Centre restructures and will continue to provide a basis from which to grow the two newly established Centres and research within the School. The School and Centres are at a pivotal time of expansion of research activities and profile with the appointment of new highly research active staff at all academic levels and the formation of new entities of research selectivity and concentration. The challenge will be to simultaneously develop the conceptual, theoretical and methodological capacities in research as well as the appropriate strategies to access the necessary resources to do this in a financially constrained environment. The recently developed strategic plans for research (provided separately from this document) give detailed information about the processes that have been put in place to achieve these goals.


chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING



OVERVIEW

The School of Education at the University of Western Sydney is in a unique position in its provision of learning and teaching for the Greater Western Sydney region. As the fastest growing urban region in Australia with a population of 1.9 million from 130 countries speaking 70 different languages, the region has particular needs in addressing the high level of cultural and language diversity. 35% of its people were born overseas, many from refugee backgrounds with long prior histories of trauma. It is also the location of the largest population of Indigenous people in Australia, and some of the lowest socio-economic communities with their particular challenges of poverty and social displacement. These characteristics not only shape the provision of learning and teaching for our students, but our students as educators will crucially shape the future possibilities of the individuals and communities through their early childhood, primary, secondary and community education.

The School of Education has a mission to provide the highest quality education with the best levels of access and participation for these culturally and linguistically diverse students and those coming from backgrounds of trauma and poverty. To this end the following self-review highlights the ways in which the School has sought to ensure the highest quality provision and access through the quality framework for learning and teaching for which UWS received an Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA 2) affirmation (2011). The self-review also evidences why Primary and Secondary Education rates the highest in Australia on the MyUniversity’s Good Teaching Scale, the number of specialist initiatives informed by major research programs such as Fair Go (teachers of excellence in low SES schools), equity buddies (mentoring for students from refugee backgrounds in the unit Experiential Learning in Communities), and the specialist service learning opportunities through which teacher education students actively engage with the learning needs of particular individuals and communities. The notion of 21st century schooling and next practice education shapes the approach to designing curriculum and pedagogies which will serve these changing communities into the future, building on the School’s unique history of Social Ecology and Teacher Education.

This chapter outlines our self-review of learning and teaching in the School of Education and encompasses the courses we offer, the students who enrol in these courses and the staff who design, deliver and support this core business of the School.

Our courses are delivered within four program portfolios: early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, and adult and postgraduate education School staff teach on two campuses: Bankstown and Penrith. No courses are offered offshore. The largest cohorts of students enrol in the postgraduate primary and secondary courses and this is evident in the student profile as seen in Table 3.1. These figure come from the annual course report provided by the UWS Office of Strategy and Quality.

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING

TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The extent to which the School’s Learning and Teaching strategy and performance reflect a student-centred approach, and meet the University’s objectives for the student experience.


Increasing student load has prompted the School to prioritise first year student retention. The School’s combined postgraduate and undergraduate retention in 2011 was 82.1%, whereas the UWS average is 81.2% and the sector average for undergraduate commencing retention is 83.1%. See Appendix 3.1 for commencing retention information for all School courses from 2008 to 2011.

Table 3.1 - Student profile, 2008-2011 (2011 School of Education Annual Course Report)

Student profile 2008 2009 2010 2011

Enrolments 3972 4712 4062 4904

Course load (EFTSL) 1567.8 1838.5 1807.1 1973.1

Taught load (EFTSL) 1751 1945 2346 2663.5

Postgraduate coursework students % EFTSStudent numbers

72.7%11679

77.4%12440

86.9%13974

90.7%14592

Indigenous participation (number) 15 15 20 21

Low SES participation (% domestic headcount) 22.7% 21.3% 22.5% 23.5%

International onshore student load (EFTSL) 31.4 58.4 75.4 92.4

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING


Table 3.2 – Total enrolments, 2008-2011 (2011 School of Education Annual Course Report)

Education Course Current Course 2008 2009 2010 2011

Undergraduate Early Childhood

B Early Childhood Studies (Child and Family) No 564 546 307 97

B Teaching (Early Childhood) Yes 1 0 0 0

B Education (Birth - 5 Years) Yes 0 0 63 146

Undergraduate Primary

B Education (Primary) Yes 21 3 0 0

B Teaching (Primary) Yes 7 2 1 1

Undergraduate Secondary

B Education (Secondary: Technology) Yes 8 2 0 1

B Teaching (Secondary) Yes 5 3 1 0

B Science/ B Teaching Yes 9 3 1 1

Undergraduate other

B Education (Honours) Yes 0 0 0 2

B Arts/ B Teaching No 7 2 0 0

Education UG Total 622 561 373 248

Postgraduate Early Childhood

M Teaching (Birth - 5 years/Birth - 12 Years) Yes 0 0 120 242

M Teaching (Early Childhood) No 217 231 151 9

Postgraduate Primary

GD Educational Studies (Primary) No 2 0 1 0

M Teaching (Primary) Yes 517 752 771 955

M Teaching (Primary) Advanced No 8 30 15 0

Postgraduate Secondary

GD Educational Studies (Secondary) No 1 1 0 0

M Teaching (Secondary) Yes 518 675 810 905

M Teaching (Secondary) Advanced No 7 26 16 6

Postgraduate Education Coursework

M Education No 25 23 5 0

M Education (Leadership) Yes 0 0 25 26

GC Education (Social Ecology) Yes 0 0 8 9

M Education (Social Ecology) Yes 0 0 34 37

GC Social Ecology No 11 14 0 0

M Arts (Social Ecology) No 41 35 3 0

M Special Education Yes 0 0 6 12

GC Special Education Studies Yes 2 0 1 3

M Teaching (Special Education) No 15 8 2 0

Education PG Total 1364 1795 1968 2204

Education Total 1986 2356 2341 2,452


Professional standards for initial teacher education are currently in transition from the state-based New South Wales’ Institute of Teachers to the national accreditation system coordinated by the professional body, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). The School has until December 2014 to redesign its courses in early childhood, primary and secondary (see Appendices 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 for course structures) to gain accreditation. The undergraduate Education Studies Major within the Bachelor of Arts/Master of Teacher and Bachelor of Science/Master of Teaching pathways degrees will be reviewed to align to the re-design of our initial teacher education courses. During this design phase we will reference the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency’s (TEQSA) national Qualifications Standards, the Education discipline threshold learning outcomes (ALTC), the UWS graduate attributes, the School’s beginning teacher dispositions – discipline-related knowledge, creativity, autonomy, ethical accountability and global perspectives – and the UWS academic standards and assessment framework for learning and teaching (see Appendix 3.7), for which UWS received an Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA 2) affirmation (2011). It is this framework that provides the structure for this chapter’s self assessment so that the School’s best aspects of learning and teaching and improvement initiatives are aligned to the design, support, delivery and academic impact standards. In addition, the following will be referenced as part of the strategy and performance agenda of this review: the UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012–2014 (see Appendix 3.8), the School’s Learning and Teaching plan (see Appendix 3.9), the School Special Issues Forum (May 2012), the report on the student feedback on unit surveys and the 2011 Annual Course Report (see Appendix 3.10) where we identified the best aspects of our work and improvement initiatives to enhance the student experience.

COURSE DESIgN

The School aspires to design leading edge courses noted for 21st century schooling and next practice education drawing on a futures’ orientation towards knowledge building through technology and our strong Social Ecology tradition of sustainability and creativity. This approach is considered critical to a pedagogy fostering conceptual change. To assure the quality of course design, the Course Design Working Party, a sub-committee of the School Academic Committee, oversees the pedagogical, operational and standards compliance. The UWS course design standards are: » Relevance; » Active learning including e-learning; » Theory-practice links; » Clear expectations; » Direction and unit links; » Focus on the capabilities that count; » Flexible learning pathways; » Assessment is clear, relevant and reliably marked with good feedback; » Capable, effective and responsive teachers; » Aligned support; » Convenient access.

These course design standards are operationalised at the School level through the implementation of the UWS and SOE Learning and Teaching Plans to ensure students successfully achieve high academic standards and they provide the framework for the following self-assessment of our course design.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard dealing with assessment that is clear, relevant and reliably marked with good feedback are: » Student feedback (SFU) on assessment shows improvement across the majority of

units across all programs in clarifying assessment requirements (See table 3.3). » Marking rubrics that outline the assessment standards for each assessment task

are included in each Learning Guide.

These activities align to objective 2 of the UWS Learning and Teaching Plan and objective 1.7 of the School of Education Learning and Teaching Plan.

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING

Education UWS

Item 2010.1 2010.2 2011.1 2011.2 2012.1 2010.1 2010.2 2011.1 2011.2 2012.1

1. [Unit Content] - The unit covered what the unit outline said it would.

4.14 4.14 4.17 4.17 4.23 4.08 4.08 4.12 4.11 4.15

2. [Relevance] - I was able to see the relevance of this unit to my course

4.27 4.24 4.27 4.30 4.34 4.00 4.02 4.03 4.05 4.06

3. [Learning Design] - The learning activities in this unit have helped my learning.

4.07 4.06 4.09 4.14 4.19 3.87 3.88 3.91 3.93 3.95

4. [Assessment Activities] - The assessments in this unit have helped me learn.

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.05 4.07 3.82 3.84 3.86 3.88 3.89

5. [Assessment Feedback] - I was able to learn from feedback I received in this unit.

3.79 3.81 3.81 3.91 3.93 3.63 3.67 3.69 3.73 3.73

6. [Assessment Guidelines] - There were clear guidelines for all assessment tasks in this unit.

3.80 3.82 3.86 3.92 3.88 3.78 3.79 3.83 3.82 3.86

7. [Learning Resources] - The learning resources provided for this unit helped me to engage in learning.

3.92 3.92 3.94 3.99 4.01 3.76 3.79 3.81 3.83 3.85

8. [Learning Flexibility] - The unit provided a reasonable amount of flexibility for study.

3.97 3.99 3.94 3.98 4.00 3.79 3.84 3.84 3.87 3.86

9. [Learning Spaces] - The teaching and learning spaces used for this unit were adequate.

3.98 4.03 4.06 4.09 4.11 3.90 3.94 3.96 3.98 4.00

10. [Workload] - The amount of work required in this unit was reasonable.

4.00 4.02 3.97 4.01 4.04 3.85 3.88 3.89 3.90 3.92

11. [Equity/Fairness] - In this unit, people treated each other fairly and with respect.

4.31 4.30 4.30 4.33 4.39 4.19 4.18 4.20 4.22 4.24

12. [Generic Skills] - This unit helped me developed my skills in critical thinking, analysing, problem solving and communicating.

4.06 4.06 4.06 4.09 4.15 3.86 3.90 3.90 3.94 3.94

13. [Overall Experiences] - Overall, I’ve had a satisfactory learning experience in this unit.

4.07 4.05 4.08 4.11 4.16 3.90 3.92 3.95 3.95 3.97

Surveys Issued: 10,783 8,703 10,862 10,812 11,282 118,892 108,777 123,366 111,810 121,114

Surveys Returned: 5,117 4,790 6,185 5,276 5,806 63,502 58,234 65,582 54,717 63,208

Response Rate: 47% 55% 57% 49% 51% 53% 54% 53% 49% 52%

Ratings

1. Strongly Disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Agree

5. Strongly Agree


Table 3.3 – Student Feedback on Unit (SFU) Survey 2010.1 – 2012.1

Performance

Mean >= 4.00(Agree to Strongly Agree)

Mean >= 3.50 and < 4.00(closer to Agree than Neutral)

Mean < 3.50(closer to Neutral than Agree)


The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of capable, responsive and effective teachers are:

Overall satisfaction (Item 13 in Table 3.3) reported by Student Feedback of Units (SFU) show Education as one of the best Schools on this rating in UWS.

What we do well in course design

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of relevance are: » Industry relevance is maintained through the Twenty first century learning blog; » Service learning units provide direct professional relevance e.g., Experiential

Learning in Communities, Professional Experience 3 (PE3) - Crossing Borders, Classrooms Without Borders, Connecting Communities and Professional Experience (PE) in Education Settings.

» An internationalisation focus is embedded in the following units: PE3 (international PE), Cosmopolitan Society, Crossing Borders, Refugee Action Support, PE in an Indigenous community;

» Accredited courses with the NSW Institute of Teachers and the Australian Children and Education Care Quality Authority currently and AITSL for future courses;

» Sustainability focus within Social Ecology units that explore ecological themes such as Master of Education (Social Ecology) units Environmental Education and Advocacy, Researching Social Ecology; and Education Studies Major unit, Education for Sustainability. This unit introduces students to an understanding of sustainability issues and to the kinds of pedagogies and practices that are needed to support students to be active and empowered citizens and advocates for promoting and co-creating a more sustainable world.

These activities align to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objectives 1.3 and 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of active and e-learning are: » All units have a vUWS site as part of the design of the course with some Unit

Coordinators offering more sophisticated e-learning and blended learning opportunities;

» Active learning is incorporated in units (e.g., Arts, HSIE, Psychology, PDHPE and Social Ecology) across all programs to enhance the relevance of the unit and the engagement of the learners.

These activities align to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.1 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of theory-practice links are: » Professional Experience units help students directly apply education theory to

classroom settings; » Research findings about low SES schools (the Fair Go Project), gender and

education (the Girls Project and the Boys Project), Positive Behaviour for Learning and the Staying On project are examples of UWS research that is incorporated into teacher education courses.

This activity aligns to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.8 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspect of what the School does in regards the design standard of clear expectations is: » Quality assurance of Learning Guides for each unit so that students are provided

with key study information in the one document;This activity aligns to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objectives 1.5 and 1.8 of the SOE L&T Plan.

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING


The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of direction and unit links are: » Clear introduction to the unit of study in the Learning Guide. » New Course External Advisory Committees will comprise a wide range of

stakeholders to provide direction and feedback on the re-design of courses; » Courses re-design for AITSL accreditation will be part of the UWS-wide curriculum

reform process, [email protected] activities align to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard dealing with a focus on the capabilities that count are: » All unit learning outcomes are currently aligned to the NSW Institute of Teachers

graduate standards in compliance with professional accreditation; » New courses design will comply with the AITSL national program accreditation

standards for teacher education and the graduate standards; » EdFest, an annual whole day program, provides access for pre-service teacher

educators to a broad range of employers, employment agencies, related industries and graduate skills workshops.

These activities align to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of flexible learning pathways are: » Accelerated, blended, full-time and part-time modes of study are available in the

initial teacher education courses; » Undergraduate pathways to teaching courses (Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of

Science and Bachelor of Social Science) provide a seamless transition into postgraduate initial teacher education courses;

» VET pathway open to the Bachelor of Education (Birth-5/Birth-12) students.These activities align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard dealing with assessment that is clear, relevant and reliably marked with good feedback are: » Student feedback (SFU) on assessment shows improvements across the majority

of units across all programs in clarifying assessment requirements; » Marking rubrics that outline the assessment standards for each assessment task

are included in each Learning Guide.These activities align to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of capable, responsive and effective teachers are: » Overall satisfaction reported by Student Feedback on Units (SFU) show Education

as one of the best Schools on this rating in UWS; » Academics advertise student consultation times and provide vUWS discussion

board facilities; » An Academic Project Manager oversees the courses design process for AITSL

accreditation including benchmarking the course learning outcomes and design; » Scheduled course re-design workshops for each Program draw upon staff

scholarship research of learning and teaching.These activities align to objective 3 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.4 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of how the School assures the quality learning and teaching through the design standard of aligned support are through the following capable staff: » First Year Advisor; » E-learning and Web Support Officer – full-time load; » Student Support Officer – full-time load; » Five Program Support Officers;


» Three academic Literacy and Cultural Advisors (Early Childhood, Primary, Secondary with a 10% workload);

» Academic Course Advisors (1 Early Childhood, 2 Primary, 2 Secondary, 1 Education Studies Major, 1 Special Education, 1 Social Ecology, 1 Educational Leadership);

» Aligned through the coordination of the 4 Directors of Program.These activities align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objectives 1.1 and 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the design standard of convenient access are: » School Disability Coordinators on the two campuses (Bankstown and Kingswood)

support Unit Coordinators to implement the Academic Integration Plans for students who volunteer to seek support for their learning.

» Program teams are developing a list of Inherent Requirements for our initial teacher education courses.

These activities align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objectives 1.2 and 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

Key course design challenges

Improvement initiatives in course design have been identified so that the students’ study is relevant, up-to-date and informed by research. Improvements are: » To make the courses more relevant, map the extent of Indigenous subject/

knowledges embedded in courses and consider offering a discrete Indigenous unit; » To make the courses reflect greater active and e-learning design, the Secondary

and Early Childhood programs will design online/off campus options; » To improve unit links, develop course level learning outcomes (AUQA 2 affirmation)

to show how units link to the course outcomes in our e re-designed courses for national accreditation;

» To enhance flexible learning pathways, the Early Childhood pathways will be varied based on student feedback and enrolments, annual course report data and analysis and the academic program management plan;

» To improve assessment so that is clear, relevant and reliably marked with good feedback, benchmark capstone assessment practices with two other universities assuring quality – reliability and consistency.

STUDENT SUppORT

The School’s support team is an example of best practice for improving effective student access, retention and progression. This support team strategy (1.2 of the School’s Learning and Teaching Plan, Appendix 3.8) is focused on two key support roles, that of the First Year Advisor (academic) and the Student Support Officer (SSO) (professional) and their maintenance and building of the systems that identify, support, track and report on students at risk of dropping out or failing. These roles are responsible for ensuring best practice as espoused by the UWS quality management framework for commencing student transition and retention (see Appendix 3.11). The highly experienced and committed staff in these two roles work collaboratively with academics in particular the Directors of Program, the Academic Course Advisors, the Academic Literacy and Cultural Advsiors and the Program Support Officers. They also engage closely with the School Librarian, the Student Learning Unit and the Student Support Services Unit to connect with university-wide student support systems. The Student Support Officer, a new position beginning in February 2012 communicates directly with at risk students face-to-face, by phone and email.

A second area of best practice is the School’s academic literacy and cultural support team who is key to improving student literacy support. Each of the Early Childhood, Primary and Secondary programs has an Academic Literacy and Cultural Support Advisors. This role requires an articulation and evaluation of the feasibility of customized and individualized approaches to support students’ academic literacy so

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING


as to improve student retention and success. The Advisors collaborate on a school-wide approach to: a) organising the academic literacy task; b) identifying students at risk of failing the academic literacy standard; c) providing these students with counselling and support for their academic literacy; and d) monitoring the progress of students with the assistance of a Student Support Officer.

The UWS support standards are: » Orientation; » Library; » Learning guides; » vUWS and ICT; » Staff selection and training; » Peer support; » First Year Advisor.

These support standards provide the framework for the following self-assessment of the student experience.

What we do well in supporting our students

The best aspects of what the School does for the support standard of orientation are: » My Course Planning Day (UWS-wide organization) presentations by Directors of

Academic Program and Academic Course Advisors providing initial enrolment and course advice;

» Compulsory Course Commencement (Primary and Secondary programs) and Course Essentials (Early Childhood program) (ranging from 2-5 days) offers initial course support and Child Protection training;

» Collaboration with UWS units such as the Library and Student Support Services to promote initiatives known to improve student retention e.g. mates@uws; PASS; and university preparation workshops;

» Pre-UWS Early Childhood VET VIP day.These orientation support activities align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan. The best aspects of what the School does for the support standard of the library are: » The School Liaison Librarian is a member of the School Academic Committee

(SAC) and works closely with the First Year Advisor and Unit Coordinators to ensure high quality information literacy, learning resources and training for staff and students across the two campuses;

» The library facility consistently rates highly on student feedback surveys since before its AUQA 1 (2006) commendation;

» Librarian facilitated information literacy sessions with Early Childhood VET pathway students.

These library support activities align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does for the support standard of the learning guide are: » Quality assurance of the unit-based Learning Guides is undertaken by the

Academic Course Advisors in each Program using a UWS-wide checklist and reported to SAC;

» Learning Guides detail assessment requirements and marking rubrics and received an AUQA 2 (2011) commendation for being fit for purpose and well structured.

These learning guide activities align to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does for the support standard of vUWS and ICT are: » Ubiquitous Learning Project provides focus groups of students in each initial

teacher education program with the use of laptops with 3G capability; » Participating in the Teaching Teachers for the Future national project (ALTC national


project, see report Appendix 3.14) and embarking on implementing the findings into the re-design of our courses.

These ICT activities align to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.1 of the SOE L&T Plan. In addition, they align to the UWS L&T Technology Plan (2011).

http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/207775/UWS_Learning_and_Technology_Plan_FINAL.pdf objectives about innovation, teaching spaces, integration with curriculum and assessment. Also, these activities align to the UWS E-learning quality framework, which contains the Basic standards for e-learning sites comprising http://tdu.uws.edu.au/qilt/downloads/Basic_Standards_for_E-learning_Sites.pdf the following objectives: 1. Organisation and appearance; 2. Consistency and compliance: legal and institutional; 3. Appropriate use of e-learning tools; and, 4. Learner resources and supports.

