Informa Higher Education Series

We have moved

2012-01-24T17:13:00.002+11:00

Check out the new Informa Higher Education blog here!

Thank you for your continuing readership and looking forward to seeing you there!

Cheers
The Informa Education Team

impact of emerging technologies on higher education

2011-07-14T11:36:00.002+10:00

The Inaugural Technology for Learning and Teaching Conference will be held 5th-6th December, 2011 at the Rendezvous Hotel in Melbourne, Australia. The conference will aim to address new emerging technologies and assess their impact on Higher Education. It will also serve to address the ways in which resistance to some forms of technology is impeding a more fulfilling student experience.

Which emerging technologies do you think are likely to have the greatest impact on Learning and Teaching in Higher Education over the next five years?

Looking forward to your comments.

Are you attending the 9th Annual Higher Education Summit 2011?

2011-02-11T15:30:00.003+11:00

We have just released our latest Higher Education Series E-Newsletter.

You can view the online version here.

If you'd like to subscribe to the e-newsletter, please send us an email with the subject line "Add me to Higher Ed Enews".

Professor Gail Whiteford talks about raising aspirations among the Indigenous community

2010-09-03T09:43:00.003+10:00

We had the opportunity to interview Professor Gail Whiteford, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Social inclusion) of Macquarie University who is a speaker at the 2nd Annual Social Inclusion in Education Conference on the 13th and 14th of September 2010 in Sydney.

We asked the questions:
1. First of all, how important is it to raise aspirations among the indigenous community in order to enhance a greater participation in higher education?
2. How easy is it to find academic role models within the Indigenous communities?
3. How easy is it to raise aspirations, and what are the major challenges and impediments to success?
4. Are aspirations enough to encourage social inclusion? What specific pressures do Indigenous students face whilst trying to complete their education?
5. You're speaking at Informa's 2nd Annual Social Inclusion in Education Conference on the 13th and 14th of September 2010 in Sydney, what do you hope delegates will take away from your presentation and the Conference?

If you'd like more information on the conference, please visit www.informa.com.au/socialinclusion or alternatively, contact us at +61 2 9080 4307.

Your feedback is most welcome!

More exclusive interviews from Higher Ed Summit 2010!

2010-09-03T09:35:00.002+10:00

As promised, more interviews from The 8th Annual Higher Education Summit 2010!

• Dr Dianne Rudd, Head of Discipline - Geographical and Environmental Studies of the University of Adelaide highlighs the main challenges that the Higher Education sector faces with an ageing academic workforce and the proposed solutions to the issue.

******

• Professor Paul Boreham, Director of Social Research Centre at the University of Queensland highlights the areas in which gender inequality in Higher Education usually occur, the main factors contributing to this issue and possible solutions to the problem.

Feedback welcome!

Spotlight on...

2010-06-08T15:30:00.002+10:00

SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATION 2010
Date: 13-14 September 2010
Venue: Radisson Plaza Hotel, Sydney

The 2nd annual Social Inclusion in Education conference is an excellent opportunity for you to hear from Government authorities, educators and leading researchers from across the tertiary education sector to discuss the issues surrounding the social inclusion agenda. This unique event provides an open platform to discuss the challenges impacting tertiary institutions in attracting and retaining low SES students and the strategies and programs to drive student success in educational attainment. The forum not only examines practical solutions for developing aspirations to education but also draws attention to the fundamental changes required within the Australian education sector to increase participation of low SES and disadvantaged students.

New this year, are the eight streams designed to target the following key sector issues:

STREAM A: Indigenous disadvantage
STREAM B: Students with disability
STREAM C: Rural and remote engagement
STREAM D: Diversity and equity issues
STREAM E: Teaching and learning programs
STREAM F: Research and industry collaboration
STREAM G: Education pathways in VET & schools
STREAM H: Community engagement & partnerships

Whether you are planning the teaching curriculum or concerned about developing partnerships within your institution, this conference will help you gain new and insightful information. We invite you to come and join your colleagues to discuss this crucial social issue.

To view the agenda for the conference, click here.
To download the brochure of the conference, click here.
To register from the conference, click here.

Will we see you there?

