Filters
Availability
Publication Year
Resource Type
Faculty
School/Institute
Publication Search Results
Sort
Results per page
1 - 10 of 10
-
(2003)Conference Paperlive performance
-
-
-
(2005)Conference Paper
-
-
-
-
(2008)Conference PaperIn generalist degrees such as the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts, students can take any number of combinations of subjects. Tracking their progress in regard to graduate attributes (GA) development is particularly difficult. We describe how we mapped GA development for commonly chosen pathways in the BSc and BA (generalist degrees) and faculty ‐ defined pathways (specialist degrees). We will discuss how the mapped courses enabled engagement of both students and staff.
-
(2009)Conference PaperIn generalist degrees such as the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts, students can take any number of combinations of subjects according their own learning goals. Tracking their progress in regard to graduate attributes development is therefore particularly difficult. Over half of our undergraduate science and arts students are enrolled in the flagship generalist degree programs (BSc and BA), and most of our staff teach into these degrees, which provides a powerful incentive to examine where and how students are being offered opportunities to develop graduate attributes (GA) within their program. This work builds on our previous initiatives to demonstrate how we mapped GA development across programs for both commonly chosen pathways (goat tracks) within the generalist BSc and BA and professionally-defined pathways or specialist degrees. Engineering space for critical conversations, with staff and students, to explore student learning requires a catalyst. In the case of the BA at UNSW, the catalyst was provided by a complete BA program renewal, a management-driven process. The catalyst for staff to engage in GA mapping in BSc at UNSW was provided by scholarly leadership from within the discipline. From these critical conversations, regardless of the type of catalyst, staff were able to become more explicit in identifying where and how the GA were linked to the students' learning activities and assessment tasks.
-
(2009)Conference PaperA raft of models and definitions of SoTL exist and the best appear to transcend disciplinary contexts, and are sufficiently robust for academics to measure scholarly practices. Critical engagement with the scholarly literature is necessary for academics to gain a realistic view of where their work practices are situated within the scholarly domain. Because academic staff are disciplinary experts they are best placed to comment on whether the models of scholarship describe the scholarship of learning and teaching within the context of their own disciplines as well as within the confines of the Australian higher education sector. This paper pushes the existing debates on reconciling what evidence of scholarship in the disciplines actually is and what is considered valid, and in doing so uncovers why the process of reconciliation, between current practice and supporting evidence, remains elusive. Higher education academics need to identify and reconcile tacit disciplinary knowledge with their SoTL approach in order to unpack the complexity and value of their practices. Enabling academic staff to annotate their activities, roles and accomplishments and then map these items onto the various models of scholarship will enrich the status of scholarship of teaching and learning within the higher education sector.