The best aspects of what the School does for the support standard of staff selection and training are: » Both sessional staff and new staff positions are managed online and applicants

undergo a rigorous selection process through which the School has employed very capable and talented academics resulting in an increase in permanent academics over the past 18 months improving the staff-student ratio;

» Sessional course inductions are run each semester for new and continuing sessional staff on the two campuses. This is facilitated by the Deputy Dean, Directors of Academic Program, School Manager and an Administration Officer with guest presenters such as the Library Turnitin Coordinator;

» vUWS training is organized by the Teaching Development Unit and is ongoing throughout the year and well attended by Education academics;

» Smartboard training has been offered twice in 2012; » Lectures online are available for lectures in the majority of units and accessed via

the vUWS site in the Learning Materials tab.These staffing approaches align to objective 3 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.4 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does for the support standard of peer support are: » Peer Assisted Study Support (PASS) scheme, a UWS-wide support strategy, which

is offered to at least one beginning unit in the School’s initial teacher education courses. PASS received an AUQA 2 (2011) commendation for effectively improving student learning and retention;

» Crossing Borders is a secondary program peer support strand within the unit, Professional Experience 3;

» Experiential Learning in Communities is a peer support and mentoring unit within the undergraduate pathways to teaching Education Studies Major.

These peer support activities align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does for the support standard of the First Year Advisor are: » The First Year Advisor has supported teachers of first years and first year support

systems (2011 onwards) with a 15% workload allocation; » The Student Support Officer (2012 onwards, F/T) is aligned to the work of the First

Year Advisor; » The First Year Advisor provides advice to the Academic Literacy and Cultural

Advisors who work with both domestic and international students to achieve success;

» The First Year Advisor works with the Program Support Officers and the Academic Course Advisors;

» First Year Advisor facilitates the provision of just-in-time information in units and the welcome slides.

» First Year Advisor collaborates with Student Support Services regarding phone calls to commencing students;

» Refer to The UWS quality management framework for commencing student

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING


transition and retention (see Appendix 3.11) underpins the School’s first year transition and retention strategy which is mapped in Appendix 3.12;

» Academic Integration Plans are implemented by Unit Coordinators with assistance of the Disability Coordinators and in a small number of cases, the First Year Advisor.

» These First Year Advisor activities align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan.

Key student support challenges

Improvement initiatives for supporting students have been identified so that the students’ stay on and progress through their course to successfully graduate. Improvements are:

» To improve vUWS/e-learning and the quality of each vUWS site; » To improve classroom-based ICT, train, install and maintain more Interactive

Whiteboards and Connected Classrooms facilities; » To improve peer support, extend the number of units offering Peer Assisted Study

Support (PASS) scheme; » To enhance the work of the First Year Advisor to support the progression of the

Education Studies Major (Pathways to Teaching) Indigenous students into the Master of Teaching courses;

» To enhance the work of the First Year Advisor to increase first year retention in the Bachelor of Education (Birth-5/Birth-12).

As part of the School’s continuous process of planning, implementation, review and improvement (PIRI) (http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review), it has been identified that further improvement in the support of students’ numeracy will enhance existing approaches. Currently, students studying in the Early Childhood program are supported by a School enhanced version of Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS), which is called PASS Plus. Early Childhood academics and library staff also assist students to demonstrate skills in numeracy planning and programming as preparation for professional experience. PASS is available on rotating semesters for Early Childhood and Primary students in Mathematics Principles and Applications where they are provided with access to the Student Learning Unit’s ‘Improve your Maths’ website and free access to HoT MATHS, a web based tutorial and study support. Students are also offered four revision lectures across the two campuses at the end of each semester. Students in the Bachelor of Arts (Pathway to Primary Teaching) also study a second mathematics unit, Mathematical Patterns and Relationships for which PASS is offered in alternate semesters. Mathematics students in the secondary program also logon to the ‘Improve your Maths’ as well as MAPS (Mathematics Assistance for Pre-service Students) websites.

In order to improve 1.3 of the School’s Learning and Teaching Plan (see Appendix 3.9) and the first objective of the UWS Learning and Teaching Plan, an Indigenous Education Strategy Working Party has been formed as a sub-committee of the School Academic Committee to promote merit-based academic scholarships for continuing/commencing Indigenous students, address goals for Indigenous enrolment, to align Indigenous education objectives during the current course design phase as well as oversee the program and professional standards requirements of Indigenous knowledge. This Working Party will also advise on initiatives to reach the School’s enrolment target of Indigenous students.

COURSE DELIVERy

A strong feature of the School’s best learning and teaching practice is how we deliver our programs. In particular, the School contributed substantially to the AUQA 2 (2011) affirmation of engaged learning experiences in all courses. Community engagement has been central to the design of our pre-service teacher education with substantial service learning practicum components in each of our programs in the following units:


Professional Experience 3 (Secondary Program), Classroom without Borders (Primary), Engaging the Community (Early Childhood) and Experiential Learning in Communities (Education Studies Major). This feature of the School’s learning and teaching practice has been recognised by numerous awards at the university, national and international levels.

The UWS course delivery standards are: » Staff accessibility, responsiveness and skills » Consistency and quality of delivery of support systems » Consistency of delivery of design features

These course delivery standards are operationalized at the School level through the implementation of the UWS and SOE Learning and Teaching Plans to ensure students successfully achieve high academic standards. As well, they provide the framework for the following self-assessment of our course delivery. Items 1.1, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.8 of the School’s Learning and Teaching plan (see Appendix 3.9) and objective two of the UWS Learning and Teaching Plan align to the delivery standards.

WHAT WE DO WELL IN COURSE DELIVERy?

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the delivery standard of staff accessibility, responsiveness and skills are: » SOE’s CEQ Good Teaching item has greatly improved: 2008 – 42%; 2009 –

55.5%; 2010 70.2%; 2011 – 70%; » Staff rate consistently on the ‘flexibility’ item in the Student Feedback on Units

survey over the past four years at an average of 68%; » Sophisticated skills of active and creative pedagogies in areas such as creative

arts, English and Social Ecology covering units like Applied Imagination, Learning and Creativity, Drama, Music, Dance and Visual Arts Method, Primary Creative Arts and Play, Development and Learning;

» Academic staff communicate their availability for consultation and the Program Support staff are available from 9am-5pm. Some courses have a dedicated email for student enquiries (Education Studies Major and Early Childhood);

» vUWS sites are used by Unit Coordinators for discussion, announcements and updates.

» Evidence from the SFU’s shows a good connection between staff and students. The School’s improvement target for the overall student experience item on the all units’ Student Feedback on Unit survey is >/= 3.5 by 2015. This means that an improvement is sought in only three units delivered in the School of Education this year;

» Majority of academics are experienced teachers, therefore provide a high quality learning experience;

» Sessional staff are mentored by Unit Coordinators; » Sessional staff inductions are offered each semester on two campuses; » The Foundations of Learning and Teaching UWS-wide training module is

mandatory for new staff; » New staff are partnered with a buddy by means for induction and support; » Academics receive many L&T awards and grant funding.

These staff strategies align to objective 3 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the delivery standard of consistency and quality of delivery of support systems are: » Innovation in teaching practices that place student experience as central, such as:

The Ubiquitous Learning project providing 100 3G student accounts with computer notebooks for students across Primary, Early Childhood and Secondary courses;

» Quality assurance of vUWS sites and Learning Guides (AUQA 2, 2011, affirmation of ICT enabled learning);

» Assessment mapping and coordination across courses; » Professional Experience placements in Indigenous schools such as in the Northern

Territory;

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING


» International professional experience option; » Professional Experience evaluation of the primary paired project where students

work in pairs in the classroom; » Professional Experience pathway intervention program supports international

students prior to their first school placement.The delivery of these support systems aligns to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.6 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to the delivery standard of consistency of delivery of design features are: » Variety of blended learning approaches – online, service learning and fieldwork; » Align research to teaching, such as the Secondary Education Research Project, the

Positive Behaviour for Learning project, the Fair Go Project engagement research, and the Fair Go to the Get Go Honours program;

The delivery of these design features align to objective 3 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

Key course delivery challenges

Improvement initiatives in course delivery have been identified so that the students’ study is engaging, intellectually challenging and relevant. Improvements are: » To improve staff accessibility and responsiveness, conduct direct voice focus

groups with students to supplement survey and vUWS feedback on the delivery of study units;

» To improve staff skill to broaden the embedding of Indigenous knowledges across courses;

» To improve staff skill and responsiveness, structure units that provide greater flexible and blended learning experiences to suit students study, social, family and work commitments;

» To improve staff accessibility, submit in a timely manner the casual employment authorities for sessional academic staff (area at risk, School audit, May 2012);

» To improve staff skills in classroom technologies by installing Interactive Whiteboards and providing training in a timely manner;

» To improve the delivery of design features, embed the ICT outcomes of the national Teaching Teachers for the Future project into the re-design of initial teacher education courses for national accreditation.

COURSE ImpACT

The impact of the School of Education courses on graduate outcomes are outlined below in the self-assessment against the academic standards and assessment framework for learning and teaching (see Appendix 3.7). The UWS impact standards are: » Validation; » Retention; » Assessment quality; » Progression; » Employability; » Future study.

What we do well with our courses that has the greatest impact

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to course validation are: » Rate highest in Australia on the Good Teaching Scale for Primary and Secondary

Education and rate fourth, above most other universities, on student satisfaction (MyUniversity website, 7 April 2012);

» Increase in SOE’s CEQ level of overall satisfaction during the period of high staff-to-student ratio, which shows staff responsiveness (AUQA 2 commendation, 2011): 2008 – 56.6%; 2009 – 66.9%; 2010 – 80%; 2011 - 79.2%;


» Dean’s medals to high achieving students; » School and Leadership certificates to selected Professional Experience partner

schools and school leaders.This course validation information aligns to objectives 1,2 and 3 of the UWS L&T Plan and objectives 1.1.–1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspects of what the School does in regards to student retention are: » Commencing student retention for SOE in 2011 was 88.2%. This retention

achievement is above the School’s key performance indicators for retention: 79.6% for 2011-2012; 80.4% for 2013-2014;

» Overall progression of SOE students: 2008 – 92.8%; 2009 – 94.9%; 2010 – 94.8%.

This retention achievement aligns to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspect of what the School does in regards to assessment quality is: » Compliance with UWS assessment policy is a function of the School Academic

Committee and operationalized at the Program level by the Directors of Program, Academic Course Advisors and Unit Coordinators.

This retention achievement aligns to objective 2 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspect of what the School does in regards to student progression is: » Overall progression has been: 92.8% for 2008; 94.9% for 2009; 94.8% for 2010.

This progression outcome aligns to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.2 of the SOE L&T Plan.

The best aspect of what the School does in regards to student employability is: » Industry relevance is demonstrated by the annual EdFest event and Professional

Experience placements; » NSW Department of Education and Communities employment statistics show that

more UWS teacher education graduates are annually employed than from any other university (15% employment rate);

» Alignment of course and units with professional teacher standards so that graduates can be employed in the profession and work towards gaining teacher registration.

The employability and further study strategies align to objective 1 of the UWS L&T Plan and objective 1.7 of the SOE L&T Plan.

Key impact challenges

Improvement initiatives to enhance course impact have been identified so that the students’ overall study experience is successful to completion and they are employable. Improvements are:

» To meet the UWS retention target by increasing the retention of Bachelor of Education (Birth-5, Birth-12) students to the following: 2011-2012 – 72%; 2012-2013 – 75%; 2013-2014 – 78%; 2014-2015 – 81%. The Early Childhood program team has initiated course variations in response to student feedback to improve the student experience and retention.

» To improve assessment quality and the validation of course level outcomes by benchmarking assessment items and marking standards of capstone units with the other universities;

» To improve assessment quality by varying the assessment procedures for Module 1 units from the Master of Teaching (Primary) course to align the grading system with other undergraduate units in the Education Studies Major.*

» To improve employability, achieve broader outcomes with existing partnerships with employing authorities so that the Graduate Destination Survey item for employment increases as it has decreased slightly over the past four years: 2008 – 84.3%; 2009 – 82.7%; 2010 – 78%; 2011 – 77.3%.

chapter 3LEARNING

AND TEACHING


» To improve employability, enhance the annual EdFest careers event through a focus group comprising Education staff together with the Careers and Cooperative Education unit.

» To improve the incentive for students to undertake further study, enhance the research connectedness of courses so that the majority of SOE students, who are already a postgraduate cohort, consider further study in a research higher degree. This would help to stabilise the Graduate Destination Survey item for further study, which been inconsistent over the past four years: 2008 – 2008 – 16.5%; 2009 – 25.8%; 2010 – 21.3%; 2011 – 15.6%.

The impact ratings of courses (see Table 3.3) have been developed by the Directors of Academic Program together with the Deputy Dean and Dean in consultation with the Office of Strategy and Quality and the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching).

FUTURE CHALLENgES

The School Academic Committee (SAC), currently chaired by the Deputy Dean (2012) and previously by Maggie Clarke (2008-2011), has made advances in the teaching and learning strategic agenda as part of the system to achieve consistency across all Schools as affirmed by AUQA 2 (May 2011). This committee exercises leadership in course design and quality assurance over student support and course delivery. It monitors the impact of the design, support and delivery of the learning and teaching plan. In addition, the Course Design Working Party, a sub-committee of SAC, steers the conceptual and overarching work of re-designing initial teacher education courses for national accreditation and this will be one of our major future challenges. Key features being considered in the design are the tenets of twenty-first century learning including blended learning, sustainability and Indigenous knowledges.

Table 3.4 – School of Education course ratings (Academic Program Management Plan, 2012-2014)

Courses Employment outlook

Demand outlook

*Lifecycle assessment

Competitive outlook

Competitive assessment

Risk assessment

B Education (Birth-5 Yrs) Very Good Poor Emerging Poor Average Average

GC Education (Social Ecology) Very Good Average Emerging Good Average Poor

GC Special Education Studies Very Good Poor Emerging Average Average Poor

M Education (Leadership) Very Good Average Emerging Average Average Poor

M Education (Social Ecology) Very Good Average Emerging Good Average Poor

M Special Education Very Good Poor Emerging Poor Average Poor

M Teaching (Birth-5 years/Birth-12 Years) Very Good Average Emerging Average Average Average

M Teaching (Primary) Average Very Good Brand Leader Good Average Average

M Teaching (Secondary) Good Good Brand Leader Average Average Average

Action plans guide our response to the impacts of our courses. * ’Brand Leader’ refers to a program that is well established in the market, highly competitive and that has a reputation for excellence. ‘Emerging’ refers to a program that is new to the market.


chapter 4SCHOOL

WORKFORCE STRATEGy



OVERVIEW

The School of Education is committed to utilising the resources at its disposal to support and develop the work of all staff to enable them to engage in high quality, professional and personally-satisfying work that impacts positively on our student and other communities. Successes in this regard include the level of engagement in their work reported by Education staff in the recent MyVoice survey, and the validation of our teaching through the consistent, high quality student feedback received by our academics. Tensions exist between this commitment to quality and desire for engagement, and the work pressures experienced within the School, also apparent in the MyVoice results, due to increasing student numbers and consistently high staff student ratios.

Our recruitment strategies to attract quality academic staff have seen the raising of the threshold expectation for appointment to include a PhD and at least an emerging research track record. The School finds it increasingly difficult to source the desired profile of academic staff from within Australia, and has had more recent successes internationally. The challenge here is to understand how to both support and retain high performing staff, particularly those from overseas. The School has recruited and retained a high performance professional team that works well to support the effective operations of the School and move the administrative burden away from academic staff as much as possible.

RECENT RECRUITmENT HISTORy

Since the establishment of UWS in 1989, staff in the School of Education have been appointed according to particular patterns of recruitment. Professional staff tend to live locally and be tied to the local campus, have remained stable in number as student numbers have grown, and have been appointed in small and gradual increments. Academic staff have tended to be appointed in ‘waves’ followed by periods of relative inactivity and attrition. The first of these waves was 1990-95, when the University was establishing itself and growing. The second was in 2002-03. The third is the current period, 2011-13.

Following the establishment of the School of Education in 2005 and a significant change to the course profile and campus offerings, student numbers declined in the period 2003-06, reaching a low base of 1745 EFTSL in 2006. During this period most academic staff who separated from the School were not replaced. Table 4.1 below shows relative staff and EFT taught student load from 2006 to 2012. A consequence of the rapid growth in student numbers from 2008-11 was that, while academic staff numbers declined, there was a significant increase in the staff-student ratio. At one point in 2011, the School’s ratio of permanent academic staff to taught load (PASTL) indicator was the highest of any school in the University. It is still very high, at 1:43 midway through 2012 (this number does not include RIF-funded positions in the research centres, as they have a different history of engagement with the School and a minimal impact upon teaching). This has led to increased pressures on all staff over time, and it is significant that, despite the high levels of staff commitment reported by Education staff in the 2012 My Voice survey, indicators of staff ‘wellness’ in the same survey are amongst the lowest in UWS (refer to Table 4.4 below), indicating a staff under stress.

chapter 4SCHOOL

WORKFORCE STRATEGy

TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The extent to which the School’s workforce strategy meets the University’s objectives for valuing and rewarding staff; attracts, recognises and retains world-class academic staff; and effectively positions the School to meet future needs and challenges.


Table 4.1 – Permanent Academic Staff to Taught load ratios, 2006-12

year No. Permanent Academic Staff (PAS)*

Taught (student) load(TL)

PAS-TL ratio1:

2006 65.5 1745 26.6

2007 57.5 1795 31.2

2008 47.5 1906 42.8

2009 48.2 2218 46.2

2010 52.0 2345 45.0

2011 50.0 2663 53.3

2012 60.0 2580 (est) 43.0

*Note: ‘Permanent Academic Staff’ includes any staff on fixed term contracts exceeding, but not including, 6 months in duration.

The PASTL ratios outlined in Table 4.1 does not include the casual staff FTE calculation that is included in the traditional calculation of Staff-Student ratios (SSRs). However, recent data provided to UWS in an external audit of UWS compliance to the ESOS Act (conducted by Moore Stephens) has provided a breakdown of SSRs across all Schools at UWS. This is provided below in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 indicates that the School of Education has the highest SSR within UWS by a wide margin. The School of Education has a SSR of 1:37, while the next highest SSR is found in the School of Social Sciences and Psychology, at 1:30. The mean SSR for UWS is 1:25. Both the PASTL and SSR data help to explain the poor relative staffing position of the School, and why Education staff have reported work-related pressures in the recent MyVoice survey well beyond levels reported in other schools (see section below on staff engagement and morale).

chapter 4SCHOOL

WORKFORCE STRATEGy

Table 4.2 – SSRs across all UWS Schools (based on 2011 load data)

Moore Stephens, ESOS Compliance Report, p. 12k UWS June 2012

School Staff FTE Students Ratio 1:International

Student %

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION 72 2,663 37 4%

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY 103 3,081 30 2%

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS 207 6,032 29 16%

SCHOOL OF LAW 61 1,762 29 6%

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND COMMUNICATION ARTS 162 4,618 28 7%

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COMPUTING AND MATHEMATICS 122 3,070 25 9%

SCHOOL OF SCIENCES AND HEALTH 186 3,741 20 4%

SCHOOL OF NURSING AND MIDWIFERY 155 2,641 17 20%

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 68 626 9 12%

Total 1,137 28,235 25 9%


CURRENT STAFF pROFILE

As demonstrated in Table 4.3 below, the School of Education currently comprises 91.6 full time staff in total, comprising 68 academic and 23.6 Professional staff. These are distributed across the two campuses on which the school is located (Bankstown and Penrith), and across the two University Research Centres which have been located in the School since 2012.

The work of the School’s staff, both its academic work and its administrative support systems, are generally perceived within the University to be well developed and of a good quality. It is a continuing challenge to manage staff engagement on the two campuses and to have staff on both campuses feel that they are able to participate in school governance and have a voice. Having said this, staff engagement and commitment to UWS, and levels of job satisfaction and intention to stay, are higher than for the average in the University, as evidenced by the recent MyVoice survey results for the School. The team-based structures within the School, along with the expectation of distributed leadership within these teams, seem to facilitate staff engagement. Additionally, there are very positive relationships across campuses, and a reasonable degree of movement between them. Leadership roles are skewed towards the Penrith campus, where the Dean and School Manager, and five Directors (Research, Higher Degree Research, Engagement and International, Centre for Educational Research, and Secondary Program), are based. By contrast, the Deputy Dean and three Directors (CPPE, and the Primary and Early Childhood programs) are based on the Bankstown campus. This distribution partially reflects the reality that when positions such as these are advertised, more expressions of interest are generally received from the Penrith campus.

A related issue is the seniority profile across the two campuses. More Level D and E staff are located at Penrith, while over two thirds of Level B staff are located at Bankstown. While a number of the Level B staff at Bankstown are very experienced, occupy important leadership roles within the School and are very effective in these roles, it does indicate an imbalance that the School needs to address through its further recruitment work.

Table 4.3 – Classification and Distribution of Staff in the School of Education

Bankstown PenrithBankstown (CPPE-RIF)

Penrith (CER-RIF)

Total

HEW 4 .6 - - - .6

HEW 5 4 6 - - 10

HEW 6 2 3 2 - 7

HEW 7 2 1 1 - 4

HEW 8 - 1 - - 1

HEW 9 - 1 - - 1

Level A - 1 - - 1

Level B 20 9 4 1 34

Level C 6 6 - 1 13

Level D 4 6 1 - 11

Level E 2 3 3 1 9

TOTAL 40.6 37 11 3 91.6


The age profile of staff at May 14th 2012 is captured in Figure 4.1 below. This figure captures staff in the School, but not those in either of the Centres who are funded by the RIF.