Access and Retention of Under-represented Groups in Postgraduate Education

2010-06-03T12:36:00.001+10:00

In the shake up of higher education occasioned by the Federal Government’s Review of Higher Education (the Bradley Review), there has been very little consideration of postgraduate education in general and access and retention of under-represented groups in particular.

Access and retention in undergraduate courses of three under-represented groups – students from low socio-economic status (LSES), Indigenous Australian and Regional backgrounds have dominated the equity debates, while their access to and retention in graduate courses have yet to appear on the radar. As a socially inclusive society we need to ensure that talented students have access to the full range of educational opportunities. For example, participation in Research Higher Degree (RHD) qualifications leads to careers in academe and in research and postgraduate coursework degrees provide entry to many prestigious professions. While students themselves benefit from participation in graduate courses, society as a whole benefits from the contribution talented students from diverse backgrounds can make to the nation’s research effort and to the professions.

Once admitted to graduate courses students in these under-represented groups do very well, particularly at research intensive institutions such as the Go8 universities. In 2007 equity group students in Masters by Coursework students had a success rate of
• 93.3% for LSES students inGo8s compared with 88.6% in non Go8s,
• 83.9% for Indigenous Australians in Go8s compared with 79.6% in non Go8s
• 94.2% for students from regional areas in Go8s compared with 89% in non Go8s.

The success rate for Indigenous Australians in Other Post Graduate Courses (OPGs) is of particular interest – 85.5% in Go8s compared with 73.8% in non Go8 universities.\

Similar retention outcomes were achieved for students in these three groups in their Doctor by Research studies. LSES students in Go8s also had higher retention rates in Masters by Coursework 74% compared with 70.8% in non Go8 universities and in OPGs – 63.5% compared with 59.4%.

Clearly statistics do not tell the whole story. These outcomes are supported by specific postgraduate equity programs such as:
1. University of Queensland’s Facilitating and supporting Indigenous students in the transition from undergraduate to postgraduate study program,

2. The University of Melbourne’s Graduate Access - a special scheme available to students from under-represented groups for entry to professional graduate degrees. The University also offers Graduate Access Bursaries of $5000 as a one-off payment in the first year of enrolment.

Recent research by Martin Harris in the UK shows this trend is not confined to Australia.

Selective research intensive universities in the UK also have low participation and high success and retention rates for students traditionally under-represented in higher education. See
http://www.offa.org.uk/press-releases/director-of-fair-access-sets-out-way-forward-for-widening-access-to-highly-selective-universities/

Once enrolled in postgraduate programs, students from under-represented groups do very well in Go8 universities. The challenge is to translate that success to the access and participation part of the equity equation.

Margaret Heagney

Keeping up to date on Twitter!

2010-06-02T11:43:00.003+10:00

Joining the higher education community in Twitter-space finally! We have created a Twitter account for Informa Higher Education Series - keeping you updated with the latest in the Australian higher education sphere as well as giving you more outlets to keep us updated, share your knowledge with us and share feedback on your experiences at our Higher Education conferences!

You can follow us @informahighered or http://www.twitter.com/informahighered.

If you're on Twitter, let us know where you're at - we would love to follow you!

On a slightly different note, Informa Higher Education Series' e-newsletter will be released soon. If you would like to subscribe to this FREE e-newsletter, drop me a message and I'll sign you up!

Higher Education Summit 2010 - Were you there?

2010-05-26T14:57:00.004+10:00

The 8th Annual Higher Education Summit was held on Thursday 29th - Friday 30th April 2010 at the National Wine Centre of Australia, Adelaide.

The summit brought together Government authorities, educators and leading researchers to identify the key issues for reforming Australia’s education sector and to discuss the strategies to strengthen and improve the teaching and learning experience across all institutions.

A selection of online interviews captures important discussion at the Summit:
• Paul Duldig, Vice President (Services and Resources). The University of Adelaide provided an insight into the big ticket issue of the century – climate change – and how universities can focus on environmentally sustainable practice.

• Stuart Hamilton AO, CEO, Open Universities Australia examined the blurring between physical and online campuses and discussed the use of technology to improve future teaching and learning experiences.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those involved for your contribution to the 8th Annual Higher Education Summit, and for helping to make it such an interesting and informative event.

Counting down to Higher Education Summit 2010!

