synergyIssue 19 May 2004

RREESSEEAARRCCHH && TTEEAACCHHIINNGG NNEEXXUUSS

AADDVVAANNCCEESS IINN FFIIRRSSTT YYEEAARR AARRTTSS

AACCAADDEEMMIICC HHOONNEESSTTYY

IINNDDIIGGEENNOOUUSS PPEEDDAAGGOOGGYY

LLIIFFEELLOONNGG LLEEAARRNNIINNGG

TT&&LL SSNNAAPPSSHHOOTTSS

Institute for Teaching and Learning

supporting the scholarship of teaching &learning at the University of Sydney

about synergySynergy is a scholarly forum for the discussion and debate of higher education teaching and learn-ing at the University of Sydney. Produced by the Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL), Synergyis published twice per year, usually May and October, and is circulated to staff through academicand research departments. Synergy is edited by Tai Peseta in consultation with the Director and staffof the ITL.

Contributions to SynergyThe Editor welcomes contributions from the university community all year round. Synergy partic-ularly welcomes contributions written collaboratively by staff and students that:

• report on, or are critical reflections of an aspect of your teaching or your students’ learning • report on a teaching, learning or curriculum initiative designed to engage students in active learn-

ing or inquiry • use disciplinary research/concepts to develop ideas about teaching and student learning• report on curriculum initiatives designed to bring teaching and research together to improve stu-

dent learning

From 2004, scholarly and research-based contributions to Synergy will be counted under Criterion Iof the University’s Scholarship of Teaching Index. Unless negotiated with the Editor, contributionsmust be limited to 2000 words, adhere to the American Psychological Association (APA) guidelinesfor referencing, and should be accompanied by a 300 word biography outlining significant teachingand learning research interests, publications and projects, and positions of leadership.

Publicising your event in SynergyStaff and students of the University are welcome to publicise forthcoming higher education teach-ing and learning events in Synergy. These might be conferences, public lectures or seminars by vis-iting scholars, relevant to higher education teaching and learning. However, the Editor reserves theright to negotiate such publicity.

Subscribing to SynergyIf you are a staff member of the University of Sydney and would like to receive your own copy ofSynergy, please visit the website to join the Friends of Synergy email list, or contact the ITL on+61 2 9351 3725.

If you are located outside the University of Sydney, a yearlong subscription to Synergy costs $10.00AUS (GST, postage and handling included). Each printed back issue costs $4.00 AUS. A numberof complementary copies of Synergy are mailed to academic/educational development units in theAsia-Pacific region however, additional copies incur a cost of $4.00 AUS per issue.

Contact the EditorFor further information about Synergy, visit the website – http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy

or contact the Editor, Tai Peseta on (+61 2) 9351 4657 or email synergy@itl.usyd.edu.au

Design, layout and photosRachel Williams, Web and Publications Manager, ITL. Email: rawillia@itl.usyd.edu.auCartoons by Tamara Asmar. Email: tamara@6moons.com.auPhoto of Koori Centre authors on page 8, taken by Curtis FloodStudents on cover photo: Yun Kyung Kwon and Min Jeung Park

PrintingUniversity Printing ServiceTop Floor, Services Building G12. Phone: 9351 2000 Email: ups@ups.usyd.edu.au

ISSN: 1325-9881© 2004 Copyright of the articles rest with the author and all else with the ITL.

DisclaimerThe views expressed in Synergy are not necessarily those of the University of Sydney,the Editor nor the Institute for Teaching and Learning.

contents

regulars1 Editorial

Tai Peseta

9 ProfileNerida Jarkey, Faculty of Arts

18 Book reviewTeaching with Integrity, Bruce McFarlane

19 ITL focusProjectsResearchUsing ICT in teaching and learning

31 T&L snapshotsFaculty of Rural ManagementUniversity initiativesTeaching and learning conferences

features3 Melanie Collier

Giving students the ability and confidenceto critically evaluate scientific literature

5 Koori CentreIndigenous philosophy in pedagogyand research

11 Willem VervoortPart 1: A Boyer bush dancePart 2: I write therefore I reflect

21 Sarah Hyde, Greg Ryan& Peter DavySelf regulation: a key to life long learning in Medical Education

24 Murray ThomsonDesigning assignments that guard against academic dishonesty and promote deep and active learning

27 Paul GinnsLearning by imagining in highereducation

29 Gavin J. Faunce & Julie HatfieldRecent improvements in the first year psychology tutorial/demonstrationprogram: procedures and outcomes

1

Welcome to the first 2004 issueof Synergy!

We seemed to have spent a good deal of2003 in hiatus and are now happy to beback on track. Following the recommenda-tions of our own Institute for Teaching andLearning (ITL) Academic Board Review,we’ve been engaged in some serious soul searching about how Synergy can better support,highlight and showcase the amazing teaching and learning work taking place across theUniversity. After consulting with faculties, you’ll notice a few changes - a new look, a newEditor and a renewed enthusiasm for engaging in critical discussion of university teaching andlearning. We want Synergy to be as dynamic as possible. We want it to reflect the diversity ofteaching and learning conversations in a range of disciplinary areas and we want it to be aforum for sharing, communicating and critically interrogating our individual and collectivepractices. We look forward to working with you to achieve these goals.

It was always intended that Synergy be a forum for staff to reflect and write about aspects oftheir teaching and their students’ learning. Avid followers of Synergy will know that many of thearticles that appear here are often the beginnings of conference papers or refereed publications.For those who are new to research and writing of this kind, we’re always really happy in the ITLfor you to talk with us about supporting that transition. But we also encourage you to lookbeyond us for support, and, we know many of you already do. There is a growing communityof academics interested in and committed to improving teaching, learning and pedagogy withinthe University, and while the ITL welcomes the opportunity to facilitate these connections, youmight find a conversation with your Associate Dean (Teaching and Learning), or a member ofyour Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee to be much more informative.

Synergy is now the perfect forum for you to engage in scholarly discussion of your teachingand learning ideas. Two innovations support you in this process. First, all scholarly and research-based articles now contribute to the University’s Scholarship of Teaching Index. Authors canclaim funds under Criterion I of the Index. Second, each article is now linked to an online dis-cussion forum. This technology means that you can offer your reflections, chat with the authorand engage with others, simply by clicking a few buttons. This is partly in the spirit of whatCarnegie Foundation scholars Lee Shulman and Pat Hutchings (1999) call making teaching‘community property’. It moves teaching and learning beyond the privacy of our individualconsciousness and opens it out to critical inquiry, collegial review and evaluation. This mightalso be understood as progressing the work of the scholarship of teaching.

In this issue, Melanie Collier reflects on the challenge of developing undergraduate veterinarystudents’ capacity for critique in the context of analysing scientific research literature. As theuniversity re-evaluates its policy on graduate attributes, Melanie’s article reminds us to thinkabout the ways we embed ‘criticality’ in the learning outcomes of our units of study. A teamfrom the Koori Centre – Katrina Thorpe, Peter Minter, Leah Lui-Chivizhe and Arthur Smithoffer their vision of an indigenous philosophy in pedagogy and research. Is this a different ped-agogy from the student centred learning perspective that now circulates as good universityteaching, and if so, what additional dimensions does it bring to bear on the nature of the stu-dent experience? These ideas originally featured as a poster presentation in the 2003 Graduates

editorial

Issue 19

2Synergy

for the World Vice-Chancellor’s Teaching and Learning Showcase and we are pleased tobe able to expose them to a wider audience. We are also very excited to include WillemVervoort’s reflective piece on the relationship between research and teaching. A SeniorLecturer in the Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Willem’s is the firstpiece of its kind to appear in Synergy and can be located methodologically in the educa-tional research tradition of narrative inquiry, self-study and critical-fiction writing (Bolton,1994; Clough, 2002;). Paul Ginns of the ITL then outlines the applicability of cognitiveload theory or ‘learning by imagining’ to higher education teaching and learning con-texts, and Murray Thomson from Biology shares his assessment strategies for addressing‘inter-student’ plagiarism. While Murray urges us to consider the ways our assessmenttasks encourage students to adopt deep approaches to learning (Ramsden, 2003), his arti-cle doesn’t shy away from the reality that plagiarism exists and strategies are needed tosupport academics in addressing it. We then move to an article by Sarah Hyde, GregRyan and Peter Davy of the Faculty of Medicine. Their work describes the outcomes of apilot research study designed to gauge medical students’ ability for self-regulated learn-ing. Finally, Gavin Faunce and Julie Hatifield consider ongoing improvements to the firstyear Psychology tutorial program. In all this work, there is a clear and obvious commit-ment to improving the student learning experience.

We’d also like to draw your attention to what we hope will become regular features inSynergy. In each issue, we profile the teaching and learning work of an individual mem-ber of staff. For this issue, we spoke with Nerida Jarkey, Director of First Year Teachingand Learning in the Faculty of Arts. We also update you on the work of the ITL; providesome teaching and learning guidance for staff thinking about incorporating ICT in theirunits, share with you faculty and university initiatives and continue to keep you informedof significant literature, events and conferences in higher education teaching and learn-ing. If you have an idea for an article, would like to contribute to Synergy or perhaps offerfeedback, please do feel free to get in touch with me or visit the website at :www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy

A few thanks: Kim McShane for her steady editorial hand on past issues of Synergy;Rachel Williams for her patience, design vision and foresight, Tamara Asmar for her bril-liant comic interpretations and to those faculties who were kind enough to respond toour call for feedback at such a busy time. Finally, I offer my appreciation to each of theacademics whose scholarly work furnishes this issue of Synergy.

Tai Peseta, EditorInstitute for Teaching and Learning

ReferencesBolton, G. (1994). Stories at Work: Fictional-critical writing as a means of professional devel-opment. British Educational Research Journal. 20(1) 54-69

Clough, P. (2002). Narratives and Fictions in Educational Research. Open University Press:Buckingham, UK

Hutchings, P., Shulman, L. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: New Elaborations, NewDevelopments. Change. 31(5) 11- 17

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. 2nd ed. Routledge: London

3 Issue 19

The ability to critically evaluatescientific literature is a gradu-

ate attribute for students studyingthe four-year Bachelor of AnimalScience degree and a generic attrib-ute that many units of study wouldsee as desirable. Critical evaluationof information is one of the sixstandards put forward in theAustralian and New ZealandInformation Literacy Framework(Bundy, 2004). The frameworkoutlines the required standards ofan information literate person andthus a life long learner. It is inter-esting to note that we have beenaddressing another of the stan-dards - the ability to find infor-mation effectively and efficiently -over the last four years throughengaging students in workshops oninformation retrieval provided bythe Faculty’s Liaison Librarian.Contrast this with the results of asurvey of second year students.80% answered no to the question,“did you undertake exercises in anyfirst year courses designed to devel-op skills in critical evaluation of sci-entific literature?” and 91%answered they were not confidentin their ability to critically reviewscientific literature.

Anecdotally, many staff memberslamented the fact that studentsbelieved if they had read somethingin a journal it must be true andthat they would never be able toquestion its findings. Staff alsoreported a lack of critical analysisof material read by students, find-ings that were also reported inZoology students by Jones andBarmuta (2002). It is not difficult

to put yourself in the position ofthe student. Why should they, with

limited knowledge in the topic, beable to find fault with work pub-lished in a refereed journal bysomeone with expertise in thetopic? The fourth year of theBachelor of Animal Science degreerequires students to carry out aresearch project and present a the-sis in which an important part is aliterature review. Presumably, thetopic of the thesis is one thatappeals to the student and willinvolve engaging with the currentliterature and building up a bodyof knowledge that should aid indeveloping the confidence to eval-uate material. But, what of theirability to critically evaluate?

Where in the curriculum isthis attribute addressed?So what do we do to help studentsgain the ability and confidence tocritically evaluate scientific litera-ture? We know students start sec-ond year without formal exposureto the development of these skillsand similarly, their second and thirdyear courses have no formalisedtime devoted to it. Yet, in their the-ses, students are expected to criti-cally evaluate research material! Idecided this situation neededredressing but the question was howto find the time in an already crowd-ed timetable to devote to this task?

What have we done?In 2003 we introduced into a thirdyear unit of study, a workshop fromthe Learning Centre on Writing aCritical Review. The workshopincluded examples of critical eval-uation although these were not inthe context of Animal Physiology.

We set two assignments - one atthe beginning and one the end of

semester, where stu-dents were expectedto produce a criticalreview of a nomi-nated journal articleon a topic they werecurrently studying.Students were askedto read at least three

other articles in the same topic areato allow them to place the currentpaper in context of findings byother authors. The first effort ofmost students was poor, with mostreviews lacking critical evaluationand being merely descriptive. Inthe second assignment, I asked stu-dents to peer review the criticalevaluation of one of their cohort.The surprising finding from thiswas that students were very goodat picking out the lack of evalua-tion in the work of their peers evenwhen their own submitted workwas similarly devoid of criticalcomment. The students seemed tofind it difficult to synthesise theirown arguments even though theyhad been provided with guidancein the Learning Centre workshop.

What further improvementshave we planned? Despite the students receiving feed-back, there was little improvementbetween the second and first assign-ments indicating that further workwas required by some students tohelp them grasp the concept.However we are unable to find fur-ther room in the timetable for thisand we have decided for this year toprovide examples of good and poorcritical reviews submitted by stu-dents. With the help of the ThyneReid Innovations Education Unitin the Faculty of Veterinary Sciencewe have developed exercises thatinvolve reading these good reviewsand answering questions that askthe student to highlight specificareas where critical evaluation ofmethods, results or discussion aredemonstrated. These exercises will

Giving students the ability andconfidence to critically evaluate

scientific literatureMelanie Collier, Faculty of Veterinary Science

4Synergy

be available on the unit of studyWebCT site so that students canwork in their own time. We havealso included context specific exam-ples in the workshop of critical eval-uation in the hope that this maymake the task more relevant for ourstudents.

Curriculum design to aiddevelopment of criticalevaluationSince the third year students obvi-ously found this a daunting task wehave decided to introduce a verti-cally integrated approach to criticalevaluation and expose students in asecond year unit of study to criticalevaluation. This will be built on inthird year and prepare the studentsfor their thesis in fourth year. Thisapproach is supported by com-ments from students “the criticalreview was the first we had everdone - perhaps more coaching inthese areas would be helpful” and “I already realised the importance ofthis attribute but do not believe Ihave mastered it in this course.Work should begin in earlier years”.