Figure 4.1 – School of Education Employees by Age

Figure 4.1 above confirms the significant risk confronted by the School of Education in planning to replace staff who may retire in the near future – say in the next five years. The School has a total of 42 of its 79 staff (53%) who are aged over 50. A total of 18% of staff are aged over 60 years. A continuing challenge is therefore managing the age profile of staff in the School, and the current and future trend of staff retirements, added to other separations. In 2012, for example, five staff have retired or will retire by year’s end. This puts increasing pressure on our recruitment strategies and our efforts to maintain current staffing levels, let alone reduce the staff student ratio.

SCHOOL ACADEmIC WORKLOADS

Under the current Academic Enterprise Agreement, each School must form a School Work Plan Committee, comprising an equal number of appointed and elected staff representatives, which must then develop a School Work Plan policy on behalf of the School. School Work Plan Policies are checked and then endorsed by a UWS Work Plan Committee for compliance with the Enterprise Agreement and the UWS Work Plan Principles. A breakdown of the various workload components across the School is provided in Figure 4.2 below. These data cover the workloads of all academics within the School, including those who are in the two research centres. These data are informative, but they do lack the context of an across-UWS picture of similar comparative data for all schools and Institutes. These comparative data are not currently available, though are being developed.

chapter 4SCHOOL

WORKFORCE STRATEGy


Figure 4.2 – School Academic Workload Profile 2012

As it calculates average School workloads to a total of 100%, Figure 4.2 slightly compresses the actual picture. In fact, the average School workload is 103.8%, comprising 39.5% teaching, 25.5% research, 31.5% administration, and 7.5% contingency (explained below).

Teaching workloads: Academic workload is calculated according to the actual work done and through rubrics negotiated within the School Work Plan Committee. In teaching, the workload allocated is based on the number of EFTSL taught by each academic, rather than through an hours-based calculation. In allocating teaching, 5% of an annual workload is allocated to each average-sized tutorial group of 25-27 students. The marking associated with that tutorial group, and a share of the preparation and delivery of lectures, is built into the 5% allocation – there is no additional workload provided for these activities. Also included in teaching is the supervision of higher degree research students and, for those who teach in excess of four tutorial groups per annum, a blended learning development and maintenance allowance of 10% per annum.

Research workloads: Research workload is granted upon research performance as outlined on the UWS Researcher’s Portal (accessed at: https://research-report.uws.edu.au/wpubs/Portal.asp). The Portal contains individualised annual and triennial data outlining publications and external grants. In the School of Education rubric, a single-authored publication worth 1 ‘DEST point’ achieves 5% of an annual workload (with the total workload that can be achieved through publications capped at 30%). In external research grants, total income over a triennium is multiplied by 0.66. Someone who has earned $100K of National Competitive Grant (NCG) income over a three year period will, for example, have two thirds of that amount ($66K) applied to the rubric, which is 5% for every $25K of NCGs earned (so in this case, $66K would earn the academic 13.2% of an annual workload). For other categories of research grant income, after applying the same process, 5% is awarded for every $50K of income earned. The total research workload that can be earned through grants is capped at 40% per annum. Through their research activity, highly productive researchers can earn up to the maximum annual research workload of 70%. In 2012, eight (8) staff have research workloads of between 50% and 70% - this figure includes the RIF-funded research staff in CPPE.

Some researchers who do not have a track record on the Portal because they are new to the university (but who have an established record elsewhere), or still at the early career researcher stage, are granted research workload allowances by the Dean.


In 2012, eight (8) staff have no allocated research workloads under these allocation principles, while a further seven (7) have earned workloads of 15% or less. Staff currently undertaking doctoral study receive an annual allocation of 15% workload over a four year period to assist them in their completion.

Academic leadership and administrative workloads: Workload relating to academic leadership and administration has three components. The first is a general component of 10% per annum for general administrative duties, which under the Enterprise Agreement is allocated to each academic. Approximately one third of the total administrative workload in the School comprises this component. The second component is for the coordination of teaching units, and this is allocated on the basis of the numbers of students in a unit and other factors of complexity. The total workload allocated for unit coordination in the School in 2012 was 6.5%. The final component of administrative workload comprises those approved academic leadership positions in the School, including Dean, Deputy-Dean, Director of Portfolio, Research Centre Director, Director of Academic Program and Academic Course Adviser. In total in 2012 these academic leadership workloads totalled 15%. Overall administration workloads comprised 30% of total academic load in the School.

Contingency: The contingency category of workloads covers periods of long service leave, leave without pay, extended periods of sick leave, and those academics granted ADP leave (Academic Development Program, or ‘sabbatical’, leave - in a College of Arts process conducted in 2011, seven Education academics have had a 6 months period of PDP leave in 2012). Contingency may also include workload for special strategic projects recommended by the supervisor and/or portfolio leader and approved by the Dean.

The School Work Plan Committee is committed to evidence and productivity-bases for allocating workload, and believes that the rubrics we use are about right. In 2012, with the deletion of the College layer of management and the recent introduction of administrative workload for unit coordination, it does seem that the 30% of total workload allocated to academic administration and leadership may be high, but without university-wide comparative data it is hard to be clear about this.

STAFF mORALE AND ENgAgEmENT

Staff from the School of Education had amongst the highest participation rates of any UWS School in the recent MyVoice survey (70%+ participation), and the survey results from the School show a complex combination of expressions from staff about their work. Table 4.4 below shows the five most positive responses from School of Education staff to the broad categories of questions in the MyVoice survey. Table 4.5 shows the five most negative responses which also have a significant point of difference from the UWS mean. Both tables include a comparison of School responses to the UWS mean response, and to the mean response for all Australian universities, expressed as positive or negative percentages of difference to the UWS School of Education.

Table 4.4 – MyVoice Survey Results – Most Positive Responses

Category of Responses% favourable responses from School of Education

% difference to UWS mean response

% difference to Aust universities mean response

Mission and values 92% +6% +10%

Role clarity 87% +3% +4%

Organisational Commitment 86% +9% +10%

Job satisfaction 85% +4% +4%

Teamwork 85% -2% -1%

chapter 4SCHOOL

WORKFORCE STRATEGy


Table 4.5 – MyVoice Survey Results – Most Negative Responses with Significant Points of Difference to UWS

Category of Responses% favourable responses from School of Education

% difference to UWS mean response

% difference to Aust universities mean response

Workload 24% -16% -17%

Career opportunities 41% -5% +2%

Technology 42% -13% -10%

Wellness 43% -11% -13%

Work/Life balance 51% -11% -15%

As this Self-Assessment document is being written, the School Executive has planned a consultation process with all staff about the MyVoice results, their significance, and the steps the School should take to respond to them. However, preliminary discussions within the School Executive and with UWS Office of People and Culture indicate that School of Education staff have amongst the most positive responses within UWS to a commitment to the mission and values of the University, being engaged with their work, and in their intention to stay. They feel they work well in their teams, and have motivation for, and clarity about, their roles in the School and in UWS.

On the negative side staff report in numbers far greater than the UWS mean that they are over-worked, have poor ‘wellness’ and a poor work/life balance. While the consultation process will unpack staff feelings about these matters, it seems to the School Executive that work expectations in the School are taking a toll. The combination of the high staff-student ratios in the school, the complex management of accelerated postgraduate programs which have two large intakes per year and in which all units are offered twice per year and some on two campuses, is a challenging mix for staff which is managed through their commitment and professionalism. When these factors are considered in the light of the relatively low resourcing base of the School compared to other Schools (see Chapter 5), it is difficult to see how to change the mix and address these issues. The challenge is to work within UWS to develop a strategy to increase wellbeing for staff in the School of Education.

ATTRACTINg AND RETAININg WORLD CLASS STAFF

The School of Education has a tradition of recruiting academic staff from two primary sources: i) established academics who relocate to UWS from other institutions, usually Australian institutions, and usually as a means of advancing their level of appointment; and ii) highly skilled teachers and school-based educational leaders, usually in mid career, who may have completed, or are currently enrolled in, higher degree research programs. The current profile of academic staff with doctorates is: 78% with doctorates, and 22% without. Twelve per cent (12%) of academic staff in the school are currently undertaking doctoral work.

The most recent academic staff to be appointed without doctorates were appointed in 2009. Since that time the expectation has been that all academic appointments will have, at the least, doctorates with evidence of an acceptable publications record. The School has successfully enforced this expectation, although it has meant on occasions not appointing into advertised positions.

We find that Sydney is a difficult area to attract staff into due to the high cost of living and housing relative to the rest of Australia, and overseas. To counterbalance this, Australian salaries are attractive, and we find that prospective staff are attracted by the mission and vision of UWS, particularly around regional engagement and the prospect of working with low SES communities. The School has had some success from 2010 to the present appointing high quality academics from overseas including Singapore, the UK and North America. International recruitment is a slower and more


expensive method of recruitment, as visa processes need to be navigated and there are significant relocation costs to be met. On the other hand, these staff are generally more experienced and advanced in their research profile than those we might typically attract locally.

An issue for us is to support and retain international staff. Two international appointments from the 2011-12 recruitment round have returned home for personal reasons. This suggests we need to do more to mentor and support newly-appointed international staff at critical times, particularly within the second and third semester periods following commencement.

A further key issue for the School, and one that has provoked much discussion amongst its members, is getting the balance right between teaching and research expertise in our appointments. UWS has a policy of concentration and selectivity in allocating its research investment fund (RIF), and some new appointments, particularly at senior levels, will be research-focussed. However, there is also an expectation that new appointments will generally be able to contribute to delivering a quality teaching program and help to reduce our high staff-student ratios. Because of this, the School of Education has generally sought academics with a balanced academic profile who can successfully undertake both teaching and research. There is an open question as to whether this is an effective strategy, or the correct one, given UWS’s strategic plan around research and the new requirements of the ERA. Having said this, a number of our new international appointments have been identified by the directors of CER and CPPE as potential members or associate members of those Centres and have successfully applied for membership status.

REWARDINg STAFF

Both professional and general staff in the School of Education are typically very positive about their work. Professional staff have generally put good administrative systems in place, as evidenced by successive reports from UWS auditors. The School has a reputation for being efficiently structured and administered, and for producing high quality work. We have had, from time to time, issues amongst both academic and professional staff with client service and the need to be responsive to students, and while this is has improved greatly constant vigilance is required. On the whole, staff are regarded by students and other external stakeholders as effective and professional.

While there are many improvements still to be made in the School, the general performance of the School around teaching quality as measured through student satisfaction, research performance and HDR completions, and university engagement, are strong. Staff satisfaction with their work is evidenced by the recent MyVoice survey results, which position Education staff in the very top groups within UWS in terms of satisfaction and engagement in their work.

As a result of these positive attitudes, staff are now used to seeking out rewards and achieving them. Reward systems within UWS tend to favour academic staff, though some are also available to professional staff. Table 4.6 below outlines School of Education successes in various reward programs offered by UWS.

chapter 4SCHOOL

WORKFORCE STRATEGy


Table 4.6 – Staff awards, 2006-11

Rewards program Successful cases 2006-11*

Promotion to Lecturer 2

Promotion to Senior Lecturer 11

Promotion to Associate Professor 6

Promotion to Professor 3

Carrick/ALTC Award 3

Carrick/ALTC Citation 11

VC’s Excellence Award (Winner) 3

VC’s Excellence Award (Highly Commended) 4

UWS PD / Indigenous Scholarship 3

Reclassifications of professional staff 6

*Cases represent the numbers of awards, not recipients. Three awards have been to teams (ALTC Award; VC’s Winner and VC’s Highly Commended). One of these teams included members of the School’s professional staff.

CAREER DEVELOpmENT AND pLANNINg

The formal career development and planning process in the School follows the UWS Compass system. This is an online system which encompasses the University’s Career Development Planning and Review process as outlined in the UWS Staff Enterprise Agreements, as well as the employment benefits and career development opportunities outlined in the Professional Development Policy. The School is currently using the Compass for the second iteration. Staff set work performance goal, based around, the strategic plan and individual work plans. Staff identify KPIS or measure for each objective. Staff also set goals for their professional development. These goals are discussed with supervisors and managers and seek feedback and guidance on performance. Towards the end of the year a formal review is undertaken based on the Compass goals and submitted via Compass. The discussions are not one off but rather ongoing. In the case of professional staff there is a regular and planned semi formal “What’s important?” conversation between staff and supervisor approximately every two or three weeks. This supports ongoing development and takes helps ensure a positive and authentic final end of year review. Academic staff often use peer review and mentoring and/or their student evaluations and/or research statistics as part of the Compass process. There have been technical and training issue during the introductory stage of Compass.

FUTURE CHALLENgES

Senior staff in the School believe that current workforce and recruitment strategies do position the School well to meet future challenges around teaching and research. Staff enjoy their work, albeit in a pressured environment which would be alleviated with a further increase in permanent staff to reduce the staff-student ratio. We have built a culture of pride in quality teaching, and an understanding of the importance of research quality and productivity. We have developed strategies to support and reward staff in this work, although some, like induction and mentoring programs, are under-done and need far more stringent development. This generally positive work culture means that new appointments become aware of these standards and expectations and work to maintain them.


We have supported academic staff, through a flat 10% workload allowance, to develop both expertise in, and the effective delivery of, blended learning models based on a standard two hours per week of face to face engagement per unit. We have developed models of workload support and reward for research work based on DIISRT-validated research productivity measures which has led to increased productivity in publications (we now need to get right the formulas which drive the allocation of research workload around external grants). These will be essential, ongoing refinements if we are to meet the challenges provided by ERA and the UWS responses to these challenges.

There are several challenges we have not yet fully engaged with through our recruitment strategies. In teaching, it is clarifying the ideal nature of our course delivery, particularly in relation to blended learning, and the implications this might have in the skill-set required in new appointments. There is the question as to whether we might engage more fully in on-line learning, for example, and whether this may require a different skill set in some or all of our new academic appointments.

The second challenge, in research, is how to attract high performing research leaders to UWS. Many of our senior academics are likely to retire within the next five years. While we feel we are successfully building the capacity of early and mid career researchers, it is clear that we also need to appoint a new generation of strong research leaders. The two Research Centres in the School will be the vehicle for this. The Centre for Positive Psychology and Education (CPPE) is focused in its research agenda and has recently attracted a number of experienced researchers into RIF-funded positions. The Centre for Educational Research is a more broadly-based centre which covers three research themes. The Director and senior staff in the Centre feel that the generic name of the Centre represents an impediment to attracting high performing senior research staff, and that a more focussed name would act as an attractor. We consider our second challenge how to go about attracting high performing researchers into CER.

CONCLUSION

Over the past five years the School of Education has managed to build its student load and subsequently attract good academic staff, though still at a level where staff-student ratios are too high. We need to develop strategies to enable the School to have a manageable SSR, and need to negotiate with UWS Executive what this level might be and how it might be achieved. We should also be proud of the levels of engagement and commitment of School of Education staff in the light of these pressures. We need to understand how we can more effectively support the work of our staff within our resource constraints – this is critical if we are to keep the very good staff we do have, and attract new staff as we inevitably replace our older staff upon retirement. Mentoring new staff and emerging leaders into leadership roles is an additional and important challenge for the School to address.

chapter 4SCHOOL

WORKFORCE STRATEGy


chapter 5GOvERNANCE,

ORGANISATIONAL SySTEMS AND

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITy



OVERVIEW

The School of Education has a governance structure which conforms with UWS mandated management and academic quality structures. Those in mandated formal leadership roles include the Dean, Deputy Dean, School Manager, Directors of Research, Research Higher Degrees, and Engagement and International. The Deputy Dean has the Learning and Teaching portfolio, and four Directors of Academic Program (DAPS) report to her. The Dean, Deputy Dean, and all Directors, DAPs and the School Manager have supervisory responsibilities (see Appendix 5.1 for the School’s Organisational Charts).

Other formal leadership roles are also offered to staff to manage more targeted areas of responsibility. In addition to formal leadership roles, the school has a philosophy of distributed leadership, and all staff are encouraged to participate in school decision-making and committee structures, and to apply for formal leadership roles as they arise. Generally, school leadership roles become available every 2-3 years.

The School’s organizational systems are robust and have been reported in various recent audits by the UWS Auditor’s Office as of a high quality, and often exemplary within UWS.

This is highlighted in the following quote from the 2012 internal audit:

“The School has a dedicated administration/technical support team with professional staff demonstrating a high level of commitment to service quality and adherence to University policies and procedures” (UWS Internal Auditor’s Report, 2012, p4 section1.3.1).

One issue within the School is the challenge of maintaining an effective intranet or internal communications system where all staff can contribute to and access information, and particularly where they can reliably access documentation relating to School procedures. Currently the School uses a vUWS (Blackboard) site for this purpose, and it is poorly utilized and maintained.

Since 2006 the School of Education has developed various efficiencies in its teaching model, workloads and other processes which have placed it on a more secure financial footing. Generally, the School of Education is seen as a prudent consumer of university resources, and is currently held up as an exemplar in the way it manages its key practices and resources. However, under the new ‘needs-based’ financial model that UWS uses, the School’s efficiency has seemingly led to the establishment of a lower funding base for the School of Education (32.5% of CGS + HECS income) relative to most other UWS Schools (refer to Table 5.4 below). The School’s financial sustainability is now also compromised by the fact that its student load targets, which are primarily in postgraduate load, now exceed the total fully-funded postgraduate load that UWS is allocated under current Commonwealth policy. This situation is currently being discussed within UWS Executive, but it is clear that the current financial situation of the School, along with the tight work practices and relatively high staff-student ratios that Education experiences within UWS, are contributing to the negative feelings around well being and workload that are evident in the recent MyVoice survey.




TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The extent to which the School’s governance and organisational systems are effective and relevant, and meet the University’s objectives of financial sustainability, operational cohesion and responsiveness.


pHILOSOpHy OF LEADERSHIp IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

As much as possible, the School practices a philosophy of distributed leadership and information sharing, with team participation in the decisions which affect them. This builds leadership capacity and through this, stronger teams and team decision-making. While not every staff member will agree with every decision or direction, it is hoped that the reasons for the final outcome of directions and change have been shared and are well understood. This philosophy is one explanation as to why staff in the School of Education had some of the most positive responses in relation to engagement and participation in the UWS MyVoice survey results.

The School has numerous examples as to how these approaches to engagement in leadership can strengthen the School and build staff capacity. One example relates to academic leadership around teaching quality. In 2007-08, the School of Education at UWS had the worst mean score of any UWS school in Item 13 (‘overall student satisfaction’) on the UWS Student Feedback on Units (SFU) questionnaire. Within 12 months, through local team action and decision making undertaken within a whole-of-School strategic framework, we had turned this around to become the highest mean score in UWS on Item 13. Since that time, Education has consistently had the highest overall student satisfaction of any School at UWS. Affirmation of the quality of our teaching programs has come through the new MyUniversity data repository, which has UWS Primary and Secondary teaching programs as ranking 1st out of 34 Australian universities on the quality teaching scale, and 4th on the student satisfaction scale. These improvements have been managed by initiatives at the local level through the work of staff in various course groups and committees responding to the strategic directions and imperatives of the School in the context of UWS strategy and expectations.

STRATEgIC pLANNINg

Strategic planning has been a key feature of the School of Education’s operation since 2005-6, and consistent with the leadership philosophy permeating the School has been driven by a broad range of stakeholders. In 2012, each of the Directors with specific portfolio responsibility is charged with identifying key strategies for the School of Education which align with the UWS Strategic Plan and KPIs, and embedding these into the School of Education Strategic plan, 2012-15 (see http://staff.uws.edu.au/staff/adminorg/corpserv/opq/schoolstrategicplans for further details of the current draft plan - NB Staff Login required). Directors are supported in developing these strategies by their teams and committees (see below).

The School traditionally runs two strategic planning sessions each year: the first a two-day School Retreat each December in which directions for the following year are clarified; and a one day mid-year in the following year where progress is identified and adjustments made. All staff are invited to these sessions, and attendance is traditionally very good, with participation ranging from 20 to 30 members of staff. In 2012 Staff from the School’s Research Centres participated. The School Retreat is in December and includes all members of the School. Programs for each event always have a strategic focus. This focus includes environmental scanning, strategic thinking and planning, writing, reviewing, alignment with UWS strategy, work load planning and engagement. The 2009 to 2011 Strategic Planning Day and School Retreat agendas are detailed below in Appendix 5.2.

Prior to the 2011-12 restructure there were fewer staff in the School with specific portfolio responsibility, and no Deputy Dean. In this period, the role of the Head of School and School Manager assumed great importance in driving strategic planning. The current structure enables School of Education Executive positions to align far more readily with UWS PVC portfolio responsibilities. This enhances the capacity of the new School of Education Directors to drive strategic planning, while necessarily maintaining the consultative and participatory basis of our planning through our committees and groups.


SCHOOL gOVERNANCE AND COmmITTEE STRUCTURE

The structure of all School Committees was reviewed in 2010 and again in 2011 as a result of the recent the UWS restructure. The current School Committee Structure was implemented in March 2012 and meets UWS requirements for the governance structure of Schools. The School has seven official committees all of which have defined Terms of Reference and Membership. There are also a number of Operational Committees within the School. These committees together support decision making in major areas of strategy and operations for the School and supports alignment to UWS strategy and operations. The role and functions of these committees are outlined briefly below.