2010-04-15T10:29:00.003+10:00

2 weeks to the 8th Annual Higher Education Summit!

That means the Summit is happening on the Thursday 29th - Friday 30th April 2010 at the National Wine Centre in Adelaide. It is happening with the return of the Regional Tertiary Education Forum on Wednesday 28th April 2010.

With the full support of the Government of South Australia, the esteemed Higher Education Summit will for the first time be held in Adelaide in 2010. Now in its 8th year, the summit will once again be the key gathering for Vice Chancellors, Deputy Vice Chancellors, Pro Vice Chancellors and other key executives from Australias universities.

The 2010 Summit will intersperse International keynote presentations with case studies from Australias leading institutions and interactive roundtables discussing, debating and determining the future direction of the tertiary education sector.

This years key themes include:

* Competition v Collaboration in the global environment
* Greening Universities
* The Student Demand Driven Model
* The evolving structure of Australias tertiary education sector
* Increasing participation
* Student satisfaction

If you'd like to find out more about the Summit and the speakers of 2010, click here for more information. Alternatively, ask any questions using the Comments function below and we'll get back to you!

information technology in higher education

2010-04-01T15:14:00.005+11:00

Geoffrey Bowers of Daemon Internet

Geoffrey Bowers, Director of Daemon Internet Consultants, talks to us about the creation of UNSW TV and the training process that caters for people of different technological experience.

_________________________________________________________

Bill Clebsch, Executive Director, IT Services, Stanford University

Bill Clebsch, Executive Director, IT Services, Stanford University talks about Stanford University's efforts in reducing the university's greenhouse gas emissions from the computing infrastructure.

Education relationship defines professional standards

2010-02-15T11:53:00.002+11:00

Click here to watch the interview.

Universities play an essential role in their relationship with professional bodies, says Professor Derrick Armstrong, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Registrar of The University of Sydney.

Professor Armstrong will be one of the presenters at the 8th Annual Higher Education Summit in Adelaide on April 29 and 30.

He says universities are heavily involved in professional education as training graduates with knowledge and skills is at the core of their role.

Professor Armstrong says there is currently a wide range of professional education and training courses covering various professions taking place within the university sector.

“I think it really indicates the way…in which the mission of universities has changed and become very focused around relevance to society and the way in which they support the broader goals of society and the broader economic and social prosperity and wellbeing of society.”

Professor Armstrong says professional bodies have an important role in the accrediting of professionals and as a result there has to be a very close working relationship between universities and the professional associations responsible for those accreditation processes.

“We clearly need to be absolutely sure that when we are preparing professionals for the work place they meet appropriate standards, they are highly skilled, that they come into the profession with all the background knowledge and as much experience as possible to prepare to do a highly qualified job.”

In his experience, Professor Armstrong says the vital collaboration between universities and professional bodies have been positive, constructive and open.

“They’re relationships where learning is taking place on both sides.”

However, Professor Armstrong adds that there are inevitable tensions due to the accreditation process.

“Universities are autonomous bodies and they have purposes which are to do with the promotion of knowledge, critical thinking and communication, they’re not narrow training institutions.

“But I think on the whole those things are worked out well and constructively and very rarely does one find serious disagreements or tension between those bodies.”

The extent to which the relationship between universities and professional bodies affect the academic structure of courses differs according to course and profession, Professor Armstrong says.

“The way in which professional accreditation systems work is they set the standard for entry into their profession,” he says. “They don’t tell universities how to teach [and] they don’t necessarily tell universities what to teach.”

Professor Armstrong says problems would arise were students not admitted to a profession because they have not met the standards of the professional body or if a course is not accredited because it does not meet the body’s standards.

“There is clearly, in practice, a significant role for the professional associations and accrediting bodies in working with universities on curriculum development. But I think on the whole, there is a lot of open dialogue about the nature of the curriculum.”

Professor Armstrong says while institutions may have different curriculums, what is important is that key areas are covered to a satisfactory degree.

The way in which they are covered is up to the discretion of universities and university staff. Professor Armstrong says the dialogue between universities and professional associations allows issues to be explored and consensus formed.

“It is a consensus forming operation rather than an imposition of standards.”

According to Professor Armstrong, universities are not simply training bodies but institutions concerned with knowledge.