Last year the second year studentswere given reading material tointroduce them to ideas about crit-ical evaluation and an assignmentwhere they chose a paper from alist of published papers to critical-ly review. They were expected tosource two additional papers relat-ed to the topic. 66% of studentssaid their confidence in criticallyevaluating material had increasedas a result of completing the assign-ment (encouragingly, 97% alsoreported an increase in their knowl-edge of the topic). This year we arehoping to initiate a timetabledworkshop to introduce the topic;set an assignment and provide exer-cises in WebCT to support stu-dents. The approach taken byDenyer (2000) of giving studentsthe materials and methods sectionof a paper without the “expert”commentary of the introduction ordiscussion to critically evaluate,

may provide a good introductionfor second year students. We wouldexpect third year students to criti-cally engage in all aspects of theresearch article.

Some may say that by teaching crit-ical evaluation in a very contextspecific way we are not preparingour students to be true critical read-ers. But it is a starting point. I knowthat I would be more cautiousabout critically evaluating some-thing outside my area of expertisethan within a topic I am comfort-able with.

This work is already proving to bevital in increasing students' confi-dence and ability to critically eval-uate scientific literature. Eventhough it has been a difficult task,we want our students to realise that“even students can legitimately cri-tique a published paper” (Jones andBarmuta, 2002). In fact, it is a skillthat should be transferable acrossunits, applicable throughout a stu-dent's whole degree program andinto their professional practice.

ReferencesBundy, A. (2004) Australian and NewZealand Information LiteracyFramework Principles, Standards andPractice 2nd Edition, Adelaide:Australia and New Zealand Institutefor Information Literacy.

Denyer, G. (2000) Strategies for build-ing criticism skills in undergraduate bio-chemists. Biochemical Education,28:74-75.

Jones, M.J and Barmuta, L (2002)Challenging students to think critical-ly: development of a new zoology unit.HERDSA News, 24:24-25.

Dr Melanie Collier is aLecturer in the Faculty ofVeterinary Science involved in theteaching of endocrinology,reproductive and renal physiolo-gy to first and second year stu-dents of Veterinary Science andsecond and third year AnimalScience students.

She is a Unit of Study co-ordina-tor for a third year unit of AnimalScience. She completed theGraduate Certificate in HigherEducation in 2001 and has actedas a mentor to subsequent can-didates for the same course.Melanie has presented at thelast two Vice Chancellor’sShowcases the results of aTeaching Improvement Fund(TIF) funded project studying theconception and approach tolearning of students of secondyear Veterinary Science students.She is the Faculty representativeon the University's WorkingGroup on Research-led teachingand the scholarship of teaching.

You can engage with Melanieand others in a conversationabout this article. Visit the onlinediscussion forum at:www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/forumor email at:melaniec@vetsci.usyd.edu.au

5 Issue 19

Koori Centre staff who designedthe poster (see opposite page)

have been asked to write a brief arti-cle describing the various elementsand processes of its construction;what they mean, and how they relateto one another in an increasinglydiverse teaching and learning envi-ronment. The following is a briefstatement which seeks to do this atan exploratory level of significance.

Koori Centre academics are devel-oping curricula that aim to recoverand introduce to the Universitycommunity specifically Indigenousforms of teaching and learning.This process begins as a responseto the historically determinedundervaluing of Indigenous knowl-edges following the impacts ofcolonisation. Since 1788 Aboriginaland Torres Strait IslanderAustralians have had to negotiateat least two juxtaposed ‘world-views’, and have developed uniqueand flexible approaches to learningand cultural exchange which canbe of high value to present day stu-dents who learn and work in mul-tifaceted cultural environments.

In recent years many prominentIndigenous and non-Indigenouseducators have extolled the virtuesof two-way teaching and learning.For many Indigenous Elders andeducators this two-way concept hasembraced the notion of taking thebest of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous worlds as a knowledgebase for understanding Australia,and as a means for relating sensi-tively and constructively in anincreasingly globalised world.

Our examination of this relation-ship has contributed to an ongo-ing integration of Indigenous

knowledges and pedagogic processinto our teaching and learningactivities. Like most academicunits within the University, weteach students from many culturalbackgrounds and, through ourblock mode program, growingnumbers of Indigenous studentsfrom a wide range of geographicand cultural locations. In order tomeet the diverse needs and inter-ests of these students, particularlythose who want to learn moreabout Indigenous Australia, we arein the process of fusing Westernand Indigenous knowledges intoa more holistic, inclusive, and crit-ically responsive pedagogic frame-work. A priority for Koori Centreacademics lies in reclaiming, devel-oping and nourishing Indigenousknowledge systems and clarifyinghow these may better inform ourteaching and student learning. Forthese reasons we have beenattempting to embed Indigenousframeworks in the teaching ofIndigenous Australian Studies.

Indigenous teaching and learningframeworks take into considera-tion how Indigenous knowledgesinteract with Western knowledgesystems. Our use of Indigenousknowledges in our teaching andlearning practices have evolved aswe have grappled with the trans-action that occurs betweenIndigenous and Western ways ofknowing the world. In this contextwe do not believe that Indigenousknowledges are competing withWestern knowledges. Rather, thetwo knowledge systems comple-ment one another. The interface of

Western and Indig-enous knowl-edges provides space for conceptu-alising a more culturally inclusive

curriculum.

The work of the AlaskaNative Knowledge Net-work (ANKN) has been use-ful in guiding us in someaspects of the developmentof culturally inclusive cur-

riculum theory and practice.Alaskan Native educators havebeen concerned about how to caterfor the educational and culturalwell-being of all students,Indigenous and non-Indigenous.Con-sequently Alaskan Nativeeducators have developed TheAlaska Standards for CulturallyResponsive Schools (1998).

Their development of “CulturalStandards for Curriculum” res-onated with the work we areattempting to do at the KooriCentre. The ANKN has stated that:

A culturally-responsive curriculumfosters a complementary relation-ship across knowledge derivedfrom diverse knowledge systems.A curriculum that meets this cul-tural standard:

• draws parallels betweenknowledge derived from oraltradition and that derivedfrom books;

• engages students in theconstruction of newknowledge and understandingsthat contribute to an ever-expanding view of the world(Alaska Native KnowledgeNetwork, 1998: 6).

Further, as discussed by Semali andKincheloe:

“… examination of indigenousknowledge attempts to enlarge thespace for dialogue denying the asser-tion of many analysts that Europeanand indigenous ways of seeing aretotally antithetical to one another.

Indigenous Philosophy in Pedagogy and Research

Katrina Thorpe, Peter Minter, Leah Lui-Chivizhe & Arthur Smith, Koori Centre

These cultural and epistemologicalissues are complex and our concernis to avoid essentialist notions byinvoking simplistic binary opposi-tions between indigeneity and colo-nialism” (1999: 23).

Historically, the creation of suchbinary oppositions has beenboth a project and outcomeof invasion and colonisa-tion. It is imperative not tonurture such a discoursewithin a university, inadver-tently or otherwise.

It is also important toacknowledge that “….indigenous cultural experi-ence is not the same foreveryone; indigenous kno-wledge is not a monolithicepistemological concept”(Semali and Kincheloe,1999: 24). Indigenousknowledges are broad andcomplex and, over time havebeen conceptualised in manydifferent ways by diverseIndigenous communities.

In our units of study weprivilege the voices ofIndigenous Australia byinvolving Indigenous peo-ple as guest lecturers and bydrawing on a variety ofIndigenous works in film,fiction, autobiography,biography, dance, music,oral histories and art.Through our use of thesevarious forms of Indigenousexpression we strive toengage students on emo-tional, spiritual and intel-lectual levels. Students arechallenged to move outside their‘comfort zones’ and confront his-torical and contemporary repre-sentations of what it means to beIndigenous.

As we continue to mature thisholistic approach to teaching andlearning, our teaching emphasises

healing and social transformationof the individual (students andteachers) and the wider commu-nity. An holistic approach acknowl-edges that personal and socialtransformation requires more thanjust an intellectual engagement withcourse content. Where there is an

imbalance, for example, learningsomething purely on an intellectuallevel without emotional under-standing, students can remain in astate of detachment. For meaning-ful learning to occur, a level of empa-thy is required on the part ofteachers and students.

Harrison and Hopkins suggest that“…a scholarly, scientific attitudeis appropriate to the task of under-standing; but by sidesteppingdirect, feeling-level involvementwith issues and persons, one failsto develop the “emotional muscle”needed to handle effectively a high

degree of emotional impactand stress” (1967: 440 inAdams et al 1997:33). Atthe Koori Centre we aim tochallenge and engage ourstudents across a range ofemotional, intellectual andethical educational experi-ences, which is evidentin the following smallrepresentative sample offeedback provided byundergraduate studentsin 2003:

“I only wish that other stu-dents get to experience thisand break down the barriersof alienation and strangenessthat surrounds much of ourlives. What I have learnt andexperienced today will staywith me for the rest of my lifeand I hope the children I workwith will be empowered inthe same way.”

“It (the Indigenous Australiaunit of study) has helped meto perceive history in light ofparadigms, discourses, andconcepts, rather than justevents.”

“ I feel honoured having beenbestowed with knowledgegiven by my professors,friends, and their families.Although the semester has

come to an end, my journey oflearning has just begun!”

“I have a much better under-standing of Indigenous issuesworldwide.”

“The course made me reflect onIndigenous Americans.”

Poster presented at the 2003 Vice-Chancellor’sShowcase: Graduates for the World.

6Synergy

7 Issue 19

“The understanding of non-Indigenous and Aboriginal racerelations helped my world per-spective.”

While the project reported on inthis brief paper is still very much a‘work in progress’, we have beenheartened by progress made in bothteaching and research, and the verypositive responses that we have hadfrom students, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, both domestic andinternational. We therefore agreewith Semali and Kincheloe thatthere is a transformative powerinherent in Indigenous knowledgesand, furthermore, Indigenousknowledges can be used to fosterempowerment and justice in a vari-ety of cultural contexts (Semali &Kincheloe 1999: 15). Paulo Friereand Antonio Faundez have arguedthat: “…indigenous knowledge is arich social resource for any justice-related attempt to bring about socialchange” (1989 in Semali andKincheloe 1999:15). Like colleaguesin other academic units throughoutthe University, we hope that stu-dents might be transformed by ourteaching and motivated to engagein ethical and responsible thinking,scholarship and social action.

ReferencesAdams, M., Bell, L.A., Griffin, P. (1997)Teaching for Diversity and SocialJustice. A Sourcebook. Routledge: NewYork.

Alaska Native Knowledge Network(1998) Alaska Native KnowledgeNetwork, Alaska Native KnowledgeNetwork. Anchorage. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/standards/standards.html [Accessed 20 March,2004]

Semali L. M and Kincheloe, J.L (Eds)(1999) What is Indigenous Knowledge?Voices from the Academy. PalmerPress: London.

Katrina Thorpe has been a highschool teacher, staff trainer and forthe past 10 years, involved inAboriginal education. She hastaught Indigenous perspectivesacross a wide range of disciplinesincluding Australian Studies,Sociology, Gender Studies,Education, and Nursing. Herinterests include anti-racism andsocial justice education, Australianhistory and promoting the inclu-sion of Indigenous perspectivesacross all areas of education.

Peter Minterwas appointed to theKoori Centre in 2000 following a10-year career in IndigenousEducation at the University ofNewcastle and the University ofWestern Sydney. His research andteaching specialties include inter-national and national IndigenousRights history and theory,Indigenous cultural history andpostcolonial theory, and compar-ative studies in media, literatureand arts. Peter is a PhD candidatein the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences, UTS.

Leah Lui-Chivizhe has workedin the areas of adult educationand training and universities foralmost 20 years. Since 1998,Leah has worked with the KooriCentre, in teaching, research andprogram co-ordination roles.Her research interests includeacademic literacy learning,migration and cultural identityand post-colonialism.

Arthur Smith has been a teacherand consultant in NSW schoolsand, for the past 22 years, hasworked in university basedAboriginal and Torres StraitIslander teacher education pro-grams. He is currently AcademicCoordinator at the Koori Centreand is primarily interested inIndigenous Studies teaching andlearning effectiveness.

You can engage with Katrina andher co-authors in a conversationabout these ideas. Visit the onlinediscussion forum at www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/forumor email at:Katrina@koori.usyd.edu.au

...there is a transformative powerinherent in Indigenous knowledgesand, furthermore, Indigenousknowledges can be used to fosterempowerment and justice in a vari-ety of cultural contexts (Semali &Kincheloe 1999: 15)

8Synergy

9 Issue 19

When Nerida Jarkey first started teaching JapaneseLinguistics at the University nine years ago, she

was already alert to the importance of the student learn-ing perspective. In fact, she recalls quite clearly thefirst time it had begun to influence her ideas aboutteaching and learning. “After I completed my PhD, Iworked for a while at the University of Uppsala inSweden, teaching a course in English Linguistics. TheDirector of Studies who hired me came to sit in onsome of my classes. At the end of one she said - ‘Nerida,that was wonderfully passionate and inspiring but haveyou thought about what students are actually learningin your classroom?’ It was then that I realised that Iwas teaching the way I had been taught - that the teach-ers I had admired were all very passionate and enthu-siastic and that this had meant a great deal to me as alearner, but it made me stop and think that not every-one might be so turned on by it.”

Jarkey can even see parallels between university teach-ing and learning and her own research area. “What Ilike about my research into the semantics of grammar,is what it tells us about the human mind; about howpeople view reality, categorise reality and the ways thatcultural contexts might influence aspects of the way weinteract with the world. Now if I translate that to stu-dent learning, I can see that the context of students’learning may be relevant to the way they approach atask. These may be broad sorts of connections but Istill find them very relevant and interesting.”

This is Jarkey’s second year in her new role as Directorof First Year Teaching and Learning in the Faculty ofArts. And she comes to it with sterling credentials. In2002, she won a Vice-Chancellor’s Award forOutstanding Teaching and in the same year, was a final-ist in the National Awards for University Teaching. Lastyear, she also completed the ITL’s Graduate Certificatein Educational Studies (Higher Education). Jarkey'’sobvious commitment to enhancing student learningpervades all aspects of this new role. Of the position,she says that it's about “developing a learning commu-nity and context where Arts students can feel a sense ofidentity and belonging. But in order to understand howto go about addressing this issue, it’s important to knowsomething about the Faculty. First, there’s the issue ofsize. Our first year students often feel overwhelmed bythe sheer size of the Faculty and complexity of their

programs, so we’ve done a lot of work to clarify degreepathways. Second, there is no core unit that all firstyear students are required to complete. This is reallyinteresting because the feedback we get from studentsis that, while they really value having such wide choicein their studies, the experience can be one where theyhave difficulty in feeling part of a cohort.”