Senior School Executive: This group monitors and deals with urgent, routine and strategic operational and planning issues between meetings of the full School Executive Committee. Meetings are usually weekly, and membership comprises the Dean (Strategy and Planning), Deputy Dean (Learning and Teaching), Director of School Research (Research), and School Manager (Operations).

School Executive Committee: This committee meets monthly, and provides formal advice to the Dean on the strategic position of the School in relation to curriculum development, marketing, industry collaboration, strategic appointments, internationalisation and research. In 2011 the School Executive replaced the School Management Advisory Committee (SMAC). The membership comprises Dean, Deputy Dean, Director of School Research, Director of Engagement and International, Director of Research Higher Degrees, Directors of Academic Programs (Secondary; Early Childhood; Primary and Adult and PG Education), Directors of Research Centres (CER and CPPE) and School Manager.

School Course Groups or Teams: While our course groups or teams have a slightly ambiguous status within UWS governance structures than other types of committees, they are crucial within the School of Education as the basic team unit for academic (and some professional) staff. There are four course teams in the School: Early Childhood, Primary, Secondary and Adult and Postgraduate Education (which includes the Education Studies Major), and each is led by a Director of Academic Program who are in turn supported by several Academic Course Advisers. Along with their membership of a research Centre, many staff will find their academic ‘home’ in their course team. Through these teams, they will influence proposals that are forwarded to the School Academic Committee relating to the structure, pedagogies, and assessment approaches within their programs. Any staff member teaching in any program may attend a course team meeting, which is usually held monthly. Course teams may also commonly create working parties to focus on particular issues or improvements in their program, or to monitor and refine the ways in which the program is being implemented.

School Meeting and Issues Forum: This is an important opportunity for all School staff to interact and discuss specific topics or issues relevant to the School. It is a venue in which all staff have the opportunity to engage in active debate and discuss issues relevant to the School’s development and put on the agenda issues of importance requiring in-depth consideration. It is currently chaired by a Lecturer on the Bankstown campus who applied for the position through an open, competitive process. Meetings are designed to address topics raised by staff, or which align with our strategic plan and encourage staff to be a part of the decision making process. All staff are welcome to attend.

School Academic Committee: The School Academic Committees is a standing committee of Academic Senate. In the new 2012 structure it reports to Senate and provides advice to its other standing committees. It monitors and assures the academic quality of the School’s courses and units, approves academic results for coursework units, authorises the conferral of coursework degrees and awards, and makes recommendations about proposals for new or amended courses, unit sets and





coursework units. The SAC meets four times per year face-to-face and conducts four other face-to-face or technology mediated meetings. SAC Membership is governed by UWS policy, and comprises: Dean of the School or nominee (Dean has appointed the Deputy Dean as Chair); Deputy Dean; Directors of Portfolio (Research, Research and Higher Degrees, Engagement and International); Directors of Academic Program; up to five Academic Course Advisors who are members of the School; elected School members of Academic Senate; a currently employed casual staff member appointed by the Dean; up to three nominees from cognate schools; one Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education), nominated by the Pro Vice- Chancellor (Education); the University Librarian, or nominee; one undergraduate student, elected by and from the undergraduate students of the School; and one postgraduate student, elected by and from the postgraduate students of the School.

School Research and Higher Degree Committees: The School Research and Higher Degrees Committee of Academic Senate tenders reports to Academic Senate’s Research Committee and Research Studies Committee, as required and as relevant. The Committee is responsible for assisting the School in assuring the quality of the School’s research activities and research training and for making recommendations regarding the admission and assessment of higher degree candidates. The Research Committee makes recommendations to the Dean of the School concerning the development of the School’s three- or five-year research strategy including plans and performance targets and plays a role in monitoring the performance against milestones annually and making recommendations concerning budget and other support for research areas. The Committee meets a minimum of six times per year face-to-face, and membership is constructed as determined by UWS policy, and comprises: the Dean of the School or nominee (the Dean has delegated the role of Chair to the Director of Research); Director of Research; School HDR Director; two senior researchers nominated by the Dean in consultation with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research); two other researchers nominated by the Dean in consultation with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), including at least one early-career researcher; the Head of each Research Centre or Group within the School; one Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), nominated by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research); the School Honours Coordinator (or equivalent); one higher degree research candidate.

School Work Plan Committee: Work plan negotiations within the School of Education are conducted in an open, collegial manner. This provides the security of Individual Work Agreements co-signed by supervisors and staff. The aim is to provide a balance between the professional autonomy of academic staff and the ability of the Dean to manage staff resources and operational needs. To ensure equity, transparency and compliance the School Work Plan Committee will review the general work plan allocations. Approval of Individual Work Agreements rests with the Dean. Membership of the School Work Plan Committee is governed by the School Work Plan Framework developed within the UWS Academic Enterprises Agreement, and comprises: the Chair (nominally the Dean, but in Education delegated to an appointed member who is the School Workloads Coordinator); four academic members of the School appointed by the Dean; and four academic members of the School elected by the academic staff in the School of Education.

OHS and Risk is a standing item on the Senior School Executive, School Executive and Forum Committee meetings. Minutes of all Committees are correctly recorded and available to all staff via TRIM and will be made available on the renewed School vUWS site.


SCHOOL ORgANISATION

Supporting the academic and governance work of the School is an administrative support structure which was developed in 2006, in consultation with all staff, following the merging of the two schools in 2005. Administrative systems in the School are designed to support the work of academics and, as much as possible, to free up academic staff from undertaking unnecessary administrative work. School systems are generally seen to be effective, as evidenced through recent auditing of these systems through the UWS Auditor’s Office, and our systems and practices are frequently considered within UWS to be exemplars. One area for improvement is our approach to communicating with each other and for providing two-way access to information. Lacking a UWS intranet facility, we utilise the UWS Blackboard (vUWS) system for internal communication, but in practice this is not engaged with, or managed, effectively. We have been waiting for UWS to launch Sharepoint as a potential intranet platform, and we have hopes that this may assist us in improving communication and access to information. Unfortunately the UWS launch of Sharepoint has been a slow process so far. This is an area requiring attention.

With the removal of the College layer within UWS and the direct line of accountability between Schools and their personnel and UWS senior management, there is a need to re-evaluate the administrative structure within the School and the way it provides services across our portfolios of responsibility. Our School Manager is in the early stages of consulting around possible alternative administrative support arrangements that may more effectively align with the new requirements and accountabilities of the School.

FINANCIAL pLANNINg FRAmEWORK

While financial management has always been a key responsibility of Schools, in the new structure the new ‘needs-based budgeting’ model has increased both the accountabilities around financial management, and the time and expertise required to meet these accountabilities. While introducing a three year budget cycle, the new approach requires consistent monitoring of both income and expenditure by schools, and quarterly forecasting of expenditure accompanied by possible quarterly adjustments of budget. This is a new approach which has taken some getting used to, and which also poses some challenges for the School, as it has significantly reduced the resource base for the School from previous years.

Our strategic emphasis in budget management is to align the strategic imperatives of the university to both the personal work values of each person in the School and the School’s strategic priorities. By supporting what is both valuable to UWS and to the individual academic and professional staff member, we encourage our staff to undertake work of quality, which they enjoy and of which they are proud, by providing, through effective resource management practices, a resource base which enables the building of sustainable forms of support and growth.

The UWS financial framework consists of a cyclical approach to budget development and management, and is captured in Figure 5.1 below.





Figure 5.1 – The UWS Financial Framework

The financial planning and performance of the School is managed through the UWS Financial Framework involving quarterly forecasting , using the TM1 application, to senior UWS management to provide for three year rolling budgets rather than a calendar year budget as was used prior to 2011. A major driving force behind the new financial framework is to drive proactive planning. Assisting us in achieving this, the School has access to a Finance Office Client Service Accountant (CSA - dedicated to our School and one other School).

Financial administration in the School is centralised in the Dean’s Unit. The School Manager assists the Dean in preparing the School budgets and Forecasts. This work is supported by various professional staff including the Technical and Facilities Manager, Finance Administration Officers and the CSA.

SCHOOL FINANCIAL pERFORmANCE

The recent trends in school income and expenditure, 2007 to June 2012, are detailed in the following tables. Table 5.1 below details a breakdown of key expenditure categories over this period. The bulk of the School’s expenditure is related to staff salary costs.

Table 5.1 – School’s Expenditure by Major Category for years 2007 to June 2012

Actual (with adjustments)

Direct Expenditure

Academic Salaries General Salaries Total Salaries + oncosts

NSI

Permanent Casual Teaching

Practice Teaching

Total Casuals

Total Academic Salaries

Permanent Casual Total General Salaries

YEAR $% to Actual

Direct Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

% to Actual Direct

Expenditure*

2007 $10,761,763 64.0% 6.5% 6.2% 12.8% 76.8% 11.2% 3.8% 15.0% 91.8% 8.2%

2008 $10,682,844 59.6% 5.7% 6.0% 11.8% 71.4% 14.1% 2.8% 16.9% 88.3% 11.7%

2009 $10,913,368 57.1% 8.7% 6.8% 15.5% 72.6% 14.2% 2.3% 16.5% 89.1% 10.9%

2010 $12,498,592 51.9% 9.5% 7.1% 16.6% 68.5% 13.5% 3.5% 17.0% 85.5% 14.5%

2011 $13,267,224 53.0% 12.2% 6.6% 18.8% 71.8% 13.2% 3.5% 16.7% 88.5% 11.5%

June 2012 $7,681,156 62.0% 7.2% 0.9% 8.1% 70.1% 15.5% 5.6% 21.1% 91.2% 8.8%

* with adjustments


Table 5.1 shows the casualisation of teaching staff waxing and waning in correlation to levels of permanent academic staff. The June 2012 figures do not include the casual costs for professional experience related to Semester 1 and the inclusion of these figures will boost both the direct expenditure and the professional experience percentage while reducing the other academic and professional salaries percentages. Professional staffing levels have remained static during the period under review; however, a new Student Support Officer was appointed in January 2012 and this explains the bulk of the increase in the professional staff percentage. The rest of this increase is due to reclassifications of some staff to higher HEW levels.

In addition expenditure funded by the School under the pre-2012 funding arrangements in 2011, the School was able to refurbish the staff building at Bankstown campus as well as establish two computer classrooms and roll out 10 interactive whiteboards at each campus. The School has also, under pre-2012 funding arrangements, funded various strategic projects in its Next Practice portfolio including the Digital Media Project, and the Ubiquitous Access Pilot from NSI.

Table 5.2 – Major Categories of the School’s Income for years 2007 to June 2012

Table 5.2 shows various categories of income as a percentage for each year since 2007. Quite a bit of work has been done by UWS Finance to try to ensure these are comparable as possible. In 2012 we include the two Research centres in the overall budget. The 2012 figure are YTD only. Table 5.2 shows that the School relies heavily on its allocated share of CGS + HECS income, with international fee paying income and research performance (now issued through the UWS research investment fund - RIF) income contributing variably in a small way to its income base from year to year. The School was also allocated as part of a Strategic Initiatives Bid in 2012, $150,000 per year over three years to support the Course Redesign Project.

In the Appendix 5.3 a full table of dollar values of Income and the associated notes about its construction are detailed.

STUDENT LOAD TRENDS AND INCOmE

Figure 5.2 below tracks the growth in student load during the review period (NB these EFSL figures have been generated by summing post census data on enrolments divided by 8). While changes to course profiles and campus offerings in the earlier years of the decade produced load volatility and contraction (both load and income contraction resulting in a period of implementing necessary efficiencies, particularly around the teaching model), this trend began to be reversed in 2008 and the School has since experienced high load growth (an average growth in load of 9.5% per annum from 2008-11). During the same period staff numbers declined significantly, hence the rise in staff-student ratios (refer Chapter 4).




Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 3 Note 4 Note 5 Note 6

Oracle Total income/funding excl carry forward

CGS/HECS Prac Teaching Commonwealth grant

International student fee paying

Local student fee paying

Research (RTS, IGS, RIBG)

External Research

Other External Income

Internal UWS allocation

Actual Earned Total Income/funding excl carry forward

gl code/project

code2001 2022 =2820+2860 M306 M304 M307

M310+M309+M311+

M316

YEAR $ % to Earned income

% to Earned income

% to Earned income

% to Earned income

% to Earned income

% to Earned income

% to Earned income

% to Earned income

$

2007 $24,123,948 81.7% 5.0% 3.3% 1.9% 3.4% 1.8% 2.8% 0.2% $19,663,624

2008 $23,545,059 84.1% 5.1% 2.5% 1.6% 3.1% 1.0% 2.4% 0.3% $23,768,839

2009 $24,627,709 85.1% 5.1% 3.9% 1.1% 2.0% 0.4% 2.4% 0.1% $29,782,142

2010 $29,532,024 87.1% 4.8% 4.1% 0.3% 1.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.1% $34,745,598

2011 $33,795,578 88.1% 4.6% 4.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.6% $42,230,272

June 2012 $24,371,633 75.5% 4.4% 4.6% 0.1% 1.2% 2.1% 0.8% 11.3% $24,349,376


Figure 5.2 – EFTSL (Taught Load) 2005 to 2012

While student demand increased significantly in the period 2008-11, load growth has levelled out somewhat (2% year on year) in 2012. This indicates that the record growth in Education load from 2008-11 may not be sustainable. In 2012, load targets for the School of Education were projected to maintain these high growth trends, with a 2012 growth target of set of 9% for both domestic CGS+HECS, and fee paying international load. This is despite UWS-wide growth targets of 2% growth in domestic CGS+HECS load, and 0% growth in international fee paying load. Given the issues we have identified elsewhere of high staff-student ratios and low staff wellbeing, it is clear that we need to re-assess what may now be unrealistically high and unsustainable growth forecasts for the School of Education. This reduction has occurred in 2013 targets, which are 200 EFTSL fewer than our 2012 targets in CGS+HECS load. This reduction strategy is only viable, however, if the School receives necessary levels of financial support despite reduced load targets. The case for higher levels of financial support is explored below.

The growth of the last few years, accompanied by academic staff attrition, has placed pressure on the School in a number of areas including: the provision of Professional Experience placements; an increasing casualisation of the academic workforce due to a lag in recruitment of additional fulltime staff; a challenge in providing operational support for expanded academic programs within existing professional staff establishment; and supporting the transition and retention of students, particularly low SES students, within the education programs. It has also placed increased pressure on permanent academic staff to manage an increasingly casualised teaching workforce while striving to maintain teaching quality and research productivity. The School’s responses to the administrative pressures have included the creation of a new professional staff role of Professional Experience Manager to drive the strategy development and implementation in this area; the appointment of a Director of Engagement and International; the appointment of a new dedicated professional staff role of Student Support Officer to assist with transition and retention strategy development and implementation; and the establishment of an ongoing online Casual Academic Eligibility List.

The School’s taught load generally comprises around 70% postgraduate load through its Master of Teaching programs, and 30% undergraduate through its early childhood Bachelors program and its Education Studies Major pathway units. The School has the bulk of the Post Graduate load in UWS. This creates some particular pressures for the School. Table 5.3 below shows how the cap on PG CGS revenue has been calculated and the latest 2012 (May) estimates for PG load and CGS revenue for UWS.


UWS has been provided with a target of PG CGS places by cluster from which the cap on PG CGS revenue for UWS has been calculated ($17,125,740) based on each cluster’s target load multiplied by the relevant CGS loading. Then using actual PG load by cluster for 2012 multiplied by the relevant CGS loading this is totalled to see if it exceeds the cap that has been allocated. As shown by the table our projected PG CGS revenue exceeds the cap, so we will only receive the maximum of $17,125,740 in 2012. However, we still receive the HECS paid by all students irrespective if we exceed the CGS cap.

It should be noted that in 2013 the UWS actual PG load will increase as students move from the UG component of the Health Science courses in Physio, TCM, OT and Podiatry so this will impact on whether UWS is able to stay under the cap. The result of this circumstance is that even if the School was to reach its target load, this load would not be fully funded by CGS+HECs.

RELATIVE FUNDINg OUTCOmES FOR THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

In the previous budget (pre-2011-12) framework, when School the School of Education existed within the College of Arts, the College received 42% of CGS + HECS load, retained 1.8% of this to fund the College operation and College-wide quality incentive schemes, and distributed the remaining 40.2% of each School’s CGS+HECS income to that School. Research income was allocated to the College and was then distributed by the College strategically to Schools and Centres, but strongly guided by the principle that those schools or groups that were the most active producers of research output received the greatest levels of research support.

Under the new framework, there is no guaranteed ‘base’ level of funding. Research funding, now distributed under the RIF, is still guided by the same principle as before, though Research Institutes are generally favoured in the distribution. The distribution of CGS+HECS funding is based on an assessment of ‘need’. In 2012 this assessment resulted in a significant reduction of the School of Education’s CGS+HECS load that flowed back to Education’s operational budget. Table 5.4 shows the relative levels of CGS+HECS income generated by each School in UWS, and the percentage levels that were allocated to each school.

Table 5.3 – UWS Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) 2012 Estimated PG Load and Target Load and Revenue

ClustersDEEWR PG CGS

Target

UWS 2012 PG

Load

2012 CGS/Loading $ per EFTSL

DEEWR Cap on PG Places

UWS 2012 Projected PG CGS

$ Revenue

1) Law, Accounting, Commerce, etc 0 0.3 $1,861 $0 $476

2) Humanities 0 1.2 $5,168 $0 $6,217

3) Maths, Stats, Computing, Other Health, Behavioural Science and Social Studies

107 32.0 $9,142 $978,194 $292,157

4) Education 1,552 1,634.1 $9,512 $14,762,624 $15,543,436

5) Foreign Languages, Visual and Performing Arts and Allied Health

9 16.0 $11,243 $101,187 $179,644

6) Nursing 101 101.2 $12,552 $1,267,752 $1,269,948

7) Science 1 0.3 $15,983 $15,983 $4,154

Total 1,770 1,785 $17,125,740 $17,296,033





Table 5.4 shows that the School of Education received a relatively low percentage of total income (32.5%) compared to other Schools within UWS. This poor relative outcome for the School seems to be linked to an assumption that, given the efficiencies achieved by the School of Education over the period 2006-10, it has a lesser need for resources than other schools that are acknowledged as needing to make similar efficiencies. The Dean and School Executive have been making the point to UWS Executive that there is a danger in not rewarding staff who have actually made efficiencies – particularly when they are also producing quality outcomes. These dangers include a feeling that good work and selflessness in relation to the overall needs of UWS are unappreciated or taken for granted, and an undermining of morale or commitment to the institution. The MyVoice survey results indicate that while School of Education staff are amongst the most committed to their work within the University, they are also feeling work-related stress more than any other group. This is not a sustainable situation, and in the view of School of Education Executive it is related to the current funding constraints that the School experiences, which does not enable the School to most effectively support its staff in their work.

CONCLUSION

The School of Education has tried to develop and maintain a participatory organisational framework based on strong team decision making. While our internal communication processes and means of sharing and accessing information require development, staff are generally positively involved in, and committed to, their work. Our organisational structures generally provide good service and are viewed positively within the University, and all systems are under continual review to ensure they are most responsive to changing situations.

The School has a recognised record of being productive, efficient in its practices, and careful in its use of resources. It has produced quality outcomes and maintained good staff morale despite, between 2007 and 2011, experiencing a rapidly growing student load and shrinking academic staff numbers resulting in increasing work pressures. While under previous financial frameworks school members have felt supported while they delivered quality under difficult circumstances, the current financial framework seems to have penalised the School of Education for being an efficient academic unit and a good institutional citizen. The poor returns made to the School when compared to other schools need to be reassessed and made right if we are to effectively address the concerning trends uncovered in the recent MyVoice staff survey.

Table 5.4 – Comparative distribution of CGS+HECS income intended for distribution to School operational budgets - 2012

2012 SCHOOLS sorted by Direct Expenditure %

Operating Budget

Total Income Direct Expenditure Indirect Expenditure

$ $%To School

Income $% To Centre

Income

S2077 School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics

65,428,072 21,131,142 32.30% 44,295,956 67.70%

S2012 School of Education 41,655,099 13,548,003 32.52% 28,107,094 67.48%

S2016 School of Social Sciences and Psychology 49,499,947 17,020,013 34.38% 32,479,930 65.62%

S2079 School of Nursing and Midwifery 53,856,226 18,655,989 34.64% 35,200,224 65.36%

S2015 School of Humanities & Communication Arts 71,036,473 25,247,016 35.54% 45,789,465 64.46%

S2076 School of Science and Health 83,526,493 31,245,029 37.41% 52,281,492 62.59%

S2052 School of Law 21,854,677 8,508,988 39.35% 13,255,699 60.65%

S2051 School of Business 79,630,523 31,880,075 40.03% 47,750,520 59.97%

466,487,510 167,326,255 35.87% 299,161,350 64.13%


In conclusIon



The authors hope that, through a reading of this document, it has been clear that members of the School of Education are proud of the scope and quality of the work that we do, and of the impact this work has on our students and external partners and stakeholders. We are particularly proud that our work supports, and to some extent leads, the University’s mission and vision to be an engaged university and to serve the communities of Greater Western Sydney.