“That’s the development of new knowledge, the critical assessment and evaluation [and] analysis of knowledge and ideas,” he says.

Professor Armstrong believes academic scholarship and research are important parts of any university course as they add enormous value to professional education.

“It’s important that scholarship is there and I think that from a professional accreditation body perspective and a professional association perspective, I think that is welcomed and acknowledged as valuable”.

Professor Armstrong says there also needs to be a balance between the need for equipping graduates with the skills and knowledge of a profession and their ability to reflect upon and develop that knowledge and practice.

In terms of the process for accrediting professional degrees, degree programs are accredited by an external body such as a professional association or a national or state institute.

Professor Armstrong says the accrediting process involved the external body visiting universities, looking at the curriculum, investigating standards, discussions with staff, students and institutional managers.

“They will make an evaluation as to the extent in which the course is meeting the requirements, the standards of the profession so then they form their judgement about whether to accredit or not to accredit the courses in question.”

Professor Armstrong says universities have no governing role in relation to the professions.

“That is not our role whatsoever. We are a provider of education and a provider of qualifications but we often do have participation of university staff in the higher level accreditation bodies.”

This involvement of experts from universities within the professional accreditation process ensured that professional accrediting bodies were participating in the development of curriculum rather than controlling it.

In his presentation at the Higher Education summit, Professor Armstrong says he hopes delegates will leave with a message that there is a very active, strong and valuable collaboration between professional associations and universities.

While there have been situations of tension and disagreement, he believes both parties complement each other and lead to the enhancement of professional education.

“I think where you have got that openness, that dialogue between professional associations and universities…there is going to be a situation which is to the advantage of all and particularly to the advantage of students.

On-site at Social Inclusion in Education

2010-02-15T10:55:00.005+11:00

The Inaugural Social Inclusion in Education ran in October 2009 and was met with more interest than expected, causing the move to a larger venue to fit every attendee! This goes to show that social inclusion in education is a very pressing matter that needs to be addressed as a group.

We get to hear from speakers from different levels of education ie primary schools, high schools, tertiary education institutions, higher education institutions, government sector, industry players - both local and international. It was a very exciting 2-days indeed!

We also seized the opportunity to interview a few speakers on their thoughts about the issue. Enjoy the interviews!

2010 and 2011 CDP funding allocations announced

2010-01-20T16:50:00.001+11:00

On 15 October 2009 the Minister for Education announced the 2010 and 2011 Capital Development Pool (CDP) allocations worth $71.5million.

The funding is for the development of infrastructure at Australian universities. It will help expand courses in areas of national importance, and improve vital teaching and learning facilities and student amenities.

Twenty-three grants have been awarded through the Capital Development Pool (CDP) for 2010 and 2011.

For further information, including successful applicants and allocations please see the Minister's media release: Australian universities get a $71.5 million infrastructure boost.

Article source: http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Pages/default.aspx

Transforming Australia's Higher Education System

2010-01-20T16:40:00.001+11:00

The Australian Government recently released a report, Transforming Australia's Higher Education System, that rolls out a 10-year plan to reform Higher Education in Australia.

According to the website: "Higher Education is central to achieving the Government's vision of a stronger and fairer nation. The Government is proposing a landmark reform agenda for higher education and research that will transform the scale, potential and quality of the nation's universities and open the doors to higher education to a new generation of Australians."

You can download the report here.

Interview with Edwige Fava

2009-11-10T16:12:00.001+11:00

We had the opportunity to interview Edwige Fava, President of the New Zealand Association of Private Education Providers about tertiary sub sectors, the harmonisation of accountability, challenges for the Tertiary Education Commission and the current funding towards Maori and Pacific equity for PTEs.

Interview with Phillip Marcus Clark AM

2009-11-10T16:11:00.003+11:00

We had the chance to speak to Phillip Marcus Clark AM, Chair of the Education Investment Fund Advisory Board Australia about the impact of the global financial crisis on higher education institutions in Australia and the difference in the challenges and opportunities between the Australian and New Zealand sectors.

Interview with Sophia Blair and Jordan King

2009-11-10T16:11:00.002+11:00

We had the opportunity to interview Sophia Blair and Jordan King, Co-Presidents of New Zealand Union of Students Association, about the importance of the reinstatement of the Training Incentive Allowance, the change in governance towards institutes of technology and polytechnics and their thoughts on improving equity success in tertiary education.