The role has definitely put a spotlight on the teachingand learning initiatives now underway in the Facultyof Arts. The success of the Arts Network Transitionand Mentoring Program particularly, is a research-based and scholarly model for orientation and transi-tion programs generally. Jarkey will present this workat this year’s Higher Education Research andDevelopment Society Australasia (HERDSA) confer-ence in July. She says that this program particularly,takes what Mike Prosser calls a ‘student-focused’ viewof learning. “So rather than presenting first year stu-dents with the institutional context and organising ori-entation that way, we invite students to engage with arange of scenarios that mirror the complexity of prob-lems and opportunities in academic life. The seniorstudents we train to mentor our incoming first yearshave so many stories about first year that we draw ontheir experiences to plan the transition workshop. PaulDwyer, Ian Maxwell and postgraduate students fromthe Department of Performance Studies then trans-form those experiences into what they call ‘forum the-atre’ - a lively, entertaining, interactive and amusingset of scenarios about a first year student encounteringfor instance their first essay, a lecture with a massivereading list, a boss offering too many shifts and a loveinterest who is perhaps a bit too distracting. We see allthose scenes and then the facilitator asks the actors toreplay all the scenes, but this time with the audiencebeing invited to intervene, to suggest things that thishypothetical first year student might do differently.This is just one of the many ways we try to take a stu-dent-focused and fun approach to transition.”

Another key initiative is the Competency in WrittenEnglish Project, spearheaded by Jane Simpson inLinguistics with assistance from the Learning Centre.Working in large first year units of study, Jarkey saysthat students often need support to develop their aca-demic literacies within their disciplinary contexts. “Thisproject is about making the disciplinary specific aca-

profileNerida Jarkey

Director of First Year Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Arts

10Synergy

demic literacies, like research and writing, moreexplicit to students. We do diagnostic testing and,through Teaching Improvement Fund money, we’rebeginning to develop a set of resources to supporttutors’ work with students. What’s really good aboutthe development of resources is that they can beused to support all students, as well as to plan thenext iteration of the particular unit of study. Inareas such as Linguistics, Asian Studies and History,we’ve now built up a range of materials that specif-ically address the academic needs of first year stu-dents within their units of study.”

Jarkey says that the Faculty has taken a ‘multi-pronged’ approach to enhancing the first year learn-ing experience, using these and a whole range ofother initiatives. “We’ve been able to develop strate-gies to address the broader issues of identity andbelonging at a range of different levels. At a facultylevel, our strategic plan very much sets out ouragenda; our work on the Transition and MentoringProgram, and the Competency in Written EnglishProject really tries to get at both the social and aca-demic integration in first year; we’ve worked reallyhard to try and develop clear unit of study outlinesso that students know what is expected of them; thissemester we’ve begun an exciting program to sup-port tutor development, and then there are severalsmaller pedagogical projects, such as using smallgroups in online teaching, that address more spe-cific teaching and learning contexts. So, the Facultyis working incredibly hard.”

And Arts students seem to be noticing that changehas been taking place. According to Jarkey, thereare small improvements in the faculty’s unit of studyevaluation (USE) ratings and student course expe-rience questionnaire (SCEQ) scales. “All these ini-tiatives are still very much ‘works-in-progress’.Certainly, students in our programs tell us thatthey are now able to identify their cohort earlierand with more ease. They also tell us things like

they have a ready-made set of friends if they’ve beento the Transition Workshop, which is great too,but the challenge will be to capture all studentsnot just those who elect to participate in our pro-grams. The work we are currently doing with tutorswill become increasingly important because it hasthe potential to reach all students.”

Jarkey also mentions that these initiatives are theresult of a collegial and collaborative spirit amongststaff and students in the Faculty. “I'm absolutelydelighted that through this role I've been able toreally broaden my sense of being part of a commu-nity and I’m particularly indebted to the FacultyTeaching and Learning Committee, the Dean, andmany others for that. It’s particularly importantthat our staff are involved and consulted with asthese changes take place.”

So, what, according to Jarkey, is the Faculty’s nextchallenge? “The change to 6 credit points is a chal-lenge, but an exciting opportunity for us to look atthe nature of the BA degree. It’s a chance for us toask questions about what the appropriate outcomesfor our students are, and what support is requiredfor students to achieve them. Handling the nutsand bolts of this change is a really big job but sort-ing out what we want graduates to be, know, under-stand and be able to do is crucial to the core ofevery degree program. It’s part of humanising thedegree and instilling a sense of pride in being a stu-dent in the Faculty of Arts.

Nerida Jarkey spoke with Tai Peseta of the ITL. For further conversation with Nerida about ini-tiatives in the Faculty of Arts, visit the onlinediscussion forum at:www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/forum or emailat: Nerida.Jarkey@arts.usyd.edu.au

11 Issue 19

This article was originally writ-ten in 2003, while I was

enrolled in the Graduate Certificatein Higher Education at thisUniversity. During this time Iseemed to sense a feeling from someof the discussions and the educa-tional literature that: a) researchand scholarship in teaching is some-how different from traditionalresearch; and b) research and schol-arship in teaching is undervaluedand misunderstood. This feelinghas led to the following question:Should I invest time in becominga scholar in teaching and will thisalso benefit my overall research?The article is written from my ownpersonal (academic) perspective asa researcher feeling burdened byteaching duties. Considering thediversity in definitions of scholar-ship, I will, for the purpose of thisarticle, use Elton’s definition(2001:p45): “a deep understand-ing of what is currently known ina discipline and which illuminatesboth research and teaching”.Reading this, I am not sure I haveachieved ‘scholarship’ within myown discipline.

To stay within some of thetradition of articles in HigherEducation journals, this article isset-up as a dialogue, initiallybetween two friends from the for-est: Mrs. Stork; the educationalexpert; and Mr. Willem Beaver,the stream hydrologist, who liveswith his brother Ed (the engineer)in the nearby Beaver pond. Lateron several other inhabitants of theforest appear. First there is Zoef deHaas (or Zippy, pronounce ‘Zoef ’as Zoof, as in Moose, a somewhat

pea-brained, fast moving bypasser,then there are a couple of rowdygeese and finally, there is some

interaction with Myrtle Moose,the philosopher of the forest.

A quiet afternoon in the Forest(`Arcadia')Willem Beaver and Mrs. Stork areenjoying a quiet cuppa at the edgeof the stream. Willem Beaver hasbeen visiting Mrs. Stork, since he ishaving problems with the deliveryof hydrological concepts to the littleBeavers.

W. BEAVER: Last semester’s workwith you has really improved myteaching, but I wish I had moretime to actually work on my teach-ing. I really have to start doingresearch again.

MRS. STORK: Does this meanyou consider research to be differ-ent from teaching? Have youthought of using research in teach-ing as a form of research you couldundertake?

W. BEAVER:??

MRS. STORK: For example, youcould research how your changesin teaching have affected theunderstanding of hydrology ofyour students.

W. BEAVER: That does not soundlike real research to me. I have readsome of the literature in teachingand I find it longwinded andwoolly. Nah, nothing for me, it hasno real numbers in it. I don’t under-stand how that stuff gets published.

MRS. STORK: But that is becauseeducation research is different toyour ‘research’. We use different tech-

niques, which are well acceptedwithin the discipline. It is typical forsomeone like you from a science dis-

cipline not tovalue our res-earch and onlyvalue what youcall ‘real’ res-earch, whichhas numbers.

They bicker on for a while, arguingfor and against using statistics andnumbers and repeatable experimentsand getting further and furtheroff track.

W. BEAVER: Well, if I say a Storkhas two legs, than that can beobserved, and can be verified andtherefore that is real research.

MRS. STORK: But you shouldknow from philosophy of sciencethat such a Popperite view of theworld does not take into accountthat some Storks might actuallyhave one or three legs. If you wouldobserve a stork with one leg pulledup, and you might not see theother leg. Does that disqualify thisanimal as a Stork? Observationsalways have a value in it.

ZOEF DE H (passing by): Whatis going on here, such a ruckus,you have startled me!

MRS. STORK: Oh, it is just thetypical situation: we get in theseendless discussions about what con-stitutes research and scholarship.The only thing I am trying to sayis that the scholarship of teachingis as valuable as what Willem con-siders ‘real’ scholarship and whichBoyer (1990) would call scholar-ship of discovery.

After they have explained to Zoef whatscholarship means (which takes awhile) Zoef gathers up his confidence:

ZOEF DE H: Now what doesBoyer actually say that does notseem to make sense?

1. A Boyer bush dance R. W. Vervoort,

Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources

MRS. STORK: Well he points outthat there are four classes of schol-arship (Brew, 2003) - the scholar-ship of discovery, which is closestto the idea of research; scholarshipof integration, which deals withcross-disciplinary connections;scholarship of application, whichdeals with the application ofknowledge to issues; and finally,scholarship of teaching, whichdeals with the planning, evalua-tion and application of teaching

W. BEAVER: See, there you go,even Boyer says it is different from‘real research’, what did I tell you?

MRS. STORK: Well yes, it is dif-ferent, but it is equal, and that isthe problem. It never seems to beconsidered equal in society. As soonas something is ‘scientific’ it is con-sidered to be more valuable thansomething ‘educational’.

ZOEF DE H: But why is it placedoutside the other categories?Doesn't that create the problem initself? Isn't scholarship in teach-ing also scholarship of discovery?

MRS. STORK: Some argue, itactually is all three of the above.

ZOEF DE H: So, why is it placedoutside the other categories? Idon't get it.

W. BEAVER: It suddenly dawns onme that it probably isn't differentand should therefore not be apart.

MRS. STORK. (after some thought):O.K. I am willing to go along withthat but you still are not willing toengage in research in teaching, andas such in scholarship of teaching.

W. BEAVER: I am a Hydrologist.If I would have wanted to be ascholar in teaching I would havestudied Education, and then Iwould have valued educationalresearch higher. You should behappy that I am showing interest

in your subject. And to counteryour remark: you are not really valu-ing scholarship in Hydrology.

MRS. STORK: But scholarship inteaching is very useful for you as ahydrologist, considering the prob-lems you are having in teachingthe young beavers.

W. BEAVER: How do you knowHydrology is not useful to you?

ZOEF DE H (seeing that this is get-ting out of hand): I also believe itshould not be a distinct category.Clearly scholarship in teaching isjust as much about discovery, inte-gration and application as schol-arship into History, Psychologyand Physics. So this leaves only theperception that it is valued differ-ently by people in other disciplines.

W. BEAVER: I don’t see a prob-lem there. Of course it is valueddifferently by hydrologists, becausewe are interested in Hydrology.That is what we are good at so wewould value it highest. I just hearthe whining of a spoiled child if Ihear complaining about the under-valuing of scholarship in teaching.

MRS. STORK: See, you don'tvalue scholarship in teaching!

W. BEAVER: Rubbish! Of courseI value it. Why would I otherwisebe talking to you? Do you valueresearch in Hydrology?

MRS. STORK (choosing to ignorethe last question, turns to Zoef): Theproblem is that in society researchin teaching is not valued as muchas say, research in Medicine.

ZOEF DE H: Could it be becausehealth affects us more personally?I mean, is research in Hydrologyvalued as much as Medicine?W. BEAVER: I would think not. Ihave always said that if someonewould die due to lack of hydrolog-ical research than we would get a

lot more funding. It seems to methat there is always a difference inhow research is perceived. My workin Environmental Hydrology hasonly recently achieved a little atten-tion even though environmentalistshave banged their heads against thewall for decades. Maybe the educa-tional specialists need to do this too.Things like the Environment orEducation will never be valued asmuch as Health, because it does notaffect you directly.

ZOEF DE H: What you seem tobe saying again is that anythingthat affects us directly is valuedhighest. This is true for your ownpreference for hydrology, Mrs.Stork’s preference for educationand my own preference for car-rots. This seems to suggest to methat what we are talking about is aperception of value.

W. BEAVER: I can agree with that.

Mrs. Stork mumbles on a bit, butrealises there is little progress to bemade with these two.

DissentWillem Beaver is feeling quite goodabout himself after, what he believesis a definite argument on why hecan devote most of his time on hydro-logical research and ignore researchin teaching. Basically the argumentgoes like this: you concentrate onwhat you are good at, and do thebest you can with the rest, givenavailable time. After breakfast thenext day he sets out for a walk alongthe stream to ponder his next researchproject. Just when he starts thinkingabout a young sapling for morningtea, he meets a couple of geese stand-ing around complaining to eachother (as Geese tend to do).

12Synergy

13 Issue 19

GEESE 1: Gakgakgak, look at thewater Gooseyloosey.

GEESE 2: Gakgakgak, way toolow and dirty! Blue-green algae,salinity, problems, problems.

GEESE 1: Gakgakgak and hardlyany grass on the fields, there arenot enough floods!

GEESE 2: It’s that #@!$% beaverruining our stream and our pri-mary production. Ah! Look! Herehe comes just now! I am ready togive him and ear full.

GEESE 2 (turning to our friendWillem, who is still off with thefairies): Can’t you see that yourresearch is useless. Look at the stateof the stream and the riverbanks.It is dreadful.

W. BEAVER: What… oh…What? Well… it is not that easy.It is a complex system in whichdifferent factors and stakeholdersneed to be taken into account.There is flood mitigation, envi-ronmental flow requirements, irri-gation water supply, water fordrinking, washing and grooming,recreational values, fishing, living,swimming, etc…. etc… You can’texpect me to come up with a quickanswer to all of those problems.

GEESE 1: To me it all seems prettysimple. You just release more waterfrom your dam and it will be muchbetter.