In Chapter 1 we provided an overview of the extent of university engagement, particularly through teaching and research, which is embedded within our practices. Through the presentation of various data we have indicated both the scope of this engagement and the impact that it has on both the communities within GWS and our international partners. WE believe that our engagement activity is fundamental to the work we do, and what we have been able to achieve, as a School of Education.

In Chapter 2 we expressed the narrative of our research history, and the evolving foci of our research centres and that of the school. We indicated our belief that our research themes have contemporary currency and impact, and that they effectively underpin both our intellectual contribution to the field, and our engagement in the region and beyond. We illustrated our current efforts and plans to grow the capacity of emerging researchers through the activity of our centres, and to respond to the challenge laid down by our ERA 1 results to build educational research at UWS into a world class activity.

In Chapter 3 we overviewed in some detail the past and present configurations of our teaching programs, particularly in the context of quite rapid recent student growth. We outlined current plans to strengthen our course profile, build upon our strengths, and develop graduates who are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be 21st century educators. We addressed, with some pride, the reputation and quality of our teaching and programs as demonstrated through both UWS and CEQ student feedback data, and discussed the ‘best aspects’ and ‘needs improvement’ implications of course data in relation to our plans to further strengthen our course design and confidently meet the various standards required of our programs.

In Chapter 4 we outlined the nature of our staff profile, our recent staff recruitment history, the ways in which academic work is allocated in the School, and the nature of staff commitment and morale. We celebrated the increasingly international makeup of our academic staff, and also highlighted the tension between the positive and negative aspects of the MyVoice survey results for the School of Education which indicate a highly professional staff who nonetheless appear to be under significant work-related pressure.

In Chapter 5 we overviewed the team and governance structure of the School, and our belief in distributed leadership. We provided an account of the funding basis of the School, and argued that, in our view, the funding position of the School of Education has deteriorated in 2012 to the point where it is difficult to effectively support the work practices of staff – particularly given the poor staff-student ratio in the School of Education relative to other Schools.

As we said at the beginning of this document, we believe that the engagement which underpins much of our work helps to define our character as a School of Education, and is a distinctive feature of the way we practise Education. While our work is theoretically well-informed and helps to theoretically inform the field, it also matters on the ground where situation-improvement matters. This is why both academic and professional staff in the School of Education are so committed to their work: they feel it is making a real difference. Our goal is to work productively and positively to further enhance our teaching and research programs as expressions of our work of a quality, contemporary and engaged university, and to effectively support our staff in achieving this goal.

In conclusIon


appendIces


School of Education Review 2012 77 77 School of Education Review 2012

Appendix 1.1: A Sample of staff publications arising from engagement units and engaged research

Dr Tania Ferfolja:

Ferfolja, T., Vickers, M., Mccarthy, F., Naidoo, L. & Brace, E. (2011). Crossing Borders: African refugees, teachers and schools. ACSA: ACT.

Ferfolja, T., Whitton, D., Sidoti, C., (2010). Classrooms without borders: using academic service learning to enhance pre-service teachers’ understandings of diversity and difference, The Australian Journal of University-Community Engagement, vol 5, no. 2, pp 115-125, [ORS ID: 218664]

Ferfolja, T., Vickers, M. (2010). Supporting refugee students in school education in Greater Western Sydney, Critical Studies in Education, vol 51, no. 2, pp 149-162, [ORS ID: 215271]

Ferfolja, T. (2009). The Refugee action support program: Developing understandings of diversity, Teaching Education, vol 20, no. 4, pp 395-407, [ORS ID: 212527]

Ferfolja, T. (2008). Making the transition into the first year of teaching: Lessons from the Classmates initiative, Australian Journal of Education, vol 52, no. 3, pp 242-256, [ORS ID: 209279]

Ferfolja, T. (2008). Beyond a command performance: reflections on Classmates as a new teacher preparation initiative, Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, vol 36, no. 1, pp 5-18, [ORS ID: 208500]

Ferfolja T, 2008, Building Teacher Capital in Pre-Service Teachers: Reflections on a New Teacher-Education Initiative, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, vol 33, no. 2, pp 68-84, [ORS ID: 208087

Assoc. Prof. Geoff Munns:

Byrne, M. & Munns, G. (2012) Getting both pictures right: The importance of the classroom relationship, in Beresford, Q. & Partington, G. Reform and resistance in Aboriginal Education, Perth: UWA Press.

Munns, G. (2012) Thinking the unthinkable: Teachers who engage students in poverty: “In this class you can imagine ...”, in Portelli, J. & McMahon, B. (Eds), Student Engagement in Urban Schools: Beyond Neoliberal Discourses. North Carolina: Information Age Publishers.

Munns, G, Arthur, L., Hertzberg, M., Sawyer, W. & Zammit, K. (2011) A fair go for students in poverty, in Wrigley, T., Thomson, P. & Lingard, R. (Eds), Changing schools. Alternative ways to make a world of difference. London: Routledge.

Dr Loshini Naidoo:

Naidoo, L. (2012) (Ed). Ethnography An Ethnography of Global Landscapes and Corridors, Intel, Croatia

Naidoo, L. (2010) (Ed) Education Across Borders: Diversity in a Cosmopolitan Society, New York: Nova.

Naidoo, L. (2012). Merryvale High: mentoring high school refugee students in Developing Successful Diversity Mentoring Programmes: An international Casebook, David Clutterbuck, Kirsten M. Poulsen and Frances Kochan, Berkshire, England, pp 164-168

appendIces


Naidoo, L. (2012). Refugee Action Support: An Interventionist pedagogy for supporting refugee students’ learning in Greater Western Sydney secondary schools, International Journal of Inclusive EducationFerfolja, T., Naidoo, L., Mccarthy, F., & Vickers, M. (2011). School-university-community partnerships in Crossing Borders: African refugees, teachers and schools, ACT, pp 73-90

Naidoo, L. (2011). Embracing Technology and Community Engagement as a Teaching and Learning Medium in Social Justice Education, International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, vol 4, no. 1, pp 1-9

Naidoo, L. (2011). Beyond Institutional Walls: Literacy Support for Indigenous Students at a Remote High School in the Northern Territory, Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, vol 19, no. 3, pp 9-18

Naidoo, L. (2011). The Refugee Action Support program: A case study report of best practice, International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, vol 3, no. 4, pp 83-90

Naidoo, L. (2011). What Works? A Program of Best Practice for Supporting the Literacy Needs of Refugee High School Students, Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, vol 19, no. 1, pp 29-38

Naidoo, L. (2010). Introduction in Education Across Borders: Diversity in a Cosmopolitan Society, Dr, Loshini Naidoo, New York, pp 1-7.

Naidoo, L. (2010). Community Engagement as Pedagogy for Transnational Learning in Education without Borders: Diversity in a Cosmopolitan Society, Dr Loshini Naidoo, New York, pp 27-43,

Assoc. Prof. Carol Reid

Journal articles

Reid, C. & Collins, J. (2012). ‘No-one ever asked me’: the invisible experiences and contribution of Australian emigrant teachers, Race, Ethnicity and Education, DOI:10.1080/13613324.2012.674022

Collins, J. & Reid, C. & Fabiansson, C. (2011). Identities, Aspirations and Belonging of Cosmopolitan Youth in Australia, Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol 3, no. 3, pp 92-107

Reid, C, (2010). Will the Shire ever be the same again? Schooling responses to the Cronulla riot, Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol 2, no. 1

Collins, J. & Reid, C. (2009). Minority Youth, Crime, Conflict, and Belonging in Australia, Journal of International Migration and Integration, vol 10,4, pp 377-391

Reid, C. (2009). Technology loving Luddites? Declining participation in high school computing studies in Australia, British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol 30, no. 3, pp 289-302

Reid, C. (2009). Schooling responses to youth crime: building emotional capital, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol 13, no. 6, pp 1-15

Chapters in books

Reid, C., & Mulas, R. (2012) Problems and Possibilities: Equitable Education for Australian Refugee and Immigrant youth and their families. In Elinor L. Brown (Ed) Multinational/Transnational/Multiethnic/Undocumented in the series International Advances in Education: Global Initiatives for Equity and Social Justice (Volume 5). Information Age Publishing, US.

appendIces


Reid, C. & Collins, J. (2009). The Sydney Cronulla Beach Riots: The Contexts and Contradictions of the Racialization of Young People in Racism and Justice: Critical Dialogue on the Politics of Identity, Inequality and Change, Singh Bolaria, Sean P. Hier, Daniel Lett, Canada, pp 123-136,

Reid, C. & Van Den Akker, J. (2007). CIT teachers’ cultures in a globalising world in Gender and I.T: Ongoing Challenges for Computing and Information Technology education in Australian secondary schools, Julianne Lynch, Melbourne, pp 111-123Creative Works

Reid, C., Costley, D. & Vozzo L. (2006). Pieces of Harmony (DVD)

Prof. Margaret vickers:

Book:

McCarthy, F. E. & Vickers, M. H. (2012). Refugee and Immigrant Students: Achieving Equity in Education. Charlotte, SC: Information Age Publishing.

Articles

Vickers, M. H & McCarthy, F. E. (2010). Repositioning refugees from the margins to the centre of teachers’ work. International Journal of Diversity in organisations, Communities and Nations, 10 (4), 199-210

Ferfolja, T & Vickers, M. H. (2010) Supporting refugee students in school education in Greater Western Sydney. Critical Studies in Education, 51 (2), 149-162

McCarthy, F. E. & Vickers, M. H. (2009) Increasing Higher Education Participation by Equity Target Groups through University-Community Collaboration. The Australasian Journal of Community Engagement, 3: (1), 20-27

Book chapters

Vickers, M. H. (2011) Juggling school and work and making the most of both. Chapter in R. Price (Ed), Young people at work in the developed world. Ashgate Publishers

Vickers, M. H. (2011). Teachers crossing borders. In Ferfolja, T., Vickers, M., McCarthy, F. E., Naidoo, L. and Brace, E. Crossing Borders: African Refugees, Teachers and Schools. Sydney: Common Ground

McCarthy, F. E. & Vickers, M. H. (2012). Positive Community Relations: Border crossings and re-positioning of ‘the other’. In Roffey, S. (Ed) Positive relationships: Evidence-based practice across the world. Dordrecht: Springer.

Vickers, M. H. (2007), Reversing the lens: Transforming teacher education through service learning. Ch 10 (pp 199-216) in S. Billig and S. B. Gelmon (Eds), From passion to objectivity: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on service learning research. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte: NC.

Assoc. Prof. Diana Whitton:

Caspersz, D., Kavanagh, M., & Whitton, D. (2012). Can Service-Learning Be Institutionalised? The case study of SIFE in Australia. The Australian Journal of University-Community Engagement, 7(1), pp 39-54

Ferfolja, T., Whitton, D., & Sidoti, C, (2010) Classrooms without borders: using academic service learning to enhance pre-service teachers’ understandings of diversity and difference, The Australian Journal of University-Community Engagement, 5(2), pp 115-125.


Whitton D, & Walbank, C. (2011). Service learning handbook, Pearson, New South Wales.

Whitton, D. (2005). Development of Community based entrepreneurial skills, Initiative 21: Enterprise Education for the 21st Century, 11(4), 2-15.

Whitton, D. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: Developing Robust Hope In The Next Generation, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and sustainability, 2(4), 2-15

Whitton, D. (2007). Community Service: A case study at University of Western Sydney, Australia, The Australasian Journal of University Community Engagement, pp 33-40.

Dr Katina Zammit:

Callow, J., & Zammit, K. (2012 (forthcoming)). “Where lies your text?” (Twelfth Night Act I, Scene V): Engaging high school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in reading multimodal texts. English in Australia, 47 (2).

Zammit, K. (forthcoming) Engaging students in the later years of schooling in learning content and literacy using information and communication technologies: Case Studies of three teachers. Education and Information Technologies.

Appendix 1.2 Awards and grants related directly to engagement units

International teacher Educator award for Service Learning in Teacher Education International (2012) (USA) to Loshini NaidooVice-Chancellor’s Award (2011) to students in Classrooms without Borders

ALTC teaching Excellence Award (2011) to Loshini NaidooALTC program Award (2010) to Loshini NaidooVice-Chancellor’s Award for Community Engagement (2009) to Carol Reid for her work with schools on anti-racism

ALTC citation (2009) to Loshini NaidooVice-Chancellor’s Excellence in Community Engagement Award (2008) Loshini NaidooThumbs Up Award for The RAS program given by the Australian literacy and Numeracy foundation (2008)Vice-Chancellor’s Excellence award to the PE3 coordination team (2007)

Grants related to Classrooms without BordersNational Australian Bank First Schools Grant (2011) with Ruse Primary School Vision Team ($25000) (Diana Whitton)National Australian Bank First Schools Grant (2012) with Chester Hill High School ($15000) (Diana Whitton)

appendIces


Appendix 2.1 – UWS Education Recent Research Partners

UWS EDUCATION RECENT RESEARCH PARTNERS

The NSWDEC is a research partner on many grants with the Centres. Researchers in Education have carried out a number of Linkages or similar partnership grants with groups such as: » the NSW Board of Studies » Barnardos Australia » Unilever » the Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation » the Catholic Education Office » Education Queensland » Connect Child and Family Services Incorporated » Blue Mountains City Council » Penrith City Council » the NSW Police Force Counter-Terrorism Unit » the Australian Council for Educational Research » The Benevolent Society » the NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group » the D’harawal Traditional Knowledgeholders and Descendants Council » the Aboriginal Education Council » the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation » the Aboriginal Studies Association.


Appendix 2.2 – Seminars in 2012 2H

Month 1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week 5th week

July Sponsored by CPPE Wednesday 4 JulyTheresa Dicke (University of Duisburg – Essen, Germany):

Classroom management, incidents and strain: A moderator-mediator analysis. Location: BA.1.1.117 from 5pm.

Sponsored by CPPE Wednesday 18 JulyMarjorie Seaton A world wide phenomenon? An evaluation of the cultural and economic generalisability of the big fish little pond effect using multilevel modelling. Location: BA.1.1.117 from 5pm.

Sponsored by CER:KWD seminar series Friday 27 JulyProfessor Michael Singh International students as theoretical labourers Location: KW.K.2.20; times 2-4pm

August Sponsored by CPPE Wednesday 1 AugustGawaian Bodkin-Andrews (CPPE)

Identity the broken or missing link? Using latent interaction to assess self-perceptions and schooling outcomes for Aboriginal youth. Location: BA.1.1.117 from 5pm.

Sponsored by CER: KWD seminar series Friday 10 August Professor Michael Singh A theoretic-practical framework for intellectual equality Location: KW.K.2.20; times 2-4pm

Sponsored by CPPE Wednesday 15 AugustProfessor Alina von Davier (CPPE)

Test Equating in an Educational Context

Location: BA.1.1.117 from 5pm.

Sponsored by CER: Equity strand and CPPEBook Launch 24 August at Bankstown campus. Refugee and Immigrant Students: Achieving Equity in Education Professor Margaret Vickers and Ass Prof Florence McCarthy Bankstown, Room TBA

Sponsored by CER:KWD seminar series Friday 31 August Professor Michael Singh The poetics of history and heretical knowledge flowsLocation: KW.K.2.20; times 2-4pm

Sponsored by CERFriday 10 August Presentation/symposium by visiting Professor Shirley Steinberg Location and times: TBA

September Sponsored by CPPE Wednesday 5 SeptemberPeter Karl Jonason (CPPE) TBA – from 5pm

School of Education Writing WorkshopTuesday 14 September Facilitator: Claire AitchisonParramatta campus; All day; location TBA Contact Markie Lugton

Sponsored by CPPE Wednesday 19 September Professor Alexander Morin (CPPE)TBA – from 5pm

Sponsored by CER: Equity strand Fair Go Symposium this week (date/location TBA)1 day event

Sponsored by CER: KWD seminar series Friday 21 September Professor Michael Singh Arguing with the little bureaucratic tools of the police Location: KW.K.2.20; times 2-4pm

School of Education: HDR Student ConferenceThursday 27 September Location: Penrith campus, building I, from 12.30pm – program TBA

School of Education Writing WorkshopFriday 28 September Facilitator: Claire AitchisonParramatta campus; All day; location TBA Contact Markie Lugton

October Sponsored by CER:KWD seminar series Friday 12 October Professor Michael Singh The mute speech of bilingual teacher-researchersLocation: KW.K.2.20; times 2-4pm

School of Education Writing WorkshopFriday 26 October Facilitator: Claire AitchisonParramatta campus; All day; location TBA Contact Markie Lugton

School of Education Writing WorkshopFriday 12 October Facilitator: Claire AitchisonParramatta campus; All day; location TBA Contact Markie Lugton

appendIces


Appendix 2.3 – Centre members

MEMBERSHIP OF RESEARCH CENTRES

Centre for Positive Psychology and Education (CPPE)Director: Professor Rhonda CravenDistinguished Professor Herb MarshProfessor Joseph CiarrochiProfessor Lazar StankovProfessor Ian WilsonAssociate Professor Christine JohnstonAssociate Professor Alexander YeungDr Katrina BarkerDr Gawaian Bodkin-AndrewsDr Tanya CovicDr Anthony DillonDr Roberto ParadaDr Philip ParkerDr Baljinder SahdraDr Marjorie SeatonDr Danielle TraceyDr Jacqueline Ullman

Centre for Educational Research (CER)Director: Professor Margaret SomervilleProfessor Karen MaloneProfessor Wayne SawyerProfessor Michael SinghProfessor Margaret VickersAssociate Professor David ColeAssociate Professor Susanne GannonAssociate Professor Tonia GrayAssociate Professor Geoff MunnsAssociate Professor Anne PowerAssociate Professor Carol ReidAssociate Professor Christine WoodrowDr Loshini NaidooDr Christine Jones-Diaz (ECR)Dr Joanne Orlando (ECR)


Appendix 2.4 – Centres vision

THE RESEARCH CENTRES AND THEIR vISION

The Centre for Positive Psychology and Education has a strong focus on positive psychology research and engages in multidisciplinary and multi-method scientific research on self and well-being, and in educational, psychological, and social research that results in positive outcomes that enable life facilitation and help build community capability. CPPE is focused on research-identified innovations that can be empirically demonstrated by rigorous quantitative and qualitative research to result in tangible outcomes, including: a positive psychology of the self; academic achievement; quality teaching; engaged learning, and enhanced educational, employment, psychological and physical health, productivity, and social outcomes. CPPE focuses on diverse educational, business, and social settings from pre-school to retirement and family and community life. CPPE research is underpinned by genuine partnerships with families, communities, business, education stakeholders and community organisations. Its mission is to capitalise on excellence in international positive psychology theory, research, and practice to explicate new tangible research-demonstrated innovations that foster excellence and address critical educational and social issues of our time.

The Centre for Educational Research will be organising its work around three linked thematic programs. These are:

1) Globalisation and Educational PracticeThis will involve investigating the processes of globalisation in the locale of Greater Western Sydney and beyond in order to inform and direct educational research and practice so that Australia can respond well to the effects of population mobility and rapid population change. Children, families and communities are key to this endeavour. The foci of research in this thematic program are: transnational knowledge exchange; children’s knowledge, participation and rights and the impacts of globalisation; education and the needs of immigrant and refugee children and communities.

2) Sustainability EducationThis will involve investigating questions of sustainability in the locale of Greater Western Sydney and beyond in order to shape educational research and practice towards achieving a sustainable future for Australia and the planet. Education for Sustainability and Education for Sustainable Development are key platforms in the global arena for achieving a sustainable future. The foci of research in this thematic program are: Indigenous knowledges, place and sustainability education; children, families and education for sustainability of local and global communities; teacher education and professional learning in education for sustainability.

3) Equity of Educational OutcomesAddressing issues of equity is a central concern of the Centre’s educational research and practice. Equity means ensuring that academic pathways always remain open whatever students’ range of histories, subjectivities, language backgrounds or ethnicities. A key to this is researching relevant pedagogies that support the changing educational landscape of Greater Western Sydney. The foci of research in this thematic program are: teaching, learning and leadership for success in low SES schools and success for vulnerable and indigenous children; gender, race, and classed subjectivities in education and work.

appendIces


Appendix 2.5 – Professoriate

THE PROFESSORIATE

The professoriate across the three entities could be viewed as one proxy for research capacity in Education at UWS. The professoriate and their associated research interests are as follows:

CPPE Professor Rhonda Craven (Director)

Self-concept; the effective teaching of Aboriginal Studies and Aboriginal students; Australian national identity; maximising life potential in diverse settings; interventions that make a difference in educational settings in regard to: early intervention, literacy, bullying, youth obesity, educational disadvantage, special education, and appropriate education for gifted and talented students.

Distinguished Professor Herb Marsh

Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences

Self-concept and motivational constructs; teaching effectiveness and its evaluation; developmental psychology; quantitative analysis, particularly confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modelling, multilevel modelling; sports psychology with a particular focus on physical self-concept and motivation; peer support and anti-bullying interventions.

Professor Joseph Ciarrochi Acceptance and commitment therapy; emotional intelligence; social psychology; developmental psychology

Professor Lazar Stankov Intelligence; self-confidence; metacognition; personality; values; social norms; cross-cultural psychology; individual differences.

Professor Ian Wilson Rural medicine; medical education; ADHD

Assoc Professor Christine Johnston

Early childhood intervention; self-concept and disability; psychosocial determinants of self-management; inclusion; evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence.