Social Inclusion in Education: Where Are We?

2009-10-27T12:22:00.007+11:00

If we are to redress the significant under-representation of particular groups in Australian higher education, we will need to find a more sophisticated approach to the problem. This was the strong message of the inaugural Social Inclusion in Education conference held last week in Sydney.

Organised by the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, the conference brought together national and international educators, researchers, senior managers and policy-makers to explore how government, education sectors and institutions can work in partnership to develop fairer and more inclusive forms of education.

The conference featured the work of two leading researchers from the United Kingdom: Professors Miriam David (University of London) and Lori Beckett (Leeds Metropolitan University).

A number of principles emerged from the conference, which arose from a desire to identify substantive and creative ways to collaboratively advance the social inclusion agenda.

As a first principle, the importance of establishing genuine partnerships within and across institutions and educational sectors was repeatedly expressed. Yet cross-sector partnerships cannot give priority to the interests of universities. They must be based on shared interests, rather than competition between the interests of particular organisations, institutions and sectors.

Genuine partnerships were also seen to involve designing pathways into institutional structures and educational qualifications. This includes developing coherent policy to support teaching and learning that is responsive to the needs of diverse social groups. The conference agreed that there is a need for shared definitions and an understanding of the complimentary nature of equity targets and programs across the tertiary sector as a whole.

A further theme that emerged was the importance of making learning central to social inclusion initiatives. While increasing access to education is important, what happens when students get there also matters. This includes the need for ‘connectionist’ pedagogies that provide more engaging teaching and learning for students from diverse backgrounds. Making learning central also includes developing school-university partnerships that support teacher research and professional learning communities.

The need for institutions to engage with the particularities of the places in which they are situated and the communities they serve was also identified. While national targets are useful in focusing the minds of bureaucracies and institutions, these cannot be pursued and are unlikely to be successful without engaging with the communities in which those institutions are located.

The conference concluded that education institutions in Australia must take advantage of the possibilities that our current moment holds for advancing the social inclusion agenda. Certainly, government aspirations to improve educational outcomes for under-represented groups are tied to significant funding incentives, which have helped to draw institutional attention to these issues. At the moment it would seem most institutions are taking seriously their equity obligation and recognise the unique opportunity to translate symbolic commitments to equity into concrete improvements for students and their communities.

Together, these themes constitute a set of principles that could productively inform the next phase of social inclusion policy and practice in Australian education. Together, they point towards a more sophisticated approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Sellar is a postdoctoral research fellow and Trevor Gale is the director of the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, hosted at the University of South Australia.

Visit their website here - www.equity101.info

History of Student Representation

2009-09-08T10:29:00.010+10:00

Presented by David Barrow, NUS President
Prepared by Graham Hastings, NUS Research Officer

History of student representation

Earliest information we have of students exerting an influence on university decisions was back in European medieval universities. In the 12th century at the University of Bologna – students complained about landlords increasing rent costs and so staged a boycott of the university. The entire student population moved to a neighbouring town and university nearly bankrupting the university! (and we thought militant student activism was refined to the 60s & 70s).

The earliest establishment of formal student societies and representative structures, however, appears to date to the post-Reniassance university.

Universities tied to particular locality and nation state – more formal lines of authority.

Royal Medical Society at the University of Edinbrough in 1737.

In the context of the rise of the suffrage movements in the 19th century, we saw the formation of cross-disciplinary democratic student organisations. These bodies started having a say in university governance – one of the common first “wins” was when universities allowed students to take part in the election of university Rectors in England and Scotland (representatives of students in governing bodies – similar to role of Chancellor). Gordon Brown?

Can see this similarly reflected in pre-Federation colonial Australian universities.
Initially faculty based – move towards general franchise in the 1960s.
Earliest student group was the 1888 Sydney University Undergraduate Society.

National student representation was the next step in the history. In Australia the National Union of Australian University Students (NUAUS) was established at a conference at Adelaide University in 1937... this later became the Australian Union of Students in 1971 – growing to include teachers colleges and institutes of technology – before collapsing in 1984 and NUS being established in 1987.