W. BEAVER: But you don’t under-stand what we are trying to do.Such decisions have to be based oncareful and well-designed experi-ments that give us conclusiveresults. How do we compare andquantify effects before and afterlarger releases? What about uncer-tainties in the calculations? Maybewe will have an enormous down-pour tomorrow and then I will beblamed for floods and the loss ofvaluables, such as nests and eggs…

Willem droned on another 10 min-utes in highly technical jargon andwas somewhat surprised to find thegeese had already left for greener pas-tures. He initially shrugged his shoul-ders and walked on, but the episodecreated a serious dent in his sunnyoutlook. Clearly not everybody wasconvinced about the value of hishydrological research, but as pointedout, that could be in the eye of thebeholder (geese). What distressed himmost was that he had not been ableto formulate to the geese why hisresearch was valuable and why itwas important for them to under-stand the principles of hydrology.This seemed the same problem as heran into with the young beavers, somaybe he should be spending moretime on researching his teaching. Butwhat about hydrology and his pub-lication record? How was he evergoing to score an ARC (AnimalResearch Grant)?

ConnectivityThe Moose was just suddenly thereand Willem bumped into her. It mighthave been the camouflage of theMoose's skin or the fact that she hadgreen stuff hanging from her antlers,but she was there, just like that.

MOOSE: Ho, there little beaver.Are you off in la-la land?

W. BEAVER: I am sorry Myrtle.(The Moose's name was Myrtle) Ididn’t see you there, I must havebeen thinking.

MYRTLE MOOSE: Thinking isgooood, ….. Thinking is goooood.

Moose spend an awful lot of timethinking and pondering while theystand in lakes and streams ruminat-ing. “They've got brain, others justhave grey fluff blown between theirears” (Milne, 1994:133)

MYRTLE MOOSE: I heard youhad a bit of a debate on Researchin Teaching and Learning the otherday (News travels fast down-stream).

W. BEAVER: Well, that’s proba-bly an understatement. I felt quitestrongly about certain things, andfelt these needed to be aired.However, right now, I am not sosure anymore.

MYRTLE MOOSE: It seems tome that the main issue is your per-sonal perception of time pressure.How do you divide yourselfbetween quality teaching and qual-ity research? In the end it is anissue of learning. Attending to stu-dent learning limits your personallearning in Hydrology, but aren'tyou both learning the same sub-ject? I think this is one of the ques-tions Rowland (2000) points out,and isn't that part of the defini-tion of scholarship of teaching(Brew, 2003).

W. BEAVER: I find Rowland(2000) a bit of a bore. On the onehand he talks about integration ofteaching and research but on theother hand his view of researchkeeps coming back to doing moreeducational research. I think whatI am seeking to improve teachingthrough doing better hydrologicalresearch. This might be a profes-sional deformation but I find itharder to marry scholarly inquiryinto teaching with hydrologicalresearch than if I worked in ̀ softer'areas such as Arts or Education. Itis true that teaching some of thebasics helps me better understandmy own research. But my researchgoes well beyond the basics in anundergraduate degree, and at somepoint I still need to learn. Teachingin the form of post-graduate super-vision, or even honours supervi-sion is relevant to research. But itbeats me how first or second yearteaching can be helpful after aninitial increase in personal basicknowledge has been achieved.

MYRTLE MOOSE: But youcould teach them more relevantissues - issues related to more top-ical questions. Would this not

improve your research questions,or be more efficient. And aren'twe all about research-led teaching?

W. BEAVER: It does improve thegeneral information that I need forwriting proposals or developingnew research ideas and this is moreefficient. However I have to spendtime on learning hydrology myself.I don’t see how it is possible toexplain this higher level of hydrol-ogy to undergraduates withouthaving taught the basics. I mean,in the end I don’t think I can expectthe average student to learn thebasics by themselves, which I havespent several years on. That wouldalmost be going back to lecturingin its oldest form: I tell the stu-dent what I think is interestingand I leave it up to the student tobe up to speed with the basics. Idon’t think that is the meaning ofresearch-led teaching. To answerthe real research questions I needall the knowledge I haveand have to learn newknowledge at a rapid paceand there is little of thatknowledge which isat undergraduate level.Regarding research-ledteaching, in the first andsecond year level, I talkabout research in generalterms to try and makethem see where the prob-lems are. In third andfourth year we can workon real questions, but Istill think you first haveto help them understandthe fundamentals.

MYRTLE MOOSE:O.K., so there are twoissues here which need tobe resolved simultane-ously. The first is how toimprove students' under-standing in undergradu-ate hydrology by betterteaching. The second ishow to efficiently workon hydrological research,

while still improving teaching.So what we are looking for is anoptimisation scheme to optimiseboth. It might also be about theconnection between the teachingand the research: where do theyactually overlap?

W. BEAVER: I think your opti-misation is not possible given themajor difference in teaching andresearch material. As said, I thinkthe connection is in the basics andI can give examples, but in the end,it is very difficult to bring the firstand second year students in thearea of my learning. Challengingfundamentals (Rowland, 2000) isfine but a lot of the basic hydrol-ogy is about measurement and pre-diction and these are based onknowledge of physics and mathe-matics. It is therefore mostly aboutthe application of basic science andthere is little use in challengingfundamentals at that point,

because we do not talk aboutfundamentals. We could onlychallenge the validity of theassumptions.

MYRTLE MOOSE: This stillseems like a very teacher-centricview: You decide what you believeis good for the student to learn.Maybe if you try to discover theissue from the other side you canmake them overlap more.

W. BEAVER: That is something Ican keep thinking about. Have agood day!”

W. BEAVER: A good day to youas well!

And with that, they both went ontheir way. Myrtle downstream to lookfor new tasty bits, and Willem,deeply in thought -upstream.

14Synergy

15 Issue 19

IntermezzoMost articles on the interactionbetween teaching and researchhave been written by academicsfor which education is the subjectof their teaching and their research.I have not yet come across a paper,on the same subject, written bysomeone who is wholeheartedlycommitted to research in a Sciencearea. This paper probably does notfill this void. Up to this point,Willem Beaver's behaviour mightbe compared to the classic modelof the relationship between teach-ing and research in which the twoconstantly pull away from eachother (Brew, 2003). But the rela-tionship between teaching andresearch is more complex andshould be further developed.

A letter arrivesIt was on a fine day, about twoweeks later, that Mrs. Storkreceived a letter from WillemBeaver. She was quite surprised butalso somewhat relieved by this fact.The last meeting with WillemBeaver and Zoef the Hare had lefther somewhat unfulfilled. Sheadmitted readily that there weredifferences in opinion about howresearch and scholarship in teach-ing should be valued but she didfeel that her main message had got-ten across - it is important to spendsome time on scholarship of teach-ing as this might improve some ofyour research work. She had how-ever worried about the fact thatshe had not had any contact withWillem since that day. She hadspoken to Zoef about it but he hadbeen in a hurry (as is often thecase). Also, Zoef had an even dif-ferent interpretation of the con-versation. He felt that he had been

the major mediator in the processand supported both parties torethink some of their securities;

clearly everything wasn'talways what it seemed.(“Sometimes it [a woozle]is, and sometimes it isn’t”(Milne, 1994:37).

But on the day that Mrs. Storkreceived the letter, she looked at itand waited some time before sheopened it. It wasn’t that she wasworried about it contents. She wasquite convinced that Willem wasa gentleman, and besides, they hadparted quite amenably. Mrs. Storkdidn’t receive that many letters.The idea that someone had actu-ally taken the time to write to herpleased her and she wanted thatfeeling to last a while. She alsoliked the suspense of an unopenedletter. Once it was open and read,the suspense was gone. So sheplaced the letter on the table andlooked at it. Sitting in her chair,she tried to guess what Willemwould want to write to her about.It clearly would be about researchin teaching and learning, and pos-sibly the letter was going to reiter-ate his earlier remarks. Repeatinghis remarks did not seem very log-ical, considering his complaintsabout being too busy. Why wouldhe bother writing a letter if shealready knew his views from theirconversation two weeks ago? Thismeant that it had to be somethingnew and important. But if that wasthe case, why had he not come overto talk to her? He only lived a lit-tle way down stream. Was itbecause he felt that she was notlistening to his remarks? Was shelistening to his side of the story?There she sat, wondering aboutthis and that, not knowing exactlywhat to expect, and in the endstarting to feel somewhat insecure.She recalled something she read inRowland (2000) - that insecurityis often a good starting point fordeveloping different thoughts.

It is of course well known that eachperson brings their own back-ground to the negotiations. Mrs.Stork could see that they mighthave stayed at that point if theyhad not managed to discover ashared context. On the other hand,Willem had offered some sharedcontext: “I do value research inteaching!” But what had been hercontribution? From her perspec-tive, research and teaching fittedwell together - but could that bean education-centred view? By thistime curiosity had won out, andshe opened Willem's letter.

The letterDear Mrs. Stork,I am generally not a letter writingperson, but Rowland (2000) sug-gests writing as a means of reflec-tion so I decided that it was wortha try. Of course I will not imme-diately try my hand at prose, so Ithought I would start with a sim-ple letter. For the last two weeks,I've been thinking about our dis-cussion and I seem to have movedin different directions. I have fol-lowed up some of your suggestedreading and had some discussionswith different academics in the for-est - Mr. Owl, the historian, mybrother Ed, and Myrtle Moose. Inaddition, I have given a few morelectures and this has given me somefurther insight. Besides, it is a rainyevening and I am stuck in thebeaver dam waiting to see if it willhold. I have decided to make asmall overflow in the dam to letmore water through and I hope Ihave got the design right. If Ihaven’t, than this letter might neverreach you.

Teaching and all that Hydrological research is close tomy heart because, as I pointed outthe other day, it is why I decidedto seek a career as an academic. Iadmit that this might be a limitedview of academia, since in its purestform, it is as much about teach-

2. I write therefore I reflect

ing as it is about research. Thislimited view might be more com-mon in the Science area since mostof the academics rise from the ranksof lonely postgraduate student,through to postdoctoral or researchfellow level and then become a lec-turer. In many cases, the first twosteps in academia are purelyresearch-oriented (in fact we some-times get complaints from the“research only” ranks if we ask themto teach). In Rowland's (2000)terms, the personal context wasquite skewed when I entered at thelecturer level. Some academics getenthused by new phenomena andso they happily engage in schol-arly inquiry into teaching andspend many of their waking hoursthinking or living teaching. Butmost academics in the sciencestend to stay with their first love,which is research.

I don’t think the issue is that I donot understand that I can improvemy teaching and that I would notwant to teach well. In fact it frus-trates me madly that teaching isnot as easy as I thought it was. Justas in research, I like to do thingswell, and in teaching and it justdoes not work that way. But weare frustrated that there is littletime for both teaching andresearch, and we tend to see teach-ing therefore as a chore. Clearlywe are making decisions in termsof time. The evolution of the sur-vival instinct in our species tendsto put strong emphasis on the shortterm and on loud signals. (“I havelearnt that it is not what you say,but how often you repeat it.” (D.E.Radcliffe, pers. comm). Such loudsignals tend to drown out the moresubtle and long-term messages -similar to life in a lecture theatre.The loud signals can, at somepoint, become so annoying thatyou need a holiday.

In academia, most of the short-term and loud signals comefrom administration and teaching

duties. I think this is due to theirrigid schedule and progress relatedto the semester system. On theother hand research has a muchsofter signature, except when thereporting time comes up. I con-stantly find myself looking at mylist of ‘things-to-do’ and say: “If Ican finish that and that, than I willhave some time for research.” Thislonging, almost craving, for a fewhours of research time only rein-forces my resentment to spendagain another hour on teaching,reflection on teaching or anythingrelated to it, however scholarly itis being sold to us.

This is all good and well but thisonly gives me some time to air myfrustrations. The question reallyis: How do we integrate teachingand research better? In a recentpaper (Brew, 2003) Angela Brewconceptualises a new model for therelationship between teaching andresearch. In this model the aca-demic community (which includesBoyer’s (1990) four forms of schol-arship) drives student learning andteaching and through this drivesconceptions of research. Thismeans that: “what [we] understandresearch and scholarship to be arekey influences on how we concep-tualise the nature of student learn-ing” (Brew, 2003:12). Teachingand research totally overlap andfeed on each other, which seemshighly idealistic.

(From a research-led teaching per-spective, I would actually think themodel should start at our concep-tions of research). However, I wasinspired by her model and tried todraw my own perception andunderstanding of the interactionof teaching and research.

Within all of these circles consistsa force field, which I think thePhysicists might be able to tell youmore about. In general, researchis still a different activity fromteaching; even research in teach-ing (education) is different fromthe actual act of teaching. Similarly,administration is separate. Ofcourse, there is a clear overlap inall of these, marking and markersmeetings can be considered teach-ing and administration and writ-ing a research report can beconsidered an act of administra-tion. This means that the circlesare never disconnected. Theboundaries on all three activitiesare the Institution and theSociety. Each impacts on the indi-vidual academic in conflictingways - in terms of demands on eachof our three activities. Some mightargue that there are even more cir-cles, such as professional activitiesand student supervision. I feel thatboth of these are actually includedwithin the other circles. In fact, Imight even be so bold to excludethe administration circle, since itis always in some way related tothe other two. The optimisationwe strive for is then located inincreasing the overlap betweenTeaching and Research, which ispossible (to a certain extent), asM. Moose talked about. In partic-ular, methods such as ProblemBased Learning can help integratesome of the teaching and research.These techniques draw on the useof real life problems as a way offocusing teaching and to instil asense of research in the students.This can definitely improve teach-ing activities and as such delivergain in time, after some initial time

Public context?

ResearchAdmin

Teaching

Institution

Society concepts

Figure 1. Willem's first view of theinteraction of Teaching and Researchwithin the larger University and com-munity context (Inspired by Figure 3in Brew, 2003).

16Synergy

17 Issue 19

investment. But how far can wemake the two rings overlap?

Let me talk a little about researchnow since most of the focus hasbeen on how to change our teach-ing. Can we change our researchto suit our teaching better whilebeing academically recognized inour preferred area of research?There are again several limitations,mostly related to funding. In orderto get funding in your favouritearea of research, you need to havedone at least some research in thisarea, which means a time invest-ment and learning in this area.Some of the teaching is not reallyin our research area, even thoughit is relevant for students who areinterested in a broader overview ofthe subject.