Assoc Professor Alexander Yeung Self-concept; motivation; cognition and instruction; pedagogies; evaluation of interventions.

CER Professor Margaret Somerville (Director)

Sustainability; Indigenous knowledges and sustainability; place and place education; teacher education and professional learning for sustainability; teaching, learning and leadership for success in low SES schools and success for vulnerable and Indigenous children.

Professor Karen Malone Childhood sociology; children’s environments; children’s learning in families and communities; children’s rights and participation; globalisation, global cities and sustainability; poverty; urbanisation and development; children and youth culture; social science education; new learning; science education; environmental education; critical theory.

Professor Wayne Sawyer English (L1) curriculum and pedagogy; English (L1) curriculum history; program evaluation; effective teaching; pedagogy and engagement in schools in low SES communities.

Professor Michael Singh Transnational knowledge exchange; the role of Australia’s education and training system in strengthening our socio-economic fabric and improving our regional and worldly understanding.

Professor Margaret Vickers Youth in transition: staying on / dropping out of school; senior secondary curriculum; engaging young people from backgrounds of socio-educational disadvantage; education of children with refugee backgrounds; student participation in employment.

Assoc Professor David Cole Affective literacy, multiple literacies theory and multiliteracies; Deleuzian theory; the voices that influence young Muslims in Australia and immigrant family literacies; Gender, race, and classed subjectivities in education and work; Children, families, communities and sustainability of global cities.


CER Assoc Professor Susanne Gannon Qualitative and innovative research methodologies; poststructural theory; feminist theory; Gender and social equity; English teaching and writing pedagogy; teacher education and professional learning for sustainability; gender, race, and classed subjectivities in education and work.

Assoc Prof Tonia Gray Outdoor education; Indigenous knowledges and sustainability; teacher education and professional learning for sustainability.

Assoc Professor Geoff Munns Student engagement; student aspirations; student retention; teachers’ work; literacy; classroom pedagogy and classroom curriculum.

Assoc Professor Anne Power Music education; boys’ education; positive behaviours for learning; teacher education for sustainability.

Assoc Professor Carol Reid Teacher diversity; multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism and global mobility; the socio-cultural dimensions of information technology in education; inequality and education; educational needs of children and communities from immigrant and refugee backgrounds; teacher education and professional learning for sustainability; gender, race, and classed subjectivities in education and work.

Assoc Professor Christine Woodrow

Early childhood curriculum; early childhood policy; professional identity; leadership; transition to school; early literacy; ethics; children’s learning in families and communities; transnational knowledge exchange; children, families, communities and sustainability of global cities.

SoE Professor Steve Wilson

Dean of Education

Secondary school curriculum and pedagogy; responsive and negotiated curriculum; 21st century educational practice and leadership; non-formal and community education; education for civics and citizenship.

Assoc Professor Deirdre Russell-Bowie

Primary creative arts education; academic service learning; pre-service teachers’ attitudes to, and perceptions of, arts education.

Assoc Professor Allan White Primary mathematics teaching and learning; secondary mathematics teaching and learning; teacher action theories; integration of ICT into the mathematics curriculum; teacher professional learning; evaluation research.

Assoc Professor Diana Whitton Gifted education; creativity; service learning and community engagement; transitions in education.

appendIces

Appendix 2.5 – Professoriate


Appendix 3.1 Commencing retention, 2008-2011

CourseCurrent Course

2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 (Sub 3, 19 Sept)

Retained Retained Retained Retained

B Arts/ B Teaching No 66.7% 66.7% 0.0% /0

B Early Childhood Studies (Child and Family)

No 83.1% 83.8% 81.1% 80.0%

B Education (Birth - 5 Years) Yes /0 /0 /0 68.3%

B Education (Primary) Yes 64.5% 37.5% 0.0% /0

B Education (Secondary: Technology) Yes 100.0% 66.7% 0.0% /0

B Science/ B Teaching Yes 100.0% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B Teaching (Early Childhood) Yes 100.0% /0 /0 /0

B Teaching (Primary) Yes 42.9% 100.0% 0.0% /0

B Teaching (Secondary) Yes 26.3% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0%

GC Education (Social Ecology) Yes /0 /0 /0 75.0%

GC Social Ecology No 85.7% 81.8% 42.9% /0

GC Special Education Studies Yes 0.0% 0.0% /0 100.0%

GD Educational Studies (Early Childhood)

No 82.0% /0 /0 /0

GD Educational Studies (Primary) No 48.1% 0.0% /0 /0

GD Educational Studies (Secondary) No 47.6% 100.0% 0.0% /0

M Arts (Social Ecology) No 62.9% 54.5% 73.3% /0

M Education No 64.7% 71.4% 86.7% 40.0%

M Education (Leadership) Yes /0 /0 /0 64.7%

M Education (Social Ecology) Yes /0 /0 /0 75.0%

M Special Education Yes /0 /0 /0 83.3%

M Teaching (Birth - 5 years/Birth - 12 Years)

Yes /0 /0 /0 92.2%

M Teaching (Early Childhood) No 87.6% 93.2% 90.4% 84.1%

M Teaching (Primary) Yes 82.7% 83.9% 86.4% 87.3%

M Teaching (Primary) Advanced No /0 50.0% 64.0% 0.0%

M Teaching (Secondary) Yes 78.6% 77.2% 79.6% 83.6%

M Teaching (Secondary) Advanced No /0 50.0% 68.0% 50.0%

M Teaching (Special Education) No 58.8% 66.7% 50.0% 100.0%

Education Total 74.1% 81.3% 81.5% 82.1%

UWS Total 79.0% 80.5% 80.6% 81.2%

Note

Courses with a student intake in 2012


Appendix 3.2 UWS Pathways into Early Childhood Teaching

UWS Pathways into early Childhood teaching

appendIces

Diploma of Education

and Care (vET course)

Bachelor of Social Science (Pathway to

EC Teaching) Bankstown & Penrith

3 years full-time

Major studies: education, English,

social science, language & linguistics

TAFE Certificate III/ Iv in Children’s Services

Receive one unit Advanced Standing

Bachelor of Education

(Birth-5 years)Bankstown &

Penrith

One year creditfor Dip + 3 years

Study at UWS

Master of Teaching (Birth to 12 yrs) 2 years full-time

OrEarly Exit

Master of Teaching (Birth to 5)

1.5 years full-time

4 year qualified Early

Childhood Teacher for

prior to school

EC Centre/ Primary School Teacher Early Childhood

Teaching Careers Long Day Care/

Pre-School

Can continue to Master

of Teaching Primary

(one year accelerated)

Ú

Ú

Ú

Ú

Ú

School of Education Pathways in Early childhood Teaching


Bachelor of Social Science guarantees entry to the Master of Teaching (Birth-5/Birth-12 Years)

Session 10 credit points 10 credit points 10 credit points 10 credit points

YEAR ONE

Autumn 100958Australia and the World (HSIE)

100846Analytical Reading and Writing (English)

Social Science Major 101551Understanding Society (HSIE)

Social Science Major101553Organisations, Communities and Communication

Spring Arts Sub-major 100968Texts and Traditions (English)

Arts Sub-major100960Contemporary Society (HSIE)

Social Science Major 101556Geographies of Social Difference (HSIE)

Education Studies Major101649Contemporary Perspectives of Childhoods

YEAR TWO

Autumn Languages and Linguistics Sub-MajorAny unit of a language

Languages and Linguistics Sub-Major101626Children’s Literature: Image and Text (English)

Education Studies Major 100633Mathematical Patterns and Relationships

Education Studies Major 101647Play Development and Learning

Spring Languages and Linguistics Sub-MajorAny language unit

Social Science Major 101557The Individual and Society (HSIE)

Education Studies Major101616Mathematics Principles and Applications

Education Studies Major101638Learning in the Early Years

YEAR THREE

Autumn Social Science Major 101569Sustainable Futures

Social Science Major 101590 Cultural and Social Geographies

Education Studies Major 101648Early Intervention and Prevention in Early Childhood Contexts

Education Studies Major 101627Connecting Communities in Early Childhood Education

Spring Languages and Linguistics Sub-Major101451 Second Language Acquisition

Social Science Major 101570Alternatives to Violence

Social Science Major 101481Geographies of Immigration

Education Studies Major101623Ethical Futures


Appendix 3.3 Primary course structure

UWS Pathways into Primary teaching

appendIces

Bachelors DegreeAt UWS Any Campus

3 year or 4 yearMajor in areas of study including

arts, social science, business,

psychology, science, engineering and more

(Satisfy the NSWInstitute of Teachers

requirements)

Master of Teaching (Primary)

Bankstown1.5 years

(accelerated)Or

2.0 year (standard)

Primary

Teaching

Career

Ú Ú


Bachelors Degree*At UWS any Campus

3 year or 4 yearMajor in particular disciplines/areas

of study (NSW Institute of Teachers

Requirements; minimum units in teaching area – 6

units for 1st teaching area, – 4 units for 2nd

teaching area; plus specific subjects for each teaching area)

Bachelor of Science*At UWS

Campbelltown or Hawkesbury or

Parramatta3 years

Must include Education Studies#

Sub-Major

Master of Teaching(Secondary)

Penrith1 years (accelerated)

Or1.5 year (standard)

Master of Teaching(Secondary)

Penrith1 year (accelerated)

Or 1.5 year (standard)

Secondary

Teaching

Career

Secondary

Teaching

Career

Ú

Ú

Ú

Ú

Appendix 3.4 Secondary course structure

Bachelor of Arts/ Master of Teaching- Secondary (includes 4 Education Studies units in the BA)

Appendix 3.5 Master of Education suite course structure Bachelor of Arts/ Master of Teaching- Secondary (includes 4 Education Studies units in the BA)

Appendix 3.6 Structure of the Education Studies Major as part of the Pathways to Teaching in the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science

Pool A100633.2 Mathematical Patterns and Relationships 101616.2 Mathematics Principles and Application

Pool B101647.2 Play Development and Learning 101638.1 Learning in the Early Years 101649.1 Contemporary Perspectives of Childhoods 101627.1 Connecting Communities in Early Childhood Education 101623.1 Ethical Futures 101648.1 Early Intervention and Prevention in Early Childhood Contexts Pool B2101613.2 Educational Psychology for Primary Teaching 101578.2 Education, Knowledge, Society and Change 101576.2 Primary Personal Development, Health & Physical Education (PDHPE) 101577.2 Classrooms Without Borders Pool C101259.2 Learning and Creativity 101263.1 Education and Transformation 101117.1 Learning through Community Service101661.1 Education in a Cosmopolitan Society 101662.1 Young People, Their Futures and Education 101663.1 Education for Sustainability


appendIces

Appendix 3.7 UWS academic standards and assessment framework for learning and teaching UWS Academic Standards and Assessment Framework

April 2011


Appendix 3.8 UWS Learning and Teaching plan

Page of 4 1

UWS Learning and Teaching Plan: 2012-2014

Preamble:

The University of Western Sydney Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014 takes account of significant developments in Australian higher education, including the need for institutional responsiveness in an increasingly competitive environment and the imperative to provide evidence of learning and teaching quality and standards in a new regulatory environment. The Plan affirms and extends our commitment to the dual priorities of widening student access to higher education, particularly in Greater Western Sydney, while simultaneously achieving excellence in all aspects of our academic program. It comprises three key objectives, along with implementation strategies, performance measures and indicators of success in the following areas:

i. our students; ii. our curriculum; and iii. the quality of our teaching.

The Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014 represents a three-year blueprint to guide strategic planning and implementation in each School and Division. UWS will be known for the flexibility of its academic programs and pathways to university study. Innovative approaches to curriculum delivery and blended learning will be a hallmark of our program offerings. This will be achieved in the context of the UWS Academic Standards and Assessment Framework. Students will value UWS for our commitment to ensuring the success of all students, including under-represented student groups such as those with disabilities, mature age students and students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. Advanced unit offerings will continue to attract the best and brightest students in the region. A student lifecycle approach will place a premium on the quality of the first year at UWS as a launching pad for success through the undergraduate years. The quality of the student experience in Honours and postgraduate coursework programs will continue to be a priority. UWS will engage in a significant curriculum reform process over the next three years under the banner of “create@UWS” – curriculum renewal for excellence and transformative education@UWS. This curriculum initiative will include an evidence-based approach to evaluating course and unit offerings, a review of graduate attributes, strengthening of stakeholder engagement through External Advisory Boards and integration of core priorities such as sustainability and engaged learning. Blended learning will be a feature of the create@UWS initiative, including fit-for-purpose integration of online offerings to enhance the quality and flexibility of our courses. Capacity building for academic and sessional staff, along with recognition of teaching excellence, will be integral to the success of this Plan. It comprises a sustained commitment to career and professional development for academic staff, particularly in relation to rewarding teaching excellence. This includes consideration of early career academic pathways, including those for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and professional development for academic and sessional staff to enhance the quality of teaching, assessment and curriculum design. The quality of teaching will be enhanced through strong links between teaching and research, capitalising on the University’s research strengths to develop a vibrant curriculum at undergraduate, Honours and postgraduate levels.


Page of 4 2

Objective 1: Students - optimize student access, engagement, retention and success This objective supports the twin priorities of opportunity and excellence in relation to widening participation and attracting the best and brightest students, particularly from the Greater Western Sydney region. A student lifecycle approach underpins the strategies outlined below, including a focus on supporting transition to and through the University of Western Sydney (UWS). The quality of the first year undergraduate experience continues to be an important launching pad for successful progression and completion of study. Partnerships with TAFE, private providers and UWSCollege are key to enriching the pathways available to students and we attach the highest importance to monitoring and assuring the quality of these partnerships. Our priority is to ensure that undergraduate and postgraduate coursework students from diverse backgrounds and abilities enjoy positive learning experiences and successful outcomes at UWS.

Strategies: 1. Implement a strategy to ensure the viability, sustainability and success of first

year advising, orientation, transition and mentoring initiatives across UWS. 2. Adopt a targeted approach to integrating academic literacy and numeracy support

in each School. 3. Ensure that student engagement, retention and success data - particularly in

relation to demographic sub-groups including international students, high achievers, students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, Vocational Education and Training (VET) pathways students - inform course and School improvement plans through the Annual Course Review process.

4. Engage strategically with TAFE Institutes, private providers and UWSCollege to enhance pathways, to widen student access to UWS and to ensure the robustness and quality of our articulation and partnership arrangements.

Performance Measures: 1. Equity group participation rates 2. Undergraduate and postgraduate coursework student retention and progression

rates 3. University Experience Survey overall satisfaction rates – first and final year 4. UWS Commencing student survey overall satisfaction rates 5. Outcomes – Graduate Destination Survey: Employment (%), Further study (%)

Key Performance Indicators: 1. Commencing student retention 2. Widening participation – low socioeconomic status and Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander participation rates 3. University Experience Survey overall satisfaction rates – first and final year


Page of 4 3

Objective 2: Curriculum and Standards – implement a curriculum characterised by

innovation, engagement and excellence UWS will be known for the innovation and flexibility of its course offerings and their alignment with the University’s mission. The “create@UWS” initiative represents Curriculum renewal for excellence and transformative education@UWS. This initiative represents an integrating framework within which we will pursue strategic approaches to academic program profiles and sustainable teaching models. The initiative will consider undergraduate, honours and postgraduate coursework offerings in light of existing and future demand and the changing nature of student engagement in Greater Western Sydney. It will also pursue priorities in relation to regional and community engagement, sustainability, flexibility and the benefits of integrative capstone units. Opportunities for enhanced collaboration and articulation with TAFE will also be a feature of the create@UWS initiative. The UWS Academic Standards and Assessment Framework will inform a standards-based approach to course quality and standards.

Strategies: 1. Initiate the “create@UWS Project” - Curriculum renewal for excellence and

transformative education@UWS - comprising a holistic approach to curriculum review and renewal and incorporating the strategies below.

2. Implement an academic program management strategy in each School, taking account of the UWS priorities of flexibility, engagement and sustainability.

3. Review teaching models, learning designs and the alignment between course learning outcomes and assessment practices in all courses.

4. Integrate standards-based approaches to assessment, peer review and moderation of learning standards in all courses.

5. Develop a UWS Blended Learning Strategy to enable a blend of face-to-face and online delivery, along with innovative ICT-enabled learning.

6. Review the UWS graduate attributes and apply curriculum mapping to ensure integration in all courses.

7. Embed relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge in all courses in support of the UWS commitment to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduate attribute.

8. Implement the Annual Course Review (ACR) process, focussing on course improvement plans and outcomes.

9. Strengthen the strategic focus and contribution of External Advisory Committees. 10. In keeping with the values of an engaged university, build experiential learning

(e.g., service learning, volunteering) into all undergraduate courses beyond that required for clinical and practicum placements in the core curriculum.

Performance Measures: 1. Proportion of courses with evidence of integration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander knowledge 2. Proportion of units with evidence of engaged learning 3. Proportion of courses involved in external peer review and moderation of learning

standards 4. Proportion of units offering blended and online modes of delivery

Key Performance indicators: 1. Evidence of course quality improvement using Annual Course Review indicators,

including Graduate Destination Survey


Page of 4 4

Objective 3: Quality - build staff capacity to engage in quality teaching Enhancing the quality of the student experience and outcomes relies heavily on developing staff capabilities. Capacity building for academic staff, including sessional staff, will emphasise skill development in curriculum design and teaching at the unit and course levels. Support for academic staff will align with curriculum priorities in such areas as blended learning designs, assessment and feedback, revised teaching models and applying the Academic Standards and Assessment Framework. The scholarship of learning and teaching will be cultivated through such strategies as: evidence-based approaches to teaching; sharing of good practice; and support for improved success in national teaching grants and awards. Collaboration with the Office of People and Culture will include strategies for developing teaching capabilities among those in early career academic pathways, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and postgraduate students. Reward and recognition for leaders in learning and teaching at UWS will be addressed through a review of the promotion policy and targeted professional development activities.

Strategies: 1. Continue to deliver and evaluate targeted induction programs for new academic

and sessional staff. 2. Provide targeted, ongoing professional development to enhance the teaching,

assessment and curriculum design skills of academic and sessional staff. 3. Provide professional development for leaders of learning and teaching, particularly

Directors of Academic Programs and Academic Course Advisors. 4. Align academic staff support with the UWS Academic Standards and Assessment

Framework and School curriculum enhancement priorities. 5. Review the promotion policy to ensure that academic staff are appropriately

recognized and rewarded for scholarly leadership in learning and teaching. 6. Develop and implement an academic staff career development framework that

includes support for academic staff pursuing teaching-focussed roles and guidelines for collegial peer review of teaching and curriculum.

7. Expand UWS’s success rate in the Commonwealth Office for Learning and Teaching grants and awards scheme.

8. Cultivate opportunities to share good practice and innovations in learning and teaching across UWS.

Performance Measures: 1. School, course and unit performance as evidenced through Annual Course Review

indicators 2. Proportion of academic staff promotions on the basis of scholarly leadership in

learning and teaching 3. Proportion of academic staff in each School engaged in peer review of teaching

and curriculum 4. Proportion of academic staff in each School who have completed the Foundations

of University Learning and Teaching program or equivalent

Key Performance Indicators: 1. Student satisfaction with quality of experience at unit level (Student Feedback on

Units) 2. Student ratings on the quality of their course experience (Course Experience

Questionnaire), including good teaching and generic skills ratings


Appendix 3.9 School of Education Learning and Teaching Plan aligned with the UWS L&T Plan

UWS Learning & Teaching Plan 2012-2014 SOE Learning & Teaching Plan 2012-2014

1. Students: Optimize student access, engagement, retention & success 1.1. Ensure viability, sustainability & success of First Year Advisor, orientation, transition & mentoring 1.2. Targeted integration of ac literacy & numeracy support 1.3. Ensure engagement, retention & success data for internationals, high achievers, Indigenous, VET inform improvement plans esp. in ACR 1.4. Engage with TAFE, private providers & UWSCollege to enhance pathways & access

Design & Impact 1.7 Ensure students can achieve high academic standards by: quality learning outcomes & assessment through benchmarking, student feedback tools, including direct opportunities for student voice, with a focus on the integration of unit and course level learning outcomes; develop mentors eg PE intervention; Dean’s medals.

Support 1.2 First year experience and support for student participation, retention and success through: » impact of the First Year Advisor; » operational support by Student Support Officer with students at risk; » Improve student literacy and numeracy support;

extend PASS.

2. Curriculum & standards: Implement curriculum characterised by innovation, engagement & excellence 2.1. UWS Create Project - curriculum renewal 2.2. Ac program management strategies with flexibility, engagement, sustainability 2.3. Review teaching models & align course learning outcomes & assessment 2.4. Standards approach to assessment, peer review & moderation 2.5. Blended Learning Strategy: blend f-f, online, ICT enabled learning 2.6. Review GA & apply curriculum mapping 2.7. Embed ATSI knowledge in all courses 2.8. Implement ACR 2.9. Strengthen strategic focus and External Advisory Committees 10. Engaged, experiential learning beyond practicum placements

Delivery 1.1 Enable students to study in their own time, supported by ICT-enabled learning resources through: refine blended learning; use web & e-learning technical officer as support; laptop trial; expand use of online lectures.