The 1960s and 1970s saw a push in various social movements for more a more direct and participatory democracy not just on campus but in politics more broadly. There began conflict on campus between student power and university governance…
NUAUS campaign for direct franchise and general student representatives on University Councils (along with reducing external appointments).

Became very radical & militant campaign at many universities – lead to a report of the University Commission in 1975, which recommended that “all uni governance bodies should include student members.” Still have the legacy of that report in most institutions today.

Over the last decade or so there has been some challenging of this model:

Post Dawkins era we have seen a new tension between the rise of the corporate managerial style of governance and the traditional collegiate model.

There has been pressure to decrease staff and student representatives in preference of smaller boards of a more corporate nature – free of the potential “conflict of interest” student or staff representatives are accused of bringing to university councils.

The Hoare Report of 1995 – recommended no direct representation of staff or students, and only “consultative” committees.

Nelson reforms attempted unsuccessfully to implement many of the Hoare report recommendations.

VSU – general undermining of student representation.

The case for student representation in university governance.

So history shows us that, despite the last ten or so years, student representation and involvement in university decision making has actually been strengthened over time.

But what is the relevance of this today?
Why should we continue to have students playing an influential role in decision making when universities themselves are now such large enterprises in a fragile economic environments having to make very complex and difficult decisions?

To me the case for student representation is simple and persuasive – no matter what the context:

That is that student involvement in decisions that directly impact on the student body improve the quality of those decisions. It is about quality control and quality assurance in higher education. Students are a key stakeholder and deserve to be represented.

This argument stands from a traditional collegiate community focus but also in a more modern consumer protection framework. (Students do, after all, pay a lot of money now for their education).

The other important point to note is that students actually value having a say in decisions that effect them…

The 2004 Youth and Citizenship survey, conducted by the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme, found that in terms of perceptions of political power more young people felt they were affected “a great deal” by decisions made by their education institution more than any other institution.

77.9% - education institution, 68.2% - family, 46.8% federal government, 5.4% religious institutions.

The survey also asked which methods of political participation students felt was the most effective.

Student representative bodies were ranked as the most effective form of youth participation – 71.5% of students rating them as “effective” or “very effective”. This was followed by voting in elections at 67.7% and contrasts highly to writing to politicians or leaders at a low 25.5%.

So – there is a clear value and justification for the university, the university community and the student body at having student representation at the highest levels of university governance.

However – this view is not shared by all in the higher education sector or university governance.

Common complaints about student representatives from university administrators include:
- Erratic attendance at meetings
- Ill preparation
- Too narrow a focus on student issues over broader university or financial concerns
- Too quiet and shy
- Poor collaboration among student reps leading to repetition of issues, questions and answers

While some of these concerns are fair and valid, I want to argue today that the student is not always the one to blame in these situations. Indeed I want to encourage you all to consider some practical steps towards proactively addressing these common complaints in your institution.

Firstly, a lot of this is contextual. We need to understand that students are under a lot of time pressures due to work commitments and poor income support. Thankfully this is something both students and universities are working in partnership to address – lobbying the Government (& in the Bradley review) to address this concern.

Secondly, a lot of this can be due to what I call attitudinal issues. There are unfortunately occasional university administrators who see the student voice as just token and limited in value. If any of you out there today share that view – I would really encourage you to not think so narrowly. Approaching students with a “tokenistic” attitude in my experience only leads to a lack of respect between parties, an adversarial relationship between the institution and its students, and everyone loses out. Universities do not benefit from the depth and breadth of experience students have with the institution and the direct advice and guidance they can give AND students do not benefit from having their concerns voiced and incorporated into decisions.

So aside from overhauling youth allowance and changing the culture and approach to students in general within your institutions here are some practical initiatives I’d encourage you to consider to promote quality in student representation:

- High profile elections as a quality check on student representatives: annual public elections, in conjunction with student organisation elections – incorporate the role into the vibrancy of general student democracy. Advertising the election and position (and what it entails) in student and university publications and direct emails to students.

- Training for student representatives is very important. Some institutions send student reps to AICD training courses. Other institutions offer their own internal induction programs. It is important that students have time to familiarise themselves with the nature of the university council but more importantly their duties as director of a non-for-profit corporation. NUS is moving towards establishing a national training program – in collaboration with Universities Australia. This will be an important initiative we hope to launch by 2010.