After pondering this further, I cannow focus my Figure 1 in moredetail to explore where I think teach-ing and research overlap. You'llnotice that I've continued to ignorethe administration component:

In Figure 2, I have tried to high-light where the possibilities of over-lap lie in terms of teaching andresearch. These possibilities liemainly in the area of conceptual,theoretical or investigative prob-lems. Those are the areas where wecan develop new ideas and ques-tion ideas that exist. It reminds meboth of the ‘journey’ and perhapseven the ‘layer’ conceptions of

research in Brew (2003). I thinkthis is also aligned with whatRowland (2000) identifies as theshared context. Problem BasedLearning lies in this area. Inresearch however, there are areasthat cannot easily be aligned withteaching. For me, these are col-lecting of data, publishing, devel-oping meaning and interpretationof data, and in the area of appliedresearch. In these areas there is lit-tle connection with the act of teach-ing, even though problems orcomponents might be used asexamples in teaching, or studentsmight be engaged in componentsof these activities. There is alwaysa need to actually collect data andproduce something. We do not allsit behind our desks and think.Cutting edge science in terms oftechnology development mightalso be positioned here.

The area of applied research isreally a problem. Here we are askedby society to deliver outcomes,integrate concepts and to discovernew outcomes. This reminds meof Brew's (2003) ‘trading’ and‘domino’ conceptions of research.However, it is exactly this area thatin the Sciences tradition, seems tobe most heavily funded, becausesociety currently demands solu-tions to problems (Fig. 1). It meanshowever that research is beingpushed away from the overlap withteaching, partly due to the pres-sure to deliver outcomes. On theother hand, a very applied area ofresearch might also allow a bettercombination of teaching andresearch because the differencebetween the two cannot be clearlydistinguished and the research canbe used as case studies in teaching.

On the other side of the spectrum,there are sections of teaching thathave little to do with research butare integral to the teaching pro-gram. These are topics related togeneric skills, basics in the field ofstudy, technical components of the

field and summarising material inthe degree. Although componentsof these are used in research, theteaching of those subjects does nothelp us with the doing of research.This might be the non-excitingcomponent of teaching thatRowland (2000:121) talks about.

There are two other dimensionsto this: What does the studentactually want to learn (Elton,2001) and what do we actuallywant the student to achieve (i.e.degree outcomes and genericattributes). A discussion of thesetwo issues would make this lettertoo long. Besides the rain hascleared, the dam has held, and Ithink my thoughts have beencleaned by the water washing someof them away. The water must havecarried them downstream forMyrtle to pick up. I think thismight be a new start.

Kindest regards, by moonlight, Willem Beaver

Mrs. Stork sighed and put down theletter, the air coming in from thewindow felt fresh and clear. It wastime for a new start.

ReferencesBoyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarshipreconsidered: priority of the profes-soriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegiefoundation for the advancement ofteaching.

Brew, A. (2003). Teaching andResearch: New relationships andtheir implications for inquiry-basedteaching and learning in highereducation. Higher EducationResearch & Development 22:3-18

Elton, L. (2001). Research andTeaching: conditions for a positivelink [1]. Teaching in HigherEducation 6:43-56.

Milne, A.A. (1994). Winnie the Pooh,the complete collection of storiesand poems. Methuen Children'sbooks, London.

Figure 2. Willem's second view of therelationship between teaching andresearch, in which the different com-ponents of teaching and research havebeen highlighted. Note that this figureis a subset of Figure 1.

Teaching Research

BasicsTechnical

SummarisingGeneric

Collection of data

PublishingAppliedresearch

ConceptualTheoreticalInvestigative

Rowland, S. (2000). The Enquiring UniversityTeacher. Buckingham: The Open UniversityPress and the Society for Research in HigherEducation.

Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser,M. (2000) Scholarship of teaching: a model.Higher Education Research and Development,19, 2, 155-168.

AcknowledgementsI am deeply indebted to all the 2003 partici-pants in the Graduate Certificate in HigherEducation at the University of Sydney, and tothe able and confident lecturers, Kim McShaneand Angela Brew. Of this group, special thanksto Sandra van der Laan for alerting me to thedialogue style. The style also stays within theScience tradition with the dialogues betweenAchilles and the Tortoise from the mathemati-cian Lewis Carroll and artificial intelligenceexplorer Douglas Hofstadter. I also want toacknowledge the Dutch Children's program,`De Fabeltjeskrant', for the choice of charac-ters. Special thanks also to Tai Peseta for encour-agement, critical advice and persistence topublish this paper.

book reviewMacfarlane, B. (2004). Teachingwith Integrity: the ethics of higher education practice. NY: Routledge Falmer

In Teaching with Integrity, BruceMacfarlane considers the ethicaldilemmas embedded in the every-daypractices and contexts of universityteaching. He casts a critical eye overthe conceptual frameworks nowbeing brought to bear on the work ofteaching – the impact of massification; the turn to profes-sionalism and ongoing professional development; the erosionof autonomy, together with the limits of reflective practice.Even as the student learning perspective comes to the forein universities, these critiques form part of what Macfarlaneidentifies as the ‘pedagogic gap’. He argues that being auniversity teacher requires more than mastery of a set of skillsor competencies, more than learning about how to facilitatediscussion, use technology or assess student projects. In fact,he makes a case for situating teaching and learning develop-ment work within the study of and about higher educationitself. In this context, university teachers ought not to shyaway from the ethical and values-based dilemmas ofacademic professionalism.

Clearly, there are echoes here of Ronald Barnett’s work, par-ticularly his seminal publication ‘The Idea of Higher Education(1990)’. But Macfarlane is much more practical in hisapproach. The book features a number of vignettes designedto showcase his concern for the integrity of teaching. Thereis the tutor who worries about the effect of an inappropriatecomment in a tutorial; the lecturer who has reluctantly agreedto teach a module outside her research area; the academicwho has to make decisions about essays that seem too simi-lar; a Head of Department who is required to address stu-dent complaints about a colleague; and an establishedProfessor who is being encouraged to be embrace ‘innovative’teaching and learning methods. These are the teaching andlearning dilemmas (evaluation, assessment, managing studentlearning, balancing research and teaching) that academics faceconstantly in their work. And the list of course is exhaustive.But with each of these vignettes, Macfarlane encourages uni-versity teachers to see beyond the policy and procedural struc-tures. He urges us to see the values in our teaching. He putsforward a set of virtues to support academics in grapplingwith their teaching responsibilities. Some of these includerespectfulness, sensitivity and courage, and in this sense,Macfarlane’s book contains important lessons for the univer-sity community as a whole. TP.

18Synergy

The Faculty of Agriculture and the Universityof Sydney have been my workplace since 1999,when I first arrived to take up a job as post-doctoral researcher. Before that time I had fin-ished a PhD in Soil Physics and anundergraduate degree in Land and Water engi-neering. Since late 2000, I have been employedas the McCaughey Lecturer Hydrology andCatchment Management and been responsi-ble for developing a teaching and researchprogram in this area. Between 2000 and 2003,I have been responsible for the developmentand coordination of 3 new units of study. Onthe one hand this has been a blessing; I havebeen able to really develop units of study, sincenothing existed in this area. But it probablyhas also led to the realisation that I shouldimprove on my teaching and better under-stand student learning. Luckily my teachingload has been lessened a bit this year. I com-pleted the Graduate Certificate in HigherEducation in 2003, and really enjoyed inter-acting with fellow staff members on issues ofteaching and learning. I have been particu-larly interested in the relationship betweenteaching and research and the developmentproblem based learning in units. I am cur-rently using problem-based learning in two ofthe units that I teach, and am keen to evalu-ate its effectiveness.

If you would like to talk with Willem about hisarticle, visit the online discussion forum at:www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/forumor contact him via email at:w.vervoort@acss.usyd.edu.au

19 Issue 19

projects

Internationalisation, GlobalCitizenship and InclusivityProjectThe ITL has always aimed to sup-port an inclusive teaching andlearning community. In the era ofglobalisation and internationalisa-tion we have defined that commu-nity in the broadest terms -international, national and local. Wehave adopted certain principles toguide us in how we conceptualise andapproach the task of preparing ourstudents for a globalised world:

Philosophy

• We support the University in itsgoal of becoming an internation-alised institution with global net-works in the spheres of research,teaching and learning

• We value the rich cultural diver-sity of our student body and workto foster inclusive teaching andlearning practices in relation tocultural difference

• We work with staff to developinternationalised and intercultur-al curricula in response to theglobal and local diversity repre-sented by both staff and students

• We work to develop attributes ofglobal citizenship among all ourstudents so they may contributefully to society as members oflocal, national and global com-munities

• We acknowledge the special placeof Indigenous knowledges andperspectives in our academiccommunity.

The Project

In the last few years we have beenwork ing on what we formally call aGlobal Citizenship, International-isation and Inclusivity Project. Theproject operates in a variety of waysand on a number of levels, includinginstitutional research; university-wide teaching and learning eventsand initiatives; and an integratedapproach to the inclusion of inter-national and intercultural perspec-tives and practices into other ITLstrategic projects. The University hasrecently had a particular focus on theissue of internationalisation, asevidenced by An InternationalUniversity, the September 2003Report of the Committee to ReviewInternationalisation (www.usyd.edu.au/about/profile/pub/internation-alisation.doc) However, as the prin-ciples above make clear, the ITLregards other, related issues as equal-ly important. In the ITL’s own reportDiversity and Inclusive Teaching(November 2003) (www.itl.usyd.edu.au/diversity/itl_diversityreport.pdf) we draw upon our own andother institutional research to sup-port this broader focus.

In suggesting ways of achieving moreinclusive teaching and learning,students’ views were central, along-side the perspectives of staff. Theappendices to the report contain awealth of teaching and learningstrategies from our own Universitycommunity. We welcome feedbackon our new project and encourageyou to visit the website at:http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/diversity

For further information contact theProject Coordinator, Dr ChristineAsmar on:C.Asmar@itl.usyd.edu.au

Research-led Teaching (RLT)Mike Prosser and Angela Brewrecently returned from an interna-tional colloquium on research-ledteaching in the UK. The colloquium- Research and Teaching: Closing theDivide attracted the world's leadingscholars in this area. Angela present-ed the work of the University ofSydney in an institutional case studyabout bringing research and teach-ing together. The ITL would like tothank and acknowledge the mem-bers of the Research-led TeachingWorking Group. Find out moreabout the University’s RLT Projectat: http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/rltor download the papers from thecolloquium at::http://www.solent.ac.uk/rtconference

researchAsmar, C., Proude, E. and Inge, L.(in press). ‘Unwelcome sisters’? Ananalysis of findings from a study ofhow Muslim women (and Muslimmen) experience university.Australian Journal of Education.

Applebee, A. Dearn, J. Donnan, P.and Kiley, M. (2003). How effectiveare traditional evaluations of teach-ing in flexible learning environ-ments? ODLAA papers. Open andDistance Learning Association ofAustralia Inc. July 2003. pp 1 - 7.

Brew, A. & Peseta, T. (2004).Changing postgraduate supervisionpractice: a programme to encouragelearning through reflection and feed-back. Innovations in Education andTeaching International. 41(1) 5-22.

ITL focus

20Synergy

Ellis, R.A., Calvo, R., Levy, D. & Tan,K. (2004). Learning through discus-sions. Higher Education Research andDevelopment. 23(1) 71-93.

Ginns, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J.(2003). When imagining informa-tion is effective. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 28, 229-251.

McShane, K. (2004). Integratingface-to-face and online teaching:academics' role concept and teach-ing choices. Teaching in HigherEducation. 9(1) 3-16.

Prosser, M. & Barrie, S. (2003).Using a student-focused learningperspective to strategically align aca-demic development with institu-tional quality assurance. In R.Blackwell and P. Blackmore (eds)Towards Strategic Staff Developmentin Higher Education. Buckingham;Open University Press.

For further information about theresearch work of the ITL, visit: http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/research

are you using onlinetechnology in your coursesor units of study?

This easy to follow checklistwas compiled in the context of theUniversity’s Information andCommunications Technologies(ICT) and Internationalisation,Global Citizenship and InclusivityProject. The ICT project aims tosupport staff using technologies intheir teaching and learning, but mostof the checklist is equally applicableto other teaching contexts:

In planning the unit, ask yourself,have I:

• established ‘ground rules’ or‘netiquette’ for how students willaddress each other in online dis-cussions?

• modelled inclusive approachesmyself in how I communicatewith students?

• used Plain English in all myinstructions?

• avoided unnecessary jaron, slangand idiom?

• provided paraphrases or glossariesfor essential technical terms?

• been very clear about whatstudents are expected/requiredto do?

• avoided cultural stereotyping (egreferring to all engineers as Bobor John)?

• avoided culture-specific jokes andanecdotes?

• used international/ inter-culturalexamples where possible?

• allowed self-paced learning forthose who need more time withthe material?

• thought about the cultural com-position of groups?

• been flexible on deadlines ifstudents have pressing culturalor religious commitments (egIndigenous students attendingfunerals; Muslims fasting inRamadan)?

• encouraged students to share,and respect, diverse views (peerlearning)?

• allowed students to negotiate

• assignments appropriate to theirbackgrounds and relevant to theircareers?

• helped students reflect on, anddevelop, attributes of globalcitizens?

• taken into account the variety ofstudents' technology skills (egexperience with platforms,packages, providers)

• thought about equity issues interms of students with disabili-ties; limited access to computers;or limited funds for download-ing and printing, limited visualaccess?

You can also access other teachingand learning tips on:

• Orienting students toUniversity Life

• Communicating Expectations

• Giving Feedback

• Encouraging Academic Honesty

at: http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/FYE/enhancing/docs/tips.htm

working with theuniversity communityto research, enhance

and assure the qualityof teaching andstudent learning

21 Issue 19

Lifelong learning features promi-nently in the University's new

framework for Generic GraduateAttributes, along with scholarshipand global citizenship. The abilityto self-regulate is a key aspect oflifelong learning (Blumberg, 2000;Denton, et al 2000; Dolmans &Schmidt, 1996; Schutz & Davis,2000). Successful self-regulatedlearners are able to:

• Decide what knowledge andskills to learn

• Diagnoise learning needs real-istically, with help fromfaculty and peers

• Relate to teachers asfacilitators, helpers, or consult-ants and take the initiative inmaking use of their resources

• Identify human and materialresources appropriate to differ-ent kinds of learningobjectives

• Select effective strategies skill-fully and with initiative

• Evaluate their own work andget feedback from othersabout progress

• Detect and cope with personalblocks to learning

• Renew motivation for learningwhen motivation lags(Knowles, 1975; Zimmerman& Martinez-Pons, 1986)

The development of self- regulatedlearning (SRL) abilities has been acore objective of the University ofSydney Medical Program since itsinception in 1997. Problem BasedLearning (PBL) is the educationalapproach used to achieve this.While there is considerable evi-

dence that PBL influences thedevelopment of these abilities(Albanese & Mitchell, 1993;

Evensen & Hmelo, 2000), fewstudies have looked systematicallyand in depth at how this develop-ment occurs. Additionally, in thecurrent climate of educationalaccountability, it is important toshow that students are developingthe attributes that the program issetting out to achieve.