Design & Support 1.3 Develop Indigenous Ed strategy through: map IGA in all courses; promote Indigenous Studies Major/Sub-major; merit-based academic scholarships for continuing/commencing Indigenous students; address goals for Indigenous enrolment.

Delivery 1.5 Enhance engaged learning units & engaged student experience through community, industry and international experiences by: review delivery of school & community-based PE units; explore new opportunities for embedding engaged experiences; scholarships for OS study.

Support 1.6 Build pathways that attract talented domestic and international students from diverse backgrounds by developing scholarships for pathway courses.

Design & Impact 1.7 Ensure students can achieve high academic standards by: collect evidence of student outcomes, for course re-design & national course accreditation, incorporate UWS learning and teaching standards and new national graduate and program standards for teacher education.

Delivery 1.8 Strengthen research & teaching nexus through increased interaction with CER and CPPE Centres and the School with research contributions to programs & forums for training of honours supervisors.

3. Quality: Build staff capacity to engage in quality teaching 3.1. New academic & sessional staff induction 3.2. Ongoing PD: teaching, assessment & curriculum design 3.3. PD for L&T leaders esp DAP & ACA 3.4. Align staff support with UWS Academic Standards & Assessment Framework 3.5. Review promotion policy 3.6. Develop & implement career development framework esp. for teaching focussed roles 3.7. Expand OLT grants and awards success 3.8. Cultivate opportunities to share good L&T practice & innovations

Delivery 1.4 Develop staff capacity for high quality teaching by: Recruit new staff; plan & establish mentors for new academics; support FULT attendance; encourage staff to develop evidence-based teaching portfolios, apply for teaching awards; ensure high-quality orientation for sessional staff; reduce casualisation.



Appendix 3.10 2011 Annual Course Report – School Executive Summary and School snapshot

1.01: School of Education Executive SummaryOverall, there is an upward trend in the School of Education on impact (retention, CEQ, SFU), design and support evidence.

Early Childhood Education ProgramThe 1670 Bachelor of Education (Birth-5 Years) commenced in 2010. In 2012 was the third intake into the course. The first graduates from the course will be at the end of 2012. The only entry to B. Ed is via Diploma or via B. Teach. As this course does not accept school leavers an ATAR is not required for entry. The numbers of applications and EFTSL increased from 2010 to 2011 and then fell in 2012. The drop in applications and enrolments in 2012 may be attributable to the outcomes of the Bradley Review and the freeing up of places at other universities along with the introduction of a B. Ed Birth-5 at Western Sydney Institute of TAFE. This course is designed for school leavers and also for students articulating with the Diploma of Children’s Services. Entry is for graduates of the Diploma of Children’s Services and many of our students traditionally come from western Sydney the introduction of the TAFE degree course will definitely have a negative impact on the UWS course. averages for 2011 are lower because they include professional experience units which had a lower than average rating on many items. Professional experience units were not included in the 2010 SFU data. Most units in the B Ed (Birth-5) are taught by other Schools with only a small number of units coordinated by Education. A major course re-design of 1691 Master of Teaching (Birth – 5, Birth – 12) is planned in order to meet the new national program standards as required by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.

Secondary Education ProgramThis postgraduate course, 1609 Master of Teaching (Secondary), has good commencing student retention. Most satisfactory student feedback is received on Professional Experience placements. An increase in academic staff teaching in this program over 2011 – 2012 has improved the academic to student load and is anticipated that the quality of delivery will improve. A major course re-design is planned in order to meet the new national program standards as required by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.

Primary Education ProgramThis postgraduate course, 1663 Master of Teaching (Primary), has very good commencing student retention and very good student feedback in content relevance, learning activities and resources. The integration of information and communication technologies is embedded successfully into the course. Increase in permanent academic staff in 2012 will improve the academic to student load. A major course re-design is planned in order to meet the new national program standards as required by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.

Adult and Postgraduate ProgramFive courses comprise this Program area: 1683 Master of Education (Social Ecology); 1684 Graduate Certificate in Education (Social Ecology); 1682 Master of Special Education & 1611 Graduate Certificate in Special Ed Studies; 1680 Master of Education (Leadership). The design and delivery of these courses is combined into two on-campus intensive conferences (January and July) and two mid-semester intensives (March and September). Overall enrolments are steady and capped. Non-completion/submission of SFUs remains an issue for off-campus students, however, direct feedback from students affirms the conference-based intensives as a valid approach to learning. Learning support is improving during on-campus delivery with the assistance of the School’s First Year Advisor.

Undergraduate Education Pathways coursesThe Education Studies Major/Submajor is integral to the undergraduate Education Pathways courses. SFUs for the Education Studies Submajor units are generally >3.8.

1.02: School Initiatives 2012Identify the School Initiatives planned for 2012 based on an analysis of course/s and school data. Evidence may be drawn from the snapshot or underlying course/s data. Insert rows as required.

Domain: Objective*

Course Initiative

Evidence to be used to evaluate the impact of the initiative

Indicator 2011 ACTUAL

2012 TARGET

DesignCourse re-design

169116091663

Re-design Master of Teaching courses to comply with new national professional accreditation standards and procedures involving establishing an extensive portfolio of evidence and benchmarking.

In particular, review Master of Teaching (Primary) multiple assessment feedback loops and assessment of work and developing a manageable assessment grading system and workload for staff.

Aust Institute of Teaching & School Leadership

Delivery 1670169116091663

Improve blended learning and the use of new technologies, such as the Interactive Whiteboards for the Connected Classroom scheme in the teaching of units in the initial teacher education courses.

Teaching Teachers for the Future; Ubiquitous Learning Project

Support 167016911609166316821683168416111680

Enhance recruitment and study support for Indigenous students by working with Badanami and the PVC (L&T) Office.

Indigenous enrolment

23 26

ImpactImprove UG commencing student retention

167016911609166316821683168416111680

Maintain and enhance first year advisor support for students at risk by (i) providing First Year Advisor training in handling student at risk interactions; (ii) developing a School-wide system by the newly established Student Support Officer and the First Year Advisor for early identification of students at risk on a course by course basis

Commencing UG Student Retention

69.7% 72%

ImpactImprove student satisfaction in their learning

167016911609166316821683168416111680

Reducing the number of units in which Item 13, ‘overall student satisfaction’, has a result of less than 3.5.

SFU Q13 87.4% >3.5

3 red zone units to achieve >3.5

ImpactManage student load/recruitment

1651165216713638

1670

i) Enhance and manage the enrolment applications from direct entry of undergraduate pathways students into the Master of Teaching courses: 1651 Bachelor of Arts (Pathway to Teaching Primary) ;1652 Bachelor of Arts (Pathway to Teaching Secondary); 1671 Bachelor of Social Science (Pathway to Early Childhood Teaching); 3638 Bachelor of Science (Pathway to Teaching Secondary)

ii) Improve the recruitment of students in the Early Childhood sector into the Bachelor of Education (Birth-5)

55% 43%

* Indicate the UWS Academic Standards and Assessment Framework Domain (Impact, Design, Delivery, Support) and then specify the objective in a short statement. The framework is available here: http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/auqa/auqa_cycle_2. Alternatively you may link objectives to the UWS Strategy and Plan 2010 – 2015: Making a Difference Strategy http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/7301/Strategy-for-web9.pdf .



Appendix 3.11 UWS quality management framework for commencing student transition and retention


Appe

ndix

3.1

2 Sc

hool

of E

duca

tion

com

men

cing

stu

dent

rete

ntio

n st

rate

gies

v1

(Dra

ft)

UW

S O

bjec

tive:

To

incr

ease

com

men

cing

bac

helo

r le

vel r

eten

tion

to 8

3.5%

so

as to

be

in th

e to

p ha

lf of

the

sect

or.

SO

E R

eten

tion

KP

I: M

aste

r of

Tea

chin

g: 7

9.6%

201

1-20

12; 8

0.4%

201

3-20

13; B

Ed

2010

-201

1 69

.7%

; 201

1-20

12 7

2%; 2

012-

2013

75%

; 201

2-20

14 7

8%; 2

014-

2015

81

%

UW

S

Lear

ning

and

Tea

chin

g P

lan

2012

-201

4

Obj

ectiv

e1: S

tude

nts

- op

timiz

e st

uden

t acc

ess,

eng

agem

ent,

rete

ntio

n an

d su

cces

s

This

act

ion

plan

see

ks to

ope

ratio

nalis

e th

e U

WS

201

2-20

14 L

&T

Pla

n -

Str

ateg

y 1:

Impl

emen

t a s

trat

egy

to e

nsur

e th

e vi

abilit

y, s

usta

inab

ility

and

succ

ess

of fi

rst y

ear

advi

sing

, orie

ntat

ion,

tran

sitio

n an

d m

ento

ring

aciti

vitie

s ac

ross

UW

S

Sch

ool o

f Edu

catio

n 20

12 S

trat

egic

Ope

ratio

n of

Lea

rnin

g an

d Te

achi

ng v

4

1.2

Firs

t yea

r ex

perie

nce

and

supp

ort f

or s

tude

nt p

artic

ipat

ion,

rete

ntio

n an

d su

cces

s th

ough

: im

pact

of t

he F

irst Y

ear

Adv

isor

; ope

ratio

nal s

uppo

rt b

y S

tude

nt S

uppo

rt

Offi

cer

with

stu

dent

s at

ris

k; Im

prov

e st

uden

t lite

racy

and

num

erac

y su

ppor

t; e

xten

d PA

SS

.

SOE

ACTI

ON p

LAN

Str

ateg

ies

Res

po

nsib

ility

Im

med

iate

A

ctio

n

UW

S

SO

E S

upp

ort

(P

rofe

ssio

nal)

DA

P/A

CA

Pro

gra

mU

nit

Fir

st y

ear

Ad

viso

rS

SO

Pre

-UW

S

Bui

ldin

g a

spir

atio

ns a

nd p

rep

arat

ion

for

univ

ersi

ty

Stu

dent

s ha

ve a

goo

d un

ders

tand

ing

of u

nive

rsity

ex

pect

atio

ns a

nd

com

mitm

ents

Vis

its to

TA

FE a

nd

prom

ote

EC

cou

rse

Fi

rst Y

ear

Adv

isor

at

tend

s to

ens

ure

stud

ents

are

pr

ovid

ed w

ith h

elpf

ul

info

rmat

ion

base

d on

inte

rvie

ws

with

st

uden

ts

Hel

pful

use

ful a

cces

sibl

e cu

rren

t eng

agin

g in

form

atio

n

W

ebsi

te in

form

atio

n (S

eth/

Gar

y?)

Rev

iew

Web

site

in

form

atio

n fro

m

Pro

gram

per

spec

tive

R

evie

w a

nd g

ive

feed

back

form

Firs

t Ye

ar p

ersp

ectiv

e

Rev

iew

and

giv

e fe

edba

ck fo

r Fi

rst

Year

per

spec

tive

Mak

e S

OE

web

pa

ges

easi

ly

acce

ssib

le a

nd li

nked

Info

rmat

ive

broc

hure

s av

aila

ble

to p

oten

tial

stud

ents


Str

ateg

ies

Res

po

nsib

ility

Im

med

iate

A

ctio

n

UW

S

SO

E S

upp

ort

(P

rofe

ssio

nal)

DA

P/A

CA

Pro

gra

mU

nit

Fir

st y

ear

Ad

viso

rS

SO

Tran

sitio

n

Initi

al C

ont

act

Stu

dent

s fir

st c

onta

ct w

ith

UW

S is

pos

itive

Ava

ilabi

lity

of c

lear

in

form

atio

n

Con

trib

ute

rele

vant

m

ater

ial

From

stu

dent

fe

edba

ck in

form

DA

P

wha

t stu

dent

’s fi

nd

help

ful o

r w

ish

they

ha

d kn

own

Focu

s gr

oup

- w

hat i

nfor

mat

ion

wou

ld h

ave

help

ed y

ou

unde

rsta

nd

expe

ctat

ions

an

d to

mak

e in

form

ed

deci

sion

Hel

pful

use

ful a

cces

sibl

e cu

rren

t eng

agin

g in

form

atio

n

UW

S w

ebsi

te

prov

ides

gen

eral

in

form

atio

n

SO

E W

ebsi

te

prov

ides

hel

pful

in

form

atio

n ab

out

tran

sitio

n to

SO

E

cour

ses

and

whe

re to

ge

t mor

e in

form

atio

n

AC

A a

vaila

ble

to

answ

er p

hone

cal

ls

and

see

stud

ents

ab

out c

ours

e re

late

d qu

estio

ns

SS

O a

vaila

ble

to

prov

ide

gene

ral

info

rmat

ion

to

tran

sitio

ning

stu

dent

s

UW

S p

rovi

des

gene

ral i

nfor

mat

ion

abou

t tra

nsiti

on

Pro

vide

and

revi

ew

info

rmat

ion

to e

nsur

e it

is a

vaila

ble

in a

tim

ely

man

ner

re

even

ts e

g M

CP

Pro

vide

info

rmat

ion

abou

t tra

nsiti

on

even

ts to

SO

E

supp

ort i

n a

timel

y m

anne

r

A

tten

d C

ours

e st

aff

mee

ting

to d

iscu

ss

wha

t inf

orm

atio

n st

uden

ts re

ceiv

e fro

m

SS

S

Pro

vide

feed

back

to

UW

S re

web

site

and

in

form

atio

n ab

out

rele

vanc

e fo

r S

OE

tr

ansi

tioni

ng s

tude

nts

Har

d co

py b

roch

ures

de

velo

ped

R

evie

w s

ix m

onth

ly

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

ge

nera

lly th

roug

h U

WS

Rev

iew

six

mon

thly

in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed

gene

rally

thro

ugh

UW

S

Info

rmed

sel

ectio

n of

cou

rse

is p

rom

oted

thro

ugh

vario

us

info

rmat

ion

oppo

rtun

ities

Sta

ff to

att

end

Ope

n D

ay -

My

UW

S D

ay;

MC

P

C

ontr

ibut

e re

leva

nt

mat

eria

l and

dis

cuss

at

sta

ff m

eetin

gs M

CP

gu

idel

ines

From

stu

dent

fe

edba

ck in

form

DA

P

wha

t stu

dent

’s fi

nd

help

ful o

r w

ish

they

ha

d kn

own

Focu

s gr

oup

- w

hat i

nfor

mat

ion

wou

ld h

ave

help

ed y

ou

unde

rsta

nd

expe

ctat

ions

an

d to

mak

e in

form

ed

deci

sion

Cou

rse

Info

rmat

ion

- P

ost G

rad

- E

veni

ng

at P

arra

mat

ta


Str

ateg

ies

Res

po

nsib

ility

Im

med

iate

A

ctio

n

UW

S

SO

E S

upp

ort

(P

rofe

ssio

nal)

DA

P/A

CA

Pro

gra

mU

nit

Fir

st y

ear

Ad

viso

rS

SO

Tran

sitio

n

Initi

al C

ont

act

Sup

port

ive

Fam

ilies

Par

ent I

nfor

mat

ion

sess

ions

for

1H/

Au

Com

men

cing

st

uden

ts

P

rom

ote

Par

ent

Info

rmat

ion

sess

ions

to

und

ergr

adua

tes

(EC

)

A

sk to

do

deve

lop

vide

o ab

out

supp

ortin

g st

uden

ts

Dis

cuss

sup

port

s av

aila

ble

thro

ugh

UW

S fo

r fa

milie

s

Ad

mis

sio

n an

d E

nro

lmen

t

Sup

port

stu

dent

s to

hav

e su

cces

sful

and

real

istic

ex

pect

atio

ns o

f stu

dyin

g at

un

iver

sity

Ana

lyse

dat

a on

ou

tcom

es o

f stu

dent

s w

ho a

re e

nrol

led

in

mor

e th

an 4

uni

ts;

revi

ew U

WS

pol

icy

re

enro

lmen

t and

rul

es

arou

nd m

ax n

umbe

r of

uni

ts

Iden

tifica

tion

of

stud

ents

who

hav

e ov

er e

nrol

led

in u

nits

.

SS

O w

ill w

ork

with

A

CA

to id

entif

y st

uden

ts w

ho h

ave

over

enr

olle

d in

uni

ts.

Stu

dent

s ar

e en

rolle

d in

cor

rect

uni

ts

to a

chie

ve th

eir

goal

s; In

tern

atio

nal

stud

ents

hav

e co

urse

pr

ogre

ssio

n th

at

mee

ts v

isa

cond

ition

s

Targ

eted

Sup

po

rt f

or

Tran

sitio

n

Sup

port

stu

dent

s in

pat

hway

pr

ogra

ms

to m

ake

succ

essf

ul

tran

sitio

n to

HD

E

EC

VE

T V

IP d

ay -

in

form

s st

uden

ts

abou

t wha

t is

avai

labl

e at

UW

S a

nd

cour

se e

xpec

tatio

ns

D

evel

op a

nd

part

icip

ate

in

deve

lopm

ent o

f VIP

ev

enin

g; L

iais

e w

ith

Adm

issi

ons

Orie

ntat

ion

to C

ours

e -

prov

isio

n of

info

rmat

ion

that

su

ppor

ts s

tude

nts

succ

essf

ul

part

icip

atio

n

P

repa

re s

how

bag

s w

ith re

leva

nt p

rogr

am

info

rmat

ion

and

stud

ent s

uppo

rt

mat

eria

l

AC

A d

esig

ns -

O

rient

atio

n D

ays

for

each

pro

gram

EC

C

ours

e E

ssen

tials

; C

OM

CO

CO

M

for

Prim

ary

and

Sec

onda

ry

S

ugge

stio

ns to

in

clud

e lib

rary

; di

sabi

lity;

soc

ial e

vent

; S

tude

nts

serv

ices

at

Orie

ntat

ion

even

t

Liai

se w

ith W

elfa

re

Offi

ce a

nd S

S to

or

gani

se re

leva

nt

publ

ishe

d m

ater

ials

fo

r sh

owba

gs

Ens

ure

stud

ents

kno

w h

ow

to a

cces

s lib

rary

hel

p

Incl

ude

Edu

catio

n Li

brar

y Li

aiso

n pr

esen

ts a

t orie

ntat

ion

sess

ions

M

aint

ain

rela

tions

hip

with

libr

ary

and

di

strib

ute

info

rmat

ion

to p

rogr

ams


Str

ateg

ies

Res

po

nsib

ility

Im

med

iate

A

ctio

n

UW

S

SO

E S

upp

ort

(P

rofe

ssio

nal)

DA

P/A

CA

Pro

gra

mU

nit

Fir

st y

ear

Ad

viso

rS

SO

Tran

sitio

n

Targ

eted

Sup

po

rt f

or

Tran

sitio

n

Stu

dent

s ac

cess

sup

port

se

rvic

es

In

form

atio

n to

sup

port

st

uden

ts tr

ansi

tion

is a

vaila

ble

at S

OE

of

fice

Est

ablis

hing

co

nnec

tions

with

U

WS

sup

port

s an

d di

strib

ute

info

rmat

ion

to p

rogr

ams

Est

ablis

hing

co

nnec

tions

with

U

WS

sup

port

s an

d di

strib

ute

info

rmat

ion

to p

rogr

ams;

R

evie

w In

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed to

stu

dent

s fo

r tim

elin

ess,

co

nsis

tenc

y an

d cl

arity

of m

essa

ges

Intr

oduc

e Fi

rst Y

ear

Adv

isor

and

SS

O

role

at e

ach

prog

ram

ev

ent

Intr

oduc

e Fi

rst Y

ear

Adv

isor

and

SS

O

role

at e

ach

prog

ram

ev

ent

Sup

port

ing

Mat

ure-

aged

st

uden

ts (>

5yrs

)

E

nsur

e S

tude

nt s

tall

on o

ur O

rient

atio

n da

ys in

clud

es M

atur

e-ag

ed b

ookl

et

Iden

tify

reso

urce

s A

cade

mic

and

Soc

ial/

Em

otio

nal r

esou

rce

incl

udin

g to

lear

n ag

ain

and

confi

denc

e to

stu

dy; u

sing

ICT

Iden

tify

reso

urce

sIn

clud

e M

atur

e-ag

ed b

ookl

et

at O

rient

atio

n;

Wor

ksho

ps;

supp

ort g

roup

Ret

entio

n

Fle

xib

le a

nd r

esp

ons

ive

Lear

ning

Pro

gra

ms

Stu

dent

s re

ceiv

e ac

adem

ic

liter

acy

supp

ort

Aca

dem

ic L

itera

cy

Ass

essm

ent a

nd

refe

rral

Pro

mot

e S

tudy

and

Li

fe S

kills

wor

ksho

ps

and

cour

se fo

cuse

d w

orks

hops

Dis

trib

ute

info

rmat

ion

abou

t stu

dent

lite

racy

w

orks

hops

Pro

mot

e S

tudy

and

Li

fe S

kills

wor

ksho

ps

and

cour

se fo

cuse

d w

orks

hops

Per

sona

l inv

itatio

ns

to a

tten

d ac

adem

ic

liter

acy

wor

ksho

ps

sent

to s

tude

nts

for

UC

whe

n re

sults

are

re

leas

ed

Aca

dem

ic L

itera

cy

Wor

ksho

ps

cond

ucte

d as

re

quire

d; p

erso

nal

invi

tatio

ns s

ent t

o st

uden

ts

Rev

iew

ing

proc

ess

and

timel

ine

with

A

cade

mic

Lite

racy

su

ppor

t

Bes

t tea

cher

s as

sign

ed to

Fi

rst Y

ear

units

Bes

t tea

cher

s ar

e no

min

ated

to w

ork

on

Firs

t Yea

r un

its


Str

ateg

ies

Res

po

nsib

ility

Im

med

iate

A

ctio

n

UW

S

SO

E S

upp

ort

(P

rofe

ssio

nal)

DA

P/A

CA

Pro

gra

mU

nit

Fir

st y

ear

Ad

viso

rS

SO

Ret

entio

n

Fle

xib

le a

nd r

esp

ons

ive

Lear

ning

Pro

gra

ms

Sup

port

stu

dent

s to

man

age

thei

r re

spon

sibi

litie

s

Coo

rdin

atio

n an

d m

appi

ng o

f as

sess

men

t tas

ks

to a

ssis

t stu

dent

s m

anag

e th

eir

wor

kloa

d

Ong

oin

g s

upp

ort

dur

ing

the

yea

r

Stu

dent

s kn

ow w

here

to g

et

help

FYA

Pre

sent

s at

or

ient

atio

n se

ssio

ns

to in

trod

uce

Firs

t Yea

r A

dvis

or ro

le;

SS

O P

rese

nts

at

orie

ntat

ion

sess

ions

to

intr

oduc

e Fi

rst Y

ear

Adv

isor

role

;

Wel

com

e sl

ides

- im

port

ant

info

rmat

ion

In

clud

e W

elco

me

slid

es in

firs

t lec

ture

;S

end

Wel

com

e sl

ides

to

Uni

t Coo

rdin

ator

s

Just

in T

ime

Info

rmat

ion

Jus

t in

time

mes

sage

s sh

own

in

clas

s in

wee

k 1-

4;

Incl

ude:

PA

SS

from

P

P W

elco

me

and

JIT

Pre

pare

and

dis

trib

ute

JiT

slid

es; I

nclu

de:

PAS

S fr

om P

P

Wel

com

e an

d JI

T

Sig

n po

sted

room

at

Pen

rith

and

Ban

ksto

wn

near

st

uden

t tho

roug

hfar

e th

at is

priv

ate

and

com

fort

able

for

stud

ent c

onsu

ltatio

n

Pro

mot

e op

port

uniti

es fo

r pe

er to

pee

r su

ppor

tP

rom

ote

Mat

es@

UW

S

Pro

mot

e M

ates

@U

WS

and

Equ

ity

Bud

dies

Pro

mot

e M

ates

@U

WS

and

Equ

ity

Bud

dies

PAS

S

Iden

tifica

tion

of

rele

vant

uni

ts fo

r PA

SS

Uni

t Coo

rdin

ator

-

over

all r

espo

nsib

ility

and

liais

on w

ith P

AS

S

faci

litat

orP

rom

otio

n of

PA

SS

to

at r

isk

stud

ents

Pro

mot

ion

of P

AS

S to

at

ris

k st

uden

ts

? W

ho o

rgan

ises

an

d ap

prov

es

units

and

st

uden

ts?