- Financial support. Already discussed – pressure of work and study commitments. Making a meaningful contribution takes a lot of time in preparation. Honoraria is one way of dealing with this and helping students commit themselves to the role. It also acts as an equaliser – guaranteeing that any student can fulfil the responsibilities not just those financially fortunate enough to do so. Melbourne Uni - $15K.

- In-kind support. What I mean by this is recognition in the curriculum or in a extra-curricular transcript of the representative role. It is undeniably a learning experience. Would also act as an incentive for students to pursue election and the educational experience.

- Broaden your consultation & use of the student representative. Student reps shouldn’t just be the final “check” or rubber stamp in university decisions, but actually have a lot of constructive comments and feedback to give during the policy development process. Involve your student reps in the various stages of the decision-making process. This not only leads to better decisions but a closer collaborative, supportive and respectful relationship between the student and the university.

- Make sure university meeting papers arrive on time! Students need time to digest complicated bureaucratic language and financial statements. If a student is going to make a meaningful contribution in your standard two hour meeting, the will need at least twice that time in preparation. If you place on top of that assignment pressures and work commitments – it’s a very tight schedule.

- Assist the reading of papers by giving special briefings to student reps. This is common at many universities where the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor regularly meets with the student representatives on the university council to go over issues privately and ensure the student feels confident asking questions about areas of the agenda that may seem unclear. At my institution this is the case… Pre senate meetings etc.

- Provide individual mentors to student representatives. Pair external or alumni reps with a student representative to mentor the student during their time on the Council or committee. A more experienced committee member can provide a lot of background and contextual information the student rep may feel uneasy to ask about publicly in the meeting. Furthermore, mentors can be good for “debriefing” and “digesting” particularly controversial university meetings or decisions.

LASTLY
- Encourage communication and collaboration among student representatives. In Canada and in some NZ universities, it is common for there to be specially convened “student representative networks” which bring together for regular meetings and discussions student reps on all university boards and committees including those in the student association or council. This is a very valuable exercise for the students in collaborating and sharing information and is useful for universities as it discourages duplication or repetition of issues across forums as students inform their own peers of what’s being discussed in various for a in the university.

To conclude – while it is unlikely that students will be able to exert the influence our forebears did back in 12th century bologna – there is a great richness to what students can contribute to effective university decision-making.

To contact David Barrow, click here.
To go to the National Union of Students website, click here.

Higher Education Summit Exclusive Interviews!

2009-09-02T10:34:00.006+10:00

Martin Williams, Director for Higher Education Strategy, Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills, UK

With unemployment on the rise, governments need to ensure that universities can cater to the growing number of people going back to study.

Director for Higher Education Strategy, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills in the UK, Martin Williams said it was important that there were opportunities in universities for people who wanted to further education...read more

____________________________________________________
Professor David Battersby, Vice Chancellor, University of Ballarat

The Bradley Review and the Federal Government’s response to implement reforms have been proactive steps in dealing with regional higher education, according to Vice Chancellor of the University of Ballarat, David Battersby.

Mr Battersby spoke at the recent BHERT Regional Higher Education Engagement Forum held in April this year.

He said the forum’s discussion had been instrumental in terms of responding to the issue of regional higher education reforms....read more

____________________________________________________
Pam Christie, Institute Director, TAFE NSW

Institute Director of TAFE NSW, Pam Christie said TAFE institutions were pleased with the Bradley Reforms as it focused on the higher education sector and the broader tertiary sector.

“What it has done is open a whole new lot of discussion like the forum today about the interface between the two sectors,” she said.

According to Ms Christie, the symbiotic relationship between TAFE and universities would benefit TAFE students wishing to go to university and university students wanting to gain extra skills through TAFE....read more

Summarising Developing the Knowledge Economy

2009-09-01T09:50:00.002+10:00

The conference on “Developing the Knowledge Economy” took place on the 10th floor of the Melbourne University Law School, on the 4th-5th August 2009.