The research studyWe wanted to explore the extentto which students are developingtheir SRL abilities in the first yearof the Medical Program. Weobserved three PBL groups dur-ing the Cardiovascular SciencesBlock at the end of Year 1 for evi-dence of developing SRL behav-iours. Each group comprises 8-9students and a tutor. All groupsexplore the same PBL cases in thesame order - a new one each weekfor the duration of the 6-weekBlock. To standardize our obser-vations, a schedule based on anextensive literature review wasdeveloped and tested in the weeksprior to the study. This was alsoused as a training exercise for inter-rater reliability. We were lookingfor evidence of a range of SRLbehaviours by students, including:making a comment/ proposing an

idea/providing an insight; askinga question; reflecting/self-evaluat-ing; seeking further information.

What did wefind?To date, we haveanalysed the obser-vation data fromjust one of the PBL

groups (see Appendix 1 sampleextract), but preliminary data fromthe other two groups indicates sim-ilar patterns of student behaviour.

Figure 1 indicates that ‘comment/idea/insight’ was the most commoninteraction observed. This includedstudents contributing knowledge tothe group, relating anecdotes fromtheir previous PBL cases or fromtheir clinical experiences, and sug-gesting possible hypotheses aboutthe PBL case presentation. Figure 1also shows that the frequency of allbehaviours (except reflection/self-evaluation) increased betweenweeks 2 and 6 of the Block. Figure2 shows an increase in frequencywith which resources such as text-books were used during thetutorial. These increases may beexplained by students’ developingknowledge and familiarity with car-diovascular science concepts; com-bined with the increasing difficultyof the PBL cases across the Block.

Statements indicating reflectionand self-evaluation (e.g. admittingto not understanding somethingor summarising the groups knowl-edge to date) were limited in bothcases. The low frequency of this

Self regulation: a key to life long learning in medical education

Sarah Hyde, Greg Ryan & Peter DavyOffice of Teaching & Learning in Medicine

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Freq

uenc

y

Week 2 Week 6PBL Case

Comment/idea/insightQuestionReflection/self evaluationSeeking information

Figure 1: Frequency of SRL behaviour observed in one PBL group

category might be due to studentsnot feeling comfortable reflectingaloud to the group or believing itis the role of the tutor to sum-marise and evaluate. Clearly, thisis a skill that needs further devel-opment among the second yearstudents in this pilot study.Another reason for the low fre-quency might be due to the inter-action of the group and thedialogue. In all interactionsobserved, discussion of contentknowledge dominated and theinteraction amongst group mem-bers was so fast paced that timefor reflection and self-evaluationappeared limited. This is some-thing that a tutor could facilitateand model to help improve anddevelop this self-regulatory skillamongst students.

An important factor in the PBLprocess is the nature and extent oftutor intervention. Table 1 showsthat compared with student inter-action, the tutor prompts were fewin number. The data also appearsto support the notion of an inverserelationship existing between tutorintervention and SRL behaviour -the fewer the tutor prompts, themore SRL behaviours are likely tobe exhibited by students. Analysisof the data from the remaining twogroups will shed further light onthis proposition.

The tutor of this particular groupwas actively following the discus-sion and only intervened when stu-dents were digressing or havingdifficulties. As Hadwin (1996)

observes, knowing what to ask,when to ask it and when to shareexpertise is the foundation of effec-tive facilitation for self-regulatedlearning. This tutor also askedstrategic questions to promptreflection on, and analysis of, learn-ing processes.

Concluding remarksThe results of this pilot study areencouraging. The ‘snapshot’ thatwe took of tutorial process indi-cates that our students appear tobe developing the SRL abilities thatare required for successful lifelonglearning. We acknowledge though,that some indicators of self regula-tion were not included in this study- students’ study habits, and inde-pendent learning outside of thePBL tutorial. A future extensionof this study method will involvefollowing-up the classroom obser-vations with independent inter-views. Although limited in its scopeat this stage, our study has demon-strated that a reliable ‘snapshot’ canbe taken of students SRL behav-iours using a well-constructedobservation schedule. As such, itcan provide other disciplines witha worthwhile approach to evaluat-ing their students’ development ofSRL abilities.

ReferencesAlbanese, M.A. and Mitchell, S.(1993). Problem-based learning: areview of literature on its outcomesand implementation issues.Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81

Blumberg, P. (2000). Evaluating theevidence that problem-based learn-ers are self-directed learners: areview of the literature. In D. H.Evensen and C. E. Hmelo (Eds.),A Research Perspective on LearningInteractions. Problem-BasedLearning (pp. Ch.9). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.

Denton, B. G., Adams, C. C., Blatt, P.J., and Lorish, C. D. (2000). Does theintroduction of problem-based learn-ing change graduate performanceoutcomes in a professional curricu-lum? Journal on Excellence in CollegeTeaching, 11(2&3), 147-162.

Dolmans, D., and Schmidt, H.(1996). The advantages of prob-lem-based curricula. PostgraduateMedical Journal, 72, 535-538.

Evenson, D.H. and Hmelo, C.E.(2000) (Eds). Problem-BasedLearning: A Research Perspective onLearning Interactions. London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Hadwin, A. F. (1996). Promotingself-regulation: Examining the rela-tionships between problem-basedlearning in medicine and the strate-gic content learning approach.Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association.

Knowles, M. (1975) Self DirectedLearning. New York. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ryan, G. L. (1997). The develop-ment of problem solving and selfdirected learning ability in problembased learning. UnpublishedDoctoral, Thesis University of Sydney,Sydney.

454035302520151050

Freq

uenc

y

Week 2 Week 6Resources used

Learning topics

Figure 2: Frequency of resource use

Lectures Theme sessions Textbooks

Table 1: Frequency of tutor interventions

Behaviour Week 2 Week 6

Comments/prompts 10 11

Questions 10 25

22Synergy

23 Issue 19

Schutz, P. A. and H. A. Davis(2000). "Emotions and self-regu-lation during test taking."Educational Psychologist 35(4):243-256.

Zimmerman, B. J. andM.Martinez-Pons (1986). "Develop-ment of structured interview forassessing student use of self-reg-ulated learning strategies."American Educational ResearchJournal 23(4): 614-628.

Appendix 1: Extract of observation data: Group discussion of PBL case issues

PBL Case 5.02 "Goingdownhill" - Block 5(CardiovascularSciences)

Data ExtractPBL Session 2

Case Overview:

A 43-year-old train driver pres-ents to his local doctor withincreasing breathlessness overthe preceding few months. Hehas a long history of heavydrinking and smoking, but noother relevant past history. Hisclinical signs and investigationsare consistent with congestivecardiac failure due to dilatedcardiomyopathy, probably alcohol-related.

Issue being discussed

Pathophysiology of thefailing heart

Extract from tutorialobservation notes (names changed):

Stage of PBL tutorial process:hypothesis testing and reviewof learning

SRL Behaviours

Key:C = Comment/Idea/Insight;Q = Question;R = Self-Reflection/evaluation;I = Seeking information

Peter (returning to hypotheses)suggested heart failure wasasymptomatic and infection wasnot a cause (C). Soon Lee dis-agrees with this (C). Susan askswhat causes left heart failure(Q). Ron answered pulmonaryoedema (C). Joanne said thatthe right side causes left sidedheart failure (C). There wassome discussion of whether pul-monary oedema is left or rightsided heart failure and is asymptom of right sided heartfailure (George, Ron, Peter,Susan) (C). Soon Lee asked ispulmonary oedema the sameas pulmonary congestion (Q).Peter answered (C). Ron addsthat it is very acute (C).

Sarah Hyde is an AssociateLecturer in Medical Education andPhD student investigating thetransfer of SRL between the PBLand clinical context.

Dr Greg Ryan is a Senior Lecturerin Medical Education whose areasof research include problem-based learning and self regulatedlearning.

Peter Davy is a Lecturer in MedicalEducation and is nearing comple-tion of his PhD on power in clini-cal communication andimplications for medical educa-tion.

All authors are staff of the Officeof Teaching and Learning inMedicine (OTLM- previously theDepartment of MedicalEducation), which provides sup-port to the Faculty of Medicine inthe areas of curriculum develop-ment, assessment and evaluation,particularly in relation to theUniversity of Sydney MedicalProgram (USydMP). We are alsocurrently in the first phase of imple-menting our new GraduateProgram in Medical Education.This program is designed to equipstudents with knowledge andunderstanding to meet the chang-ing global environment of med-ical education. OTLM academicstaff also act as educational con-sultants, and work closely with theFaculty's newly established Centrefor Inno-vation in ProfessionalHealth Education on a range offunded educational developmentprojects.

You can engage with Sarah andher co-authors in a conversationabout these ideas. Visit the onlinediscussion forum at:www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/forumor email Sarah at:shyde@med.usyd.edu.au

24Synergy

As academics we often try anddirect our students way from

surface learning approachestowards deep and engaging strate-gies. We are overjoyed when ourstudents show command of indi-vidual concepts and use them insynergy to produce original work.A superficial approach to learninglies at the other end of the scale,and sadly some students extrapo-late beyond surface learning into anacademically dishonest approachand resort to cheating in order togain the assessment marks that theydesire. We can think of a studentwho is reading the instructions fora university assignment for the firsttime, to be at a fork in the road. Atthis point, many will considerwhether to adopt a surface or evendishonest tactic versus a deepapproach. This article describes aset of strategies designed to dis-suade students from consideringplagiarism in order to completetheir assignment. It considers theways in which a research exercisecombining skill and creativity canmotivate student engagement withtheir learning. I will illustrate thiswith examples from approachestaken during 2003 in BIOL1003Human Biology, a unit of studywith 1300 students.

Assignments Using NovelResearch to Drive theDevelopment of Skills andCreativity In Human Biology, students under-take a piece of original research foran assignment. They write it up asa scientific manuscript that is thenmarked for the purpose of summa-

tive assessment. In this way sum-mative assessment is used to moti-vate students to learn a new set of

skills - writing the manuscript anddeveloping creativity in composingthe discussion section (Chudowskyand Pelligrino, 2003). An exampleof one research project was an inves-tigation into the effects of nasal dila-tor strips on heartbeat rate after lightexercise. Athletes, who want toincrease the flow of air through thenose, wear nasal dilator strips to pullout the lateral sides of the nose. 250student volunteers performed astepping exercise with and withoutthe nasal strips while other studentsorganized the experiments andrecorded data such as heartbeat ofthe subjects.

Setting an assignment for studentsthat engages them in a novelresearch investigation and trainsthem to write a scientific manu-script is a good example of out-come based education. Major andTaylor (2003) point out that giv-ing a student a clear indication ofthe destination of a learning exer-cise is a good way to help them mapthe road to that destination.Showing students how skills learntduring an assignment will helpthem in later life, builds motiva-tion for the learning exercise.University teachers may wish tooutline to students, the real-lifeapplications of research, writing,skill development and creativity forhonours and postgraduate study aswell as their relevance to industry.

Shifting Focus fromSummative to FormativeAssessmentAfter students carry out theirresearch experiments, the next stageis the writing process. The assess-

ment focus now shifts from sum-mative to formative purposes. Forexample it is a good idea to have

the students bring ina draft of theirassignment for feed-back. This processcan identify anymajor faults in theirlearning approach.

It can also be highly motivating forstudents to find that there is helpand assistance in a challenginglearning experience. Cameron et al(2003) propose that complex tasksoften require a student to build a“scaffolding” of learning processes.In research, this scaffolding or‘mind-mapping’ includes linkingconcepts such as prior research, sta-tistical analysis and discussion inlight of the new findings. Formativefeedback on the research-basedmanuscript helps students to seethe links between their research andthe field more broadly. Many stu-dents react very positively to form-ative assessment and startformulating their own plans forfuture novel experiments afterformative assessment and discus-sion of their draft manuscripts.When the teacher observes theirstudents linking new skills togeth-er as a basis for creative thinking,they know that they have facilitat-ed deep learning.

Academic Dishonesty; theAntithesis of Deep Learning One of the first steps in support-ing students’ to adopt a deepapproach to learning is to thinkabout the design of the assessmenttask. In our Human Biology unit,the novel research exercise hasproven quite successful. But manyacademics are still shocked to learnthat many students plagiarize theiruniversity assignments Maslen(2003), and that the problem is oneof major proportions in many areasaround the globe. In a study of 291British university science students,Underwood and Szabo (2003)reported that approximately half

Designing assigments that guard against academic dishonesty

and promote deep and active learningMMuurrrraayy TThhoommssoonn,, SScchhooooll ooff BBiioollooggiiccaall SScciieenncceess

25 Issue 19

the students said that they wouldbe willing plagiarize to avoid fail-ing a unit of study. Authors suchas Evans (2000) have noted thatabout 20 years ago plagiarism wasactually hard work and studentshad to at least take the time andsome mental effort to transcribedocuments. In contrast, nowadayswith a computer and the Internetthey can cut and paste in seconds.

In the Faculty of Science, where wehave a lot of large classes, often withnumbers of students counted inquadruple digits, any attempt todetect plagiarism has been seen inthe past as a daunting task. InHuman Biology, we came acrossanecdotal evidence that suggestedthat prior to 2003, many studentswere plagiarizing in part or full. Myobjective in 2003 was to set in placemechanisms that would obliterateany gain by attempted cheating inHuman Biology and provide anincentive to honestly engage in theacademic work of the assignment.

Assignments Using ResearchPreclude Some Forms ofAcademic Dishonesty Plagiarism can be divided into twoforms – one, copying text frompublished work and two, using thework of another student. Usingassignments based on new researchnot only drives deep learning butalso eliminates the possibility ofplagiarizing from prior workbecause there is no source to plun-der. It is also tempting to speculatethat if the students are involved inthe study as researchers they willfeel some ownership of the projectand may feel a stronger involve-ment in the learning process.