Str

ateg

ies

Res

po

nsib

ility

Im

med

iate

A

ctio

n

UW

S

SO

E S

upp

ort

(P

rofe

ssio

nal)

DA

P/A

CA

Pro

gra

mU

nit

Fir

st y

ear

Ad

viso

rS

SO

Ret

entio

n

Ong

oin

g s

upp

ort

dur

ing

the

yea

r

Pilo

t Ide

ntifi

catio

n an

d fo

llow

-up

of a

t ris

k st

uden

ts

stra

tegy

SS

S c

onta

ct s

tude

nts

to id

entif

y is

sues

and

he

lp w

ith J

iT s

uppo

rt

Iden

tify

a pr

iorit

y fir

st y

ear

unit

from

ea

ch p

rogr

am in

bo

th s

emes

ters

(FY

fir

st s

emes

ter

unit

+

seco

nd s

emes

ter

unit

for

4 pr

ogra

ms)

For

the

nom

inat

ed

prio

rity

units

UC

id

entifi

es s

tude

nts

who

hav

e ac

cess

ed

vUW

S <

8 h

ours

in

first

3 w

eeks

as

wel

l as

non

- at

tend

ance

in

wee

k 1-

4; U

C

to s

end

an e

mai

l in

wee

k 4;

SS

O is

no

tified

of s

tude

nts

who

hav

e no

t re

spon

ded

to e

mai

l by

repl

ying

or

turn

ing

up to

lect

ure.

SS

O to

est

ablis

h co

ntac

t with

stu

dent

at

ris

k fo

r no

min

ated

pr

iorit

y un

its a

nd

esta

blis

h S

OE

leve

l re

latio

nshi

p

Writ

e a

stan

dard

te

mpl

ate

for

UC

to

sen

d ou

t to

stud

ents

at r

isk

and

this

sho

uld

be s

uppo

rtiv

e ra

ther

than

pu

nitiv

e.

Iden

tify

stud

ents

who

do

not

sub

mit

an

assi

gnm

ent (

eith

er 1

or

2);

in fi

rst i

nsta

nce

send

a re

min

der e

mai

l an

d if

no re

spon

se

refe

r to

SS

O

SS

O to

est

ablis

h co

ntac

t with

stu

dent

at

ris

k fo

r no

min

ated

pr

iorit

y un

its a

nd

esta

blis

h S

OE

leve

l re

latio

nshi

p

Writ

e a

stan

dard

te

mpl

ate

for

UC

to

sen

d ou

t to

stud

ents

at r

isk

and

this

sho

uld

be s

uppo

rtiv

e ra

ther

than

pu

nitiv

e.

Suc

cess

ful p

rog

ress

ion

into

the

nex

t ye

ar o

f st

udy

Iden

tify

stud

ents

who

with

su

ppor

t will

cont

inue

to

prog

ress

to n

ext y

ear

At P

rogr

am

asse

ssm

ent m

eetin

g id

entif

y st

uden

ts w

ho

are

stru

gglin

g or

may

ee

d fo

llow

up.

AC

A

to c

onta

ct in

firs

t in

stan

ce.

SS

O to

con

tact

st

uden

ts a

s id

entifi

ed

by A

CA

who

wou

ld

bene

fit fr

om in

divi

dual

su

ppor

t to

help

them

co

ntin

ue s

tudi

es.

Id

entif

y w

hich

st

uden

ts h

ave

not

re-e

nrol

led

for

seco

nd

sem

este

r in

wee

k 13

and

sen

d th

em

a re

min

der

emai

l to

enro

l

Stu

dent

s ar

e se

nt

an e

mai

l for

m D

AP

or

AC

A w

ith h

elpf

ul

info

rmat

ion

that

will

supp

ort t

rans

ition

.

Rev

iew

whi

ch

stud

ents

hav

e no

t re

-enr

olle

d fo

r se

cond

se

mes

ter

(in -

1 w

eek)

an

d se

nd th

em a

re

min

der

emai

l/pho

ne

call

to e

nrol


Appendix 3.13: Graduation Destination Surveys 2008-2011 Part and Full Time Work

Course Band Current Course% in FT or PT Work

2008 2009 2010 2011

B Arts/ B Teaching No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B Early Childhood Studies (Child and Family)

No 79.3% 70.2% 72.0% 65.7%

B Education (Primary) yes 97.2% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0%

B Education (Primary) Conversion No 0.0%

B Education (Secondary: Technology) yes 100.0% 50.0% 100.0%

B Science/ B Teaching yes 100.0% 100.0%

B Teaching (Early Childhood) yes 0.0% 0.0%

B Teaching (Primary) yes 79.2% 60.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B Teaching (Secondary) yes 85.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

GC Education No 0.0%

GC Social Ecology No 100.0%

GC Special Education Studies yes 100.0%

M Arts (Social Ecology) No 100.0% 71.4% 75.0% 100.0%

M Education No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

M Education (Leadership) yes 80.0%

M Education (Social Ecology) yes 66.7%

M Teaching (Early Childhood) No 83.3% 94.1% 80.4% 72.3%

M Teaching (Primary) yes 80.0% 86.1% 82.8% 80.1%

M Teaching (Primary) Advanced No 33.3%

M Teaching (Secondary) yes 82.9% 89.9% 74.8% 81.8%

M Teaching (Secondary) Advanced No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

M Teaching (Special Education) No 88.9% 66.7% 100.0% 100.0%

Education 84.3% 82.7% 78.0% 77.3%

Total 85.5% 83.1% 80.4% 78.1%


appendIces

Appendix 5.1: School of Education Organisation Charts

Dea

n

Dep

uty

Dea

n.6

DA

P,

Sec

onda

ry

Edu

catio

n

.4

DA

P,

Adu

lt &

PG

E

duca

tion

.2

DA

P,

Prim

ary

Edu

catio

n

.4

Dire

ctor

,E

ngag

emen

t &

In

tern

atio

nal

.3

Dire

ctor

,H

DR

.2

Sch

ool

Man

ager

Sen

ior

Sch

ool S

truc

ture

Sch

oo

l of

Ed

uca

tio

n

DA

P,

Ear

ly

Chi

ldho

od

Edu

catio

n

.2

Dire

ctor

,C

ER

Exe

cutiv

e an

d A

cade

mic

Lea

ders

hip

Str

ateg

ic F

ocus

Lead

Res

earc

h &

Eng

agem

ent

Inte

grat

ion

of P

ortfo

lios

Sch

ool S

trat

egic

Pla

nW

orkf

orce

Pla

nF

inan

cial

Man

agem

ent

HR

M S

trat

egy

Dep

utis

e fo

r D

ean

Str

ateg

ic D

irect

ion

for

Sch

ool

Lead

L&

T P

ortfo

lioS

choo

l L&

T P

lan

Ove

rsee

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ceLi

aiso

n w

ith S

choo

l Stu

dent

Bod

y

Aca

dem

ic L

eade

rshi

pS

trat

egic

Dire

ctio

nF

ocus

on

curr

icul

um &

teac

hing

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ceS

uper

visi

onLi

aiso

n w

ith S

tude

nt c

ohor

t

Res

earc

h de

velo

pmen

t and

qu

ality

HD

R C

andi

date

sIn

terf

ace

with

Res

earc

h C

entr

es

Com

mun

ity E

ngag

emen

tP

rofe

ssio

nal b

ody

liais

onC

ours

e A

dvis

ory

C’tt

ee s

trat

egy

Ext

erna

l net

wor

k de

velo

pmen

tIn

tern

atio

nal S

tude

nts

Dire

ctor

, C

PP

E

Dire

ctor

,R

esea

rch

.4


Aut

hor:

S

hane

Wha

rton

Last

Upd

ate:

Sha

ne W

hart

onD

ate:

06/

07/2

012

DE

AN

**

Pro

f Ste

ve W

ilson

DE

PU

TY

DE

AN

**

Dr

Mar

y M

oone

y

DA

P *

EC

Dr

Leon

ie A

rthu

r

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

RD

R P

rath

yush

a S

anag

avar

apu

Oth

er P

rogr

am S

taff

DR

Chr

istin

e Jo

nes

Dia

zD

R K

umar

a W

ardJ

ana

Kok

kino

sD

enis

e F

rase

rK

erry

Sta

ples

Jacq

uelin

e H

umph

ries

Mar

ion

Stu

rges

DIR

EC

TO

R *

*of

Res

earc

h, S

choo

l of

Edu

catio

nP

rof W

ayne

Saw

yer

DIR

EC

TO

R *

Eng

agem

ent &

In

tern

atio

nal

A/P

rof C

hris

tine

John

ston

SC

HO

OL

MA

NA

GE

R *

* S

hane

Wha

rton

EK

NC

OO

RD

INA

TO

RD

R M

aggi

e C

lark

e

SC

HO

OL

ALU

MN

IC

OO

RD

INA

TO

R D

R J

orge

Dor

fman

Kni

jnik

SC

HO

OL

ME

DIA

CO

NT

AC

T D

r Jo

anne

Orla

ndo

CO

UR

SE

PR

OF

EX

PC

OO

RD

INA

TO

RP

RIM

AR

YK

aren

McD

aid

CO

UR

SE

PR

OF

EX

PC

OO

RD

INA

TO

RS

EC

ON

DA

RY

TB

A

CO

UR

SE

PR

OF

EX

P

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

EC

Den

ise

Fra

ser

T

EC

HN

ICA

L A

ND

F

AC

ILIT

IES

M

AN

AG

ER

Gar

y M

orga

n

S

CH

OO

L P

RO

GR

AM

S

AD

MIN

C

OO

RD

INA

TO

RM

icha

el D

arby

PR

OF

ES

SIO

NA

L E

XP

ER

IEN

CE

MA

NA

GE

RV

acan

t

Tec

hnic

al S

uppo

rt S

ervi

ces

TE

CH

NIC

AL

OF

FIC

ER

(S

C,M

AT

HS

,TE

CH

)G

lenn

Hum

phre

ys

TE

CH

NIC

AL

OF

FIC

ER

(S

C,M

AT

HS

,TE

CH

)D

R A

dria

na R

oman

tan

T

EC

HN

ICA

L O

FF

ICE

R

(AR

TS

,DR

AM

A,E

CS

)R

ayle

e S

iebu

hr

TE

CH

NIC

AL

OF

FIC

ER

(Web

& e

Lear

ning

)S

eth

Mor

tens

en

Pro

gram

Sup

port

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Van

essa

Lan

e

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Mar

kie

Lugt

on

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Kar

en M

artin

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Man

dy M

card

le

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Liz

zy P

embl

e

Pro

fess

iona

l Exp

erie

nce

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Son

ia B

odna

ruk

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Sue

Hea

ld

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Mic

helle

Milh

am

Sch

ool E

xecu

tive

Sup

port

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

AS

SIS

TA

NT

Lind

a La

mon

d

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

AS

SIS

TA

NT

Kat

hy M

elga

r

SC

HO

OL

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIV

E

OF

FIC

ER

Lorr

aine

For

dham

ST

UD

EN

T S

UP

PO

RT

O

FF

ICE

RJe

nni D

ewbe

rry

EX

EC

UT

IVE

SU

PP

OR

T/

PR

OJE

CT

OF

FIC

ER

Nic

olet

te P

ears

on

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

R H

onou

rsA

SP

RO

Dav

id C

ole

SC

HO

OL

WO

RK

LOA

DS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

Col

in W

ebb

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

R D

r Jo

anne

Orla

ndo

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

RM

Ed

Lead

ersh

ipA

SP

RO

Sus

anne

Gan

non

DIR

EC

TO

R *

RH

D D

r D

avid

Wrig

ht

A

SP

RO

Alla

n W

hite

(S

ec)

AS

PR

O D

iana

Whi

tton

(Prim

)D

R T

ania

Fer

folja

(P

rim)

DR

Meg

an W

atki

ns

(Prim

) x

0.6

Sch

oo

l of

Ed

uca

tio

nN

EW

Sta

ff O

rgan

isat

iona

l Cha

rt(w

ith n

ames

)

DA

P *

Prim

ary

Dr

Kat

ina

Zam

mit

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

R P

hil N

anlo

hy

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

R D

r K

atrin

a B

arke

r

DA

P *

Sec

onda

ry A

llan

Mor

ton

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

R A

SP

RO

Ann

e P

ower

Oth

er P

rogr

am S

taff

D

R C

hwee

Ben

g Le

eD

R J

acqu

elin

e U

llman

DR

Rob

yn G

regs

onD

R M

aggi

e C

lark

eS

hirle

y G

ilber

tM

S C

arol

e S

tanf

ord

DR

Rob

erto

Par

ada

x 0.

6

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

R D

r Lo

shin

i Nai

doo

DA

P *

Adu

lt &

PG

Edu

catio

n A

/Pro

f Sus

anne

Gan

non

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

R M

Spe

c E

d D

r D

anie

lle T

race

y

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

RM

Ed

Soc

ial E

colo

gy D

r B

rend

a D

obia

AC

AD

EM

ICC

OU

RS

E A

DV

ISO

RE

D S

TU

D M

AJO

RD

r Jo

se H

anha

m

DIR

EC

TO

R *

CE

R P

rof M

arga

ret S

omer

ville

Oth

er P

rogr

am S

taff

Cat

herin

e C

amde

n-P

ratt

DR

Car

ol B

irrel

lM

R J

ohn

Pat

tison

DIR

EC

TO

R *

CP

PE

Pro

f Rho

nda

Cra

ven

CE

R M

embe

rshi

p

Pro

f Kar

en M

alon

e (E

C)

Pro

f Mar

gare

t Vic

kers

(P

rim)

AS

PR

O D

avid

Col

e (S

ec)

AS

PR

O T

onia

Gra

y (S

ec)

AS

PR

O G

eoff

Mun

ns (

Prim

)A

SP

RO

Car

ol R

eid

(Prim

)A

SP

RO

Chr

istin

e W

oodr

ow

(EC

)A

SP

RO

Sus

anne

Gan

non

(Sec

)P

rof W

ayne

Saw

yer

(Sec

)

PR

OF

Laz

ar S

tank

ovD

R M

arjo

rie S

eato

nD

R A

lexa

nder

Yeu

ng

Exe

cutiv

e O

ffice

r C

PP

E

Kat

e Jo

hnso

n

** M

embe

r of

Sen

ior

Sch

ool E

xecu

tive

* M

embe

r of

Sch

ool E

xecu

tive

CP

PE

Pro

fess

iona

l Sta

ff

DR

Jin

nat A

liF

erin

a K

hayu

m

PR

OF

Her

bert

Mar

sh

DR

Phi

lip P

arke

r

CP

PE

Ope

ratio

ns

Pro

f Mic

hael

Sin

gh

DR

Jin

ghe

Han

DR

Dac

heng

Zha

o

NB

Thi

s C

hart

sho

uld

be r

ead

in c

onju

nctio

n w

ith th

e S

choo

l’s R

esea

rch

Cen

tres

’ det

aile

d or

gani

satio

nal c

hart

s w

hich

will

incl

ude

fixed

term

an

d ca

sual

sta

ff w

orki

ng w

ithin

the

cent

res.

Oth

er P

rogr

am S

taff

Jess

y A

brah

amA

SP

RO

Dei

rdre

R

usse

ll-B

owie

DR

Jac

quel

ine

D'w

arte

DR

Jor

ge D

orfm

an

Kni

jnik

DR

Cat

herin

e A

ttard

Kar

en M

cDai

dC

hris

tina

Cur

ryJa

ne H

unte

rN

olen

e W

alke

rC

olin

Web

bA

nnet

te S

arto

rD

r S

ue S

ing

Dr

Dor

ian

Sto

ilesc

u


CPPE Academic Staff Structure


CPPE Professional Staff Structure


appendIces

Appe

ndix

5.2

: Age

nda

for S

choo

l’s S

trat

egic

Pla

nnin

g Da

ys &

Ret

reat

s (2

009-

2011

)


Ag

end

a fo

r 20

09 S

trat

egic

Pla

nnin

g D

ay

Ag

end

a fo

r 20

10 S

trat

egic

Pla

nnin

g D

ayA

gen

da

for

2011

Str

ateg

ic P

lann

ing

Day


2009

Sch

oo

l Ret

reat

Ag

end

a


2010

Sch

oo

l Ret

reat

Ag

end

a


2011

Sch

oo

l Ret

reat

Ag

end

a


Appe

ndix

5.3

Tab

le s

how

ing

dolla

r val

ues

for I

ncom

e w

ith e

xpla

nato

ry n

otes


Note 1 2007 to 2011 School of Education structure ie cost centre 20141. 2012 School restructure cost centre parent S2012 used to include Centre for

Educational research (20181) & Positive, Psychology & Education research (20182) with School (20141).

Note 2 CARE: UWS used different funding models over these years - the way income distributed varies over the years.

Income for CGS/HECS, Prac Teaching, Salary recoveries from External Income and some Internal UWS allocation changed.

Note 3 2007-2011 - these figures taken from CGS+HECS data provided by Stephen Butcher. Due to Finance process these are not the figures in Oracle.

Oracle balances (as per yTD budget)

CGS/HECS Prac Teaching

Commonwealth grant

$% to Oracle

income$

% to Oracle income

2007 $20,205,364 83.76% $0 0.00%

2008 $20,959,669 89.02% $0 0.00%

2009 $21,472,310 87.19% $0 0.00%

2010 $26,724,404 90.49% $0 0.00%

2011 $27,617,429 81.72% $1,784,553 5.28%

Jun-12 $18,387,580 75.45% $1,081,548 4.44%

Note 4 Local Student fee paying includes Non Award, Australian Postgraduate and Research student fees

Note 5 Other External Income includes Other Government Grants, Consulting & Contracting, Other Academic eg field studies, reader sales, conference/workshop income and Other Incidental income eg non salary recoveries, miscellaneous income. Salary recovery income eg workers compensation excluded

Note 6 2007-2011 Most internal UWS funding has been excluded - see Internal Income

details M316 sheet - as the ‘contribution’ to the incentive is not included in the direct expenditure

2012 - Research Investment Framework (RIF) is allocated via internal funding

appendIces











University of Western SydneyLocked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australiawww.uws.edu.au

INC

3471

09/

2012

Documents

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION REVIEW 2012 - Home | Western · PDF fileSELF ASSESSMENT REPORT ... FME Fundacion Minera Escondida GWS Greater Western Sydney ... School of Education Review 2012