When students are steered into aproject that centres on creativework that cannot be copied fromprior work there remains theoption to copy from other stu-dents. The next step in assignmentdesign should tackle this issue.Inter-student plagiarism itself is a

category that breaks down into 2sub-categories, 1) plagiarizingfrom students from previous years,2) plagiarizing from current stu-dents. Plagiarizing from previousyears' assignments is a well recog-nized practice and colleges all overthe world are known to havelibraries of assignments that can berecycled (Underwood and Szabo2003). Setting an assignment thatrequire a novel synthesis of ideasand is not repeated annually alsocuts off the lure of web site papermills such as “The Evil House ofCheat”, which offer thousands ofassignments that students use asfodder for plagiarized work(Scanlon and Neumann 2002).Das (2003) suggests that the beststrategies against plagiarism are theones that prevent the event fromoccurring, and the strategies that Ihave described above counter asmany types of plagiarism before theevent, as is possible.

Eliminating the Temptationof Inter-student PlagiarismIn combating academic dishonesty,all that remains after constructing aresearch based and annually chang-ing assignment is plagiarism bet-ween current students. This is animportant consideration as there isevidence that academic dishonestyis rife in Australia and there is noreason to suppose that thisUniversity is immune. One of theproblems with detecting inter-stu-dent plagiarism in Human Biologyfor example is that there are usuallyover 50 markers each with over 25assignments to mark. The chancesof two students even having thesame marker are small and if the pla-giarist changes some of the wordsaround or mixes and matches fromsay 3 other assignments, the chancesof detection by conventional meansfade to almost nothing.

I decided to use the CopyFind pla-giarism detection software (free anddownloadable from: (http://plagia-rism.phys.virginia.edu/software.html),

developed by the University ofVirginia, USA to:

• gain objective data on local pla-giarism.

• identify students in need ofcounselling

• act as a deterrent inter-studentplagiarism; the only form ofplagiarism left in a novelresearch based assignment.

This is an incredibly powerful appli-cation that can be programmedusing simple but effective parame-ters to ignore legitimate levels ofsimilarity between students' assign-ments but only detect sections ofdishonestly duplicated text.

The Human Biology students wereadvised in 2003 that they were tohand in both a hard copy of theirassignment as well as submittingan electronic copy via the WebCTsite. Students were made fullyaware that these files would bescanned for plagiarism. A numberof instances of plagiarism weredetected. The students who pla-giarised were interviewed by atleast one of a team of 5 academicsand the information obtained fromthese interviews was invaluable inlearning what drives students to tryand cheat. All students were askedto write a written submission onhow they plagiarized the work andtheir thoughts after some reflectionon their actions. The interviewsand submissions helped us in dis-covering some of the factors thatcontribute to plagiarism and devel-op our strategies to combat thisform of cheating. Two themes ofparticular interest follow.

The internet plays a big partin dissemination of materialfor plagiarismI encountered several instanceswhere one student sent an assign-ment to several friends via e-mailwho in turn each sent it on to sev-eral of their friends and so on toproduce an amplification effect.

Chat networks also play a major rolein inter-student cheating where onestudent coaxes another to cut andpaste sections of an assignment intothe chat window. Sometimes a stu-dent repeats the practice until pieceby piece they acquire large sectionsof work to plagiarize.

Plagiarism has become anentrenched culture for somestudentsSome students told us that therewere networks of friends that auto-matically responded to assignmentswith plagiaristic behaviour. Forsome of our students to actually doan assignment themselves wasunthinkable and a concept that wasentirely foreign to them. This behav-iour has also been observed byUnderwood and Szabo (2003) whofound that 6% of tertiary sciencestudents viewed cheating throughplagiarism as a “way of life”. A pro-portion of the dedicated plagiaristsin Human Biology did, however,respond in a positive (albeit grudg-ingly) manner to the anti-plagiarismsoftware. I observed and talked tomany students who, before theassignment was due, very vocallyvoiced their dismay that they wouldactually have to do an assignmentthemselves. Nonetheless, they diffi-dently acquiesced to the new disci-pline and said that for the first timethey would engage in the learningexperience.

I hope that many other academicswill take up the challenge to designassignments that promote deeplearning and close the road that goesaround the academic mountain toencourage their students instead toclimb to the peak.

References Cameron J, Walsh P, Stavenhagen-Helgren, T; Kobritz, B (2002)Assessment as critical praxis: A com-munity college experience. TeachingSociology. 30, 414-429.

Chudowsky N and Pelligrino JW(2003) Large-scale assessments thatsupport learning: what will it take?Theory into Practice. 42, 75-88.

Das SK (2003) Plagiarism in HigherEducation: Is there a remedy? TheScientist. 17, Oct 20.

Evans J (2002) The new plagiarismin higher education: From selectionto reflection. Interactions. 4, 2.

Major H, Taylor D (2003) Teachingfor learning: design and delivery ofcommunity college courses. TheCommunity College Enterprise. 9,63-77.

Maslen G (2003) Dirty marks. TheBulletin. June 10, 18-22.

Scanlon PM, Neumann DR (2002)Internet plagiarism among collegestudents. Journal of College StudentDevelopment. 43, 374-386.

Underwood J, Szabo A (2003)Academic offences and e-learning:individual propensities in cheating.British Journal of EducationalTechnology. 34, 467-477.

One of my greatest joys is to see stu-dents who are having fun in their terti-ary education. I really believe that oncestudents start enjoying themselves dur-ing their degree nearly all the problemsthat can crop up in University life, dis-appear. Around 1997, I started exper-imenting with electronic media thatmade the lecture theatre a more engag-ing experience for the students – includ-ing electronic media such as computeranimation and rendered models. In1998, I wrote a paper that describedhow these new media could be com-bined with traditional lecture tech-niques (Thomson, 1998). In 2000, Icompleted the Graduate Certificate inEducational Studies (Higher Education)at the Institute of Teaching andLearning. During the course, I becamevery keen on exploring competency-based learning, and I noticed howmotivated students could become whenthey became proficient in new skills.

I had been working in 2000 on mak-ing difficult concepts in science moreunderstandable via the use of analo-gies and linking unfamiliar conceptsto familiar concepts. I also began invit-ing more questions and discussion inlarge lectures to identify areas ofinstruction that benefited from this typeof reinforcement. I had been collab-orating and swapping ideas with agroup of five academics that wereinterested in increasing the positiveaspects of the first year experience andin 2000 we were awarded the ViceChancellor’s Award for OutstandingTeaching. I have been continuing myefforts in helping students increasemotivation levels via learning valuablenew skills and in 2003 I coordinateda team that secured SESQUI fundingto equip the first year biology labs withDNA analysis equipment. I have beenan academic for 10 years now and Istill experience delight when I see thelook, on a students face when theirteacher finds the right technique tohelp them understand and engage intheir learning.

Thomson, M. (1998). MultimediaAnatomy & Physiology Lectures forNursing Students. Computers inNursing. 16,101-108.

You can engage in a conversation withMurray at the online discussion forumat: www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy /forumYou can also contact Murray by oremail at: mthomson@bio.usyd.edu.au

26Synergy

27 Issue 19

This brief review will discuss howand when students might use

mental practice to enhance learning.Hopefully, Synergy readers can usethese resources to imagine how suchtechniques might be adopted to suittheir teaching and learning con-texts. Suitably sequenced imagina-tive activities should encouragestudents to adopt a deeper approachto learning than they might other-wise (Biggs, 1999).

Mental Practice in ComplexEducational DomainsThe term “mental practice” (MP)has been defined as “…the sym-bolic, covert, mental rehearsal of atask in the absence of actual, overt,physical movement” (Driskell,Copper and Moran, 1994; p.481).Other terms for MP are mental orcovert rehearsal, or imaginary prac-tice. There is a large body of exper-imental research demonstratingMP of both physical and cognitiveskills can enhance learning, com-pared to a control condition, par-ticularly when:

• the task to be learned has at leastsome cognitive operations (e.g.planning, comparing and con-trasting), as opposed to beingpurely physical (i.e. MP is of lit-tle benefit to weightlifters);

• the learner has had the oppor-tunity to first construct a schema(a long-term memory knowl-edge structure permitting prob-lem-solving) for the task, beforebeing asked to attempt MP(Driskell et al, 1994).

Recent advances in Cognitive LoadTheory (Cooper, Tindall-Ford,Chandler and Sweller, 2001;

Ginns, Chandler and Sweller,2003; Sweller, 2003) have clarifiedhow our knowledge of the mindcan be used to incorporate MPeffectively into educational activi-ties. If a learner is a complete novicewith respect to a task (e.g. using anovel physics problem), then shemust construct a schema for solv-ing the problem in long-termmemory, by linking new elementsof information (from a teacher,textbook, or some other externalsource) with relevant prior knowl-edge (held in long-term memory,LTM). Schema construction is aneffortful process, taking place inworking memory (WM; also knownas short-term memory), which isextremely limited in capacity. If astudent has barely begun to con-struct a schema, asking her to men-tally practise the task is likely tooverload working memory andimpede learning. To mentally prac-tice a task, the student would needto retrieve a set of (at this point)unrelated facts and proceduresfrom LTM, hold them all active inWM, as well as imagine the rela-

tionships between these elementsof information and how certainrules might be used to transform

available informa-tion to solve a prob-lem. At this point,getting the studentto study (readthrough and under-stand) the task is

more congruent with the goal ofschema construction.

Let me give you an example. Work-ed examples are instructional mech-anisms demonstrating the means bywhich an expert would solve a prob-lem (Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, andWortham, 2000). Figure 1 is aworked example from high schoolgeometry used by Ginns et al (2003).

Learning by imagining in higher education

PPaauull GGiinnnnss,, IInnssttiittuuttee ffoorr TTeeaacchhiinngg aanndd LLeeaarrnniinngg

Example (see Figure 1)You will have 3 minutes for thistask, followed by a similar problemto solve. Make sure you concen-trate on this task, because you willbe given a very similar problem tosolve immediately afterwards.

You will now be shown a workedexample. You will have 3 minutesto:

• look at the worked example

• read the information carefullyand try to understand the infor-mation and the steps

• IMAGINE the diagram and thesteps needed to solve the prob-lem, without the actual numbers.

Step 1: verticallyopposite anglesare equal

("Given" angles are in normal type; Steps 1 and 2 of the solution are in italic type.)

the exterior angle is equal to the sum ofthe 2 interior opposite angles.

600

800

800

1400Step 2: B = 80 + 60 =

Figure 1 - Worked example (Ginns et al, 2003)

Problem - In this diagram, what is the value of Angle B?

In this experiment, Year 8 studentswho had prior knowledge of geom-etry, but not these specific geome-try rules, studied or imagined(mentally practised) the workedexample for 3 minutes, solved apractice question, then studied orimagined a similar worked exam-ple, followed by another practicequestion. Students in the MP con-dition solved significantly moretransfer problems, and solved themmore quickly, than those in thestudy condition. These results havebeen replicated with adult learn-ers, with similarly strong results(Leahy & Sweller, in submission).To date, MP of worked exampleshas been found to be effective withpaper-based, computer-based, andaudio-visual (tape-recorder-based)mathematics materials.

Once a student has constructed aschema for solving a problem, thetime becomes ripe for MP. Whensuch a learner retrieves a schemafrom LTM into WM, it can beretrieved as a unified whole, ratherthan as unrelated or only partiallyrelated elements of information. Assuch, the more knowledgeablelearner is at much less risk of anoverburdened WM if then askedto mentally practise a task. For sucha learner, further study of a task islikely to be redundant, as they havealready constructed a schema forthe task. MP, on the other hand,may act to automate the schema.Automated schemas are easier toretrieve from LTM, and take upfewer mental resources in WMthan non-automated or partially-automated schemas. In complexdomains such as mathematics andlanguages, it is often crucial toautomate basic skills beforeattempting to learn more complexnotions building on simpler ones.While schema construction mayhappen relatively quickly, schemaautomation is a much slowerprocess, often requiring consider-able deliberate practice. MP maythus be an effective means of

encouraging schema automation. I encourage readers of Synergy toconsider how they might guide stu-dents to use their imaginationswhen learning. In particular, MP ofworked examples is a novelapproach with considerable prom-ise for enhancing student learningin mathematical, scientific andtechnical domains. More generally,educational research indicates MPcan be effective in higher educationand adult education domains as dis-tinct as music (Connolly, 2002;Freymuth, 1999), chemistry(Beasley (1985), and communica-tion skills (Morin & Latham,2000), counselling (Baker,Johnson, Strout, Kopala & Pricken,1986; Baker, Scofield, Munston &Clayton, 1983), clinical skills(Rakestraw, Irby & Vontver, 1983),and communication/interpersonalskills (Brown & Latham, 2000;Morin & Latham, 2000). There is,however, presently a relative lack ofresearch indicating how MP mightbe applied successfully to learningin the humanities and social sci-ences, with considerable scope foreducational researchers to exploresuch techniques.

References Baker, S.B., Johnson, E., Strout, N.J.,Kopala, M., & Pricken, P.A. (1986).Effects of separate and combinedovert and covert practice models oncounselling trainee competence andmotivation. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 33(4), 469-470.

Baker, S.B., Scofield, M.E., Munston,W.M., & Clayton, L.T. (1983).Comparative effects of teachingbasic counselling competenciesthrough brief microskills practiceversus mental practice. CounselorEducation and Supervision, 23,71-82.

Beasley, W. (1985). Improving stu-dent laboratory performance: howmuch practice makes perfect?Science Education, 69(4), 567-576.

Brown, T.C., & Latham, G.P. (2000).The effects of training in verbal self-guidance and goal setting on team-playing behavior: a fieldexperiment. Paper presented at the

Academy of Management AnnualMeeting, Toronto, August 2000.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for qual-ity learning at university.Camberwell: ACER.

Cooper, G. (1998). Research intoCognitive Load Theory andInstructional Design at UNSW.Retrieved October 28, 2003, fromhttp://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/CLT_NET_Aug_97.HTML

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedialearning. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructionaldesign in technical areas.Melbourne: ACER Press.

Full references available at the website.

28Synergy

Dr Paul Ginns is the Survey Officerfor the Institute for Teaching andLearning. He is responsible for thedesign, administration and reportingof the various large scale institution-al surveys. These include theGraduate Destination Survey, theCourse Experience Questionnaire,and the Postgraduate ResearchExperience Questionnaire (forgraduates of the University), andthe Student Course ExperienceQuestionnaire and Student Resea-rchExperience Questionnaire (for currentundergraduate and postgraduatecoursework students). He also man-ages the administration of theGraduate Skills Assessment Test.Paul’s research interests lie in theapplication of cognitive psychology tothe design of instructional materials,and specifically, how mental practicecan enhance learning in realistic edu-cational settings. Some of his recentresearch is focused on the psycho-metric characteristics of the variousquality assurance and improvementinstruments used by the ITL. WithAssoc. Prof. Jim Kitay and Assoc. Prof.Mike Prosser, Paul has been research-ing the factors affecting the transferof learning back to academic work-places. He has taught undergradu-ate courses at the University of NSWin organisational psychology, intro-ductory educational psychology, andinstructional design.

You can engage with Paul in a con-versation about this article. Visit theonline discussion forum at :www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/forum,or email at: P.Ginns@itl.usyd.edu.au

29 Issue 19

In recent years, the Psychology 1tutorial/demonstration program

has undergone major revision.Whilst previously students hadevaluated this program positively,tutoring staff had identified someweaknesses. It was felt that severaltutorial/demonstrations and/orrelated materials needed to beupdated or revised, and that theprogram itself needed to be moreforward looking in its approach.This article describes the proce-dures and outcomes of these revi-sions, and the responses receivedfrom both first year students andteaching staff.

Objectives, Procedures, andExamples of Revision Current senior tutors were consid-ered the most appropriate staffmembers to work on these revisionsdue to their first-hand experience ofthe existing program, and theirfamiliarity with the teaching con-tent, materials and procedures thatwork well with Psychology 1students. In a series of meetingsinvolving them and the courseco-ordinators, problematic tutori-als/ demonstrations were identified,and approaches to improving themwere discussed. Smaller groups oftutors were contracted to implementchanges for individual tutorial/demonstrations.

The aims of the revision processwere to:

• update all material (severaltutorial/demonstrations hadremained virtually unchangedfor many years);

• further stimulate the interest ofthe students;

• increase students’ engagement

with the material by encourag-ing more extensive critical dis-cussion of issues, incorporatingmore small group work, and fur-ther developing interactive web-based learning tasks;

• place greater emphasis on thepractical relevance of the con-tent being taught;

• improve the clarity of theHandbook notes which guidestudents’ learning during tuto-rial/demonstration classes.

Several tutorial/demonstrationswere completely redesigned eitherto improve the clarity and mode ofcontent delivery, or to focus thetutorial/demonstration on topics ofgreater importance and interestto students. For example, thePsychobiology tutorial/ demonstra-tion was rewritten to include a classdiscussion and web-based demon-stration on how drugs work. Thenew tutorial/demonstration putgreater emphasis on helping stu-dents to understand the funda-mental processes involved in neuraltransmission, and it was more close-ly aligned with lecture content.

The development of web-basedinteractive programs was undertak-en for several other tutorial/demonstrations. For example, aprogram written for the Motivationtutorial/demonstration allowedstudents to view footage of instinc-tive behaviour in animals, and “dragand drop” exercises were introducedto enhance their engagement withthe material.

Revisions which promote the prac-tical relevance of course content are

perhaps best exemplified in theSensory Processes tutorial/demon-stration, in which students are

taught about sen-sory thresholdsand their measure-ment. Previously,we had notstressed the practi-cal importance of

such thresholds and students tend-ed to find the tutorial/demonstra-tion rather ‘dry’. In order to identifythe relevance of difference thresh-olds, students now watch a shortvideo about “shrinking products”before considering why manufac-turers may value knowledge aboutthe degree of change that people canreadily detect. They then test theirown ability to detect differencesin “safe” versus “dangerous” skinlesions in an interactive PowerPointpresentation.

PowerPoint presentations weredeveloped for many tutorial/demonstrations in order to improvethe clarity of teaching. For theMotivation tutorial/demonstra-tion, scenes from a video detailinga famous experiment on instinct/learning, were interspersed withscreens of explanatory dot-points.Thus, tutors can now ensure thatstudents have grasped the informa-tion necessary for understandingeach scene (without having to stopand start a video that students havealways found difficult to follow).

Feedback on the RevisedTutorial/demonstrationProgramA number of mechanisms wereemployed for collecting feedbackon the changes to the tutorial pro-gram. Firstly, tutors were asked toprovide feedback, either by emailduring the week in which thetutorial/demonstration was beingtaught (so that immediate adjust-ments could be made), or in theirweekly meetings. Secondly, web-based message boards were availablefor students and teaching staff to

Recent imrovements in the first year psychology tutorial/demonstration program: procedures & outcomes

GGaavviinn JJ.. FFaauunnccee && JJuulliiee HHaattffiieelldd,, SScchhooooll ooff PPyysscchhoollooggyy

post comments about the tutori-al/demonstration program, alongwith other aspects of the Psychology1 course. Finally, students wereasked to rate various aspects of thetutorial/demonstration program informal evaluations conducted at theend of each Semester.

The response to the Psychology 1tutorial/demonstration changes wasvery positive. The 2001 tutorial eval-uations were excellent, and feedbackfrom tutors (via email, messageboards, and meetings) indicated thatmany of the changes had indeedimproved substantially the teachingand learning quality of the program.They felt that the new course con-tent was well received, and that thenew class exercises promoted dis-cussion and student involvement. Anumber of the changes hadimproved students’ understandingof material they had previouslyfound difficult. Unfortunately, stu-dents made little use of the web-based message boards.

Further Refinement of theRevised Tutorial/ demon-stration ProgramFollowing the successful revisions in2001, tutors identified the need forsome minor refinements to therevised program. Again, a workingparty comprising the course co-ordi-nators and interested senior tutorswas convened and possible changeswere discussed. Necessary changeswere completed in time for thebeginning of the 2002 academicyear. One such change was the inclu-sion of a video in the Introductorytutorial/ demonstration to conveynecessary administrative informa-tion in a more entertaining fashionand to orient students to the Schoolof Psychology in a visual medium.The most significant change wasthe replacement of the statisticstutorial/demonstration (which wastransferred to the web for studentsto complete in their own time)with a new tutorial/ demonstrationon Addiction.

The guiding principle behind theAddiction tutorial/demonstrationtutorial was to provide a context inwhich the various threads intro-duced during Semester 1 are inter-woven. Students often find itdifficult to identify the relationshipbetween the six areas of psychologyto which they are introduced inSemester 1 lectures. Thus, it wasdecided that the last tutorial/demonstration of Semester 1 shoulddemonstrate how several of theseareas approach a single problem.Addiction was chosen as a problemfor which several of the areas haveoffered explanations. It was hopedthat this tutorial/demonstrationwould enable students to integrateand revise the material covered dur-ing Semester 1. Again, these changeswere well received by students andtutors alike.

ConclusionSubstantial steps have been takento improve the experience, bothacademically and socially, of firstyear Psychology students.Naturally, improvements to anycourse are an ongoing process, andwe aim to keep fine-tuningPsychology 1 into the future.

30Synergy

Gavin Faunce graduated with aPhD in Psychology from theUniversity in December 2000. Hehas supervised Honours andGraduate Diploma in Science(Psychology) students since 1999.Gavin has also been activelyinvolved in teaching and learningresearch, having collaboratedwith A/Prof Dianna Kenny inresearching the effect of privatecoaching on academic perform-ance in high school students. Ajournal article based on thisresearch has recently been accept-ed for publication in Journal ofEducational Research. He has var-ied research interests, includinganxiety-related cognitive biases,eating disorders and body image,anti-fat attitudes, and health andsafety psychology.

Julie Hatfield also has a PhD inPsychology from the University ofSydney. She has been responsiblefor coordinating the first year tuto-rial and lecture programs, and hasdesigned and delivered lecturesin Senior Psychology: HealthPsychology and for the GraduateDiploma: Health Psychology. Juliehas supervised numerous fourthyear and postgraduate students inconducting research projects inthe area of Health Psychology.With Gavin Faunce, she recentlysubmitted a paper to Teaching ofPsychology that discusses theneed for teachers of psychologyto avoid confusion surroundingthe phrase “correlation does notimply causation”.

You can engage with others in aconversation about the ideas inthis article. Visit the online discus-sion forum at : www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/forum or email Julie at:j.hatfield@unsw.edu.au

31 Issue 19

Current learninginitiatives in the Facultyof Rural Management

During the last year or so, theFaculty of Rural Management(FRM) has been engaged in fourinitiatives that we would like toshare: increasing the usage ofWebCT in teaching, a new onlinepostgraduate coursework degree,a comprehensive unit evaluationpolicy that ensures every unittaught by faculty staff is evaluatedevery time it is offered, and anextensive benchmarking processfor three degree programs.

A number of staff developmentworkshops have been held over thelast eighteen months to assist staffto introduce new teachingmethodologies using WebCT.These methodologies have beenparticularly helpful in reducing thesense of isolation experienced bymany distance education students.Key learning strategies involvereflection and challenge throughasynchronous discussion forumsand engagement through collabo-rative learning strategies. In a num-ber of units the distinction betweenon-campus and distance learnersis being blurred by the combineduse of WebCT by both groups pro-viding further enrichment to thetotal learning experience.

The Master of Sustainable Man-agement is specifically designed forthe busy executive. Available by dis-tance learning only, the backboneof the course is the use of interac-tive online activities presented over

intensive eight-week teaching peri-ods and supported by printed learn-ing guides. Students first enrolledat the start of 2003 and early resultsshow very low attrition and an activestudent cohort that is well pleasedwith the mode of delivery.

The Faculty has adopted the con-cept that every unit taught deservesto be evaluated each time it isoffered and that the findings, andthe actions taken as a result of theevaluations, should be properlycommunicated to the student body.A three-year cycle is now in opera-tion with FRM undertaking its ownevaluations in 2002 and 2003 withITL's USE instrument to be pro-vided this year. Following the stu-dent evaluations each semester,teaching staff are asked to respondto the collated evaluation resultsand to indicate what changes, ifany, they will subsequently intro-duce either as a result of the stu-dent feedback received or else dueto their own reflections.

In May 2003 FRM received a TIFgrant to enable a national andinternational benchmarking ini-tiative for three programs: theBachelor of Farm Management,the Bachelor of HorticulturalManagement and the Bachelor ofEquine Business Management.This exercise, which arose fromthe Academic Board Review of thefaculty, is nearing completion.Extensive recommendations forcurriculum change across the threeprograms are anticipated.

Chris Morgan, Associate Dean(Teaching & Learning)

Quality Assurance andImprovement at TheUniversity of Sydney

A new website now outlines thequality assurance initiatives acrossthe University. Staff are encour-aged to visit the website at: http://www.usyd.edu.au/qualityin preparation for the AustralianUniversity Quality Assurance(AUQA) visit in late July this year.

2004 Vice-Chancellor’sAwards for UniversityTeaching

Although applications for theVice-Chancellor’s Award of Out-standing Teaching have now closedand the Excellence in ResearchHigher Degree Supervision willclose on May 14, a new category‘Supporting Student Learning’ wasannounced earlier this year. Fur-ther information is available at:http://www.itl. usyd.edu.au/awardsEach year the ITL works withintending applicants of both uni-versity and national awards, soplease contact us on 9351 3725 oremail :itl@itl.usyd.edu.au if you are inter-ested in applying.

Higher EducationTeaching and LearningConferences at TheUniversity of Sydney

The University of Sydney will behosting the Higher EducationResearch and Development SocietyAustralia (HERDSA) and the 9thPacific Rim First Year in HigherEducation Conference in 2005.Watch this space for further details.

T&L snapshots

conferencesAUSTRALIA, NZ ANDASIAN REGION

Australian Universities QualityForum (AUQF)Theme: Quality in a Time ofChange7-9 July 2004Hyatt Regency, North Terrace,Adelaide, South Australiahttp://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/index.shtml

Higher Education Research andDevelopment Society AustralasiaConference (HERDSA)Theme: Transforming Knowledgeto Wisdom: Holistic Approachesto Teaching and Learning4 - 7 July 2004Curtin University of Technology, Miri Campus, SARAWAKhttp://herdsa2004.curtin.edu.my/

8th Pacific Rim First Year inHigher Education Conference(FYHE)Theme: Dealing with Diversity14–16 July 2004Monash University (ClaytonCampus), Melbournehttp://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au

Australian Association forResearch in EducationConference (AARE)Theme: Doing the Public Good:Positioning Education Research28 Nov – 2 December 2004Melbourne, Victoriahttp://www.aare.edu.au/conf2004/index.htm

Australian Society forComputers in Learning inTertiary Education Conference(ASCILITE)Theme: Beyond the Comfort Zone5-8 December 2004Perth, Western Australiahttp://www.ascilite.org.au/confer-ences/perth04

UK, EUROPE & THEMEDITERANEAN

Institute for Learning andTeaching, UKTheme: Delivering Excellence29 June – 1 July 2004University of Hertfordshire, UKhttp://www.ilt.ac.uk/conference.asp

International Conference onInformation CommunicationTechnologies in Education (ICICTE)Hosted by the Research andTraining Institute of the EastAegean (INEAG), Greece1-3 July 2004 Samos Island, GREECEhttp://www.ineag.gr/icicte/default.asp

Improving Student LearningSymposium (ISL)Theme: Diversity and Inclusivity6-8 September 2004Birmingham, UKhttp://www.brookes.ac.uk/servic-es/ocsd/1_ocsld/isl2004/

Society for Research in HigherEducation Conference (SRHE)Theme: Whose HigherEducation?: Public and PrivateValues and the KnowledgeEconomy14-16 December 2004University of Bristol, UKhttp://www.srhe.ac.uk/

CANADA, UNITED STATESAND SOUTH AMERICA

Society for Teaching andLearning in Higher EducationConference (STLHE)Theme: Experiencing the Richnessof the University Mosaic: fromDiversity to Individuality16-19 July 2004University of Ottawa, CANADAhttp://www.uottawa.ca/services/tlss/stlhe2004/

5th World Conference of theInternational Consortium forEducational Development(ICED)Theme: Defining a Profession: theconvergence of goals of universityprofessors and faculty developers21-23 June 2004 Ottawa, Canadahttp://www.uottawa.ca/services/tlss/iced2004/

Carslaw Building F07, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia

T:+61 2 9351 3725 F:+61 2 9351 4331 E: itl@itl.usyd.edu.au W: http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au