No event with a complex theme could begin without an investigation into its meaning.
John Dewar, University Melbourne, opened the conference on “Developing the knowledge economy” diligently discussing definitions of the “knowledge economy” and knowledge transfer. He placed universities at the core of such concepts and used an interesting analogy, arguing that universities are as important for the information age as steel mills were for the industrial age.

The conference examined external relationships with higher education institutions and how they drive our social and economic development. For example, Bruce Wilson, RMIT University, emphasised the importance of rural universities in helping to address demography and depopulation issues by attracting people to knowledge centres.
Jannelle Kyd, CQ University, discussed how co-location can develop a competitive advantage for the region of a university. She talked about understanding your region and the long-term goals of a region and how a university might be able to assist in the regional planning through aligning its operations with the region’s local mission and with industry partners.

In order to increase participation in wider Australia’s knowledge economy, including in regional areas, Jason Couts, DEEWR, argued it is imperative for universities to find ways to work together to achieve social inclusion aspirations and to get in touch with disadvantaged students at a school level.

Indigenous participation in the knowledge economy was also discussed. Ian Anderson, University of Melbourne, discussed Indigenous partnerships, highlighting a disturbing fact that there is not enough Indigenous research and information being produced that is going to lead to successful engagement with Indigenous groups that can create positive change. Melbourne is trying to change this by focusing on the production of knowledge and human capabilities to create changes, such as through teaching and researching and building partnerships directly with Indigenous peoples.

The TAFE Leaders panel was an enlightening opportunity for non-TAFE delegates to hear about their participation in external engagement. The leaders acknowledge that the third stream is often associated with universities and not TAFE. However, despite the lack of funding available to TAFEs for these activities, the institutions are heavily involved in this area. For example, Central TAFE created a consortium with Anglicare to create an integrated learning centre and housing assistance for the homeless.

The networking lunch opened up new opportunities for people to meet and to share ideas for collaboration and partnerships. The audience seemed to enjoy interacting in discussions.

The Chair of the networking lunch, Gauri Bhalla, UTS, began the talks with an appropriate opening, telling us that partnerships happen with people – “people networking, getting together and talking”.

She revealed us a survey that she had conducted with external organisations, which asked - “What university-industry interactions are most useful for innovation?” The most popular answer was “informal contacts”- the opportunity to interact without an obligation to begin a relationship.

An alarming issue that David Campbell, Office of Knowledge Capital, Melbourne City Council, said that he learnt from the networking lunch was that business was not well engaged with universities. As a means of achieving better engagement he said that “coopereratition” or cooperative competition was necessary for universities. Like other industries, universities need to come together to collaborate and compete for a piece of the funding pie.

Paul Newham, World Vision, further added that there is a need to look more closely at relationships, not just between business/universities, but between not-for-profit/business and universities.

Engagement with government was also touched on. Denise Von Wald, Study Adelaide, mentioned that the concept of engaging with universities is still new for government. Governments are only just starting to realise the power of education, how it changes the social, cultural and economic fabric of society.

Brue Wilson believes that European regional authorities are more engaged with universities than in Australia. David Campbell said that this is because Australian authorities are in the early stages in terms of social inclusion and economic projects than in Europe. He believes that it is an imperative that the state-council relationship and leadership develop further understanding of how to engage with one another on such issues.

Sessions also looked at accessing and harnessing knowledge. The Day 2 Chair of the morning, Professor Jonathan West, said that knowledge should be as freely available as possible to grow our industries, rather than focusing on the protection of IP. He also said that “all” parts of the economy should be counted as areas where sophisticated knowledge can be accessed.

Prof. Dr. Wim Vanhaverbeke, Hasselt University, looked at how companies are evolving in regards to the EU concept of Open Innovation, which is about accelerating internal innovation and expanding the markets for external use of innovation.
Following his speech, the panel discussion explored the divides between government, business and university (the triple helix). Speakers discussed how universities are struggling to make sense of their new connections and engagements. Government is figuring out how to support these connections. And, business is still trying to figure out how they can connect too.

Wim said because of such divides it is necessary to break the status quo and work together to perform, rather than talk.

Phil Roberts, NICTA, believes a big reason for the lack of collaboration and cohension is that people don’t move enough from different sectors, unlike other places in the world. He says that this is a cultural practice that needs to change and is changing with the next generation that is perhaps more adaptable to changing needs.

Nicholas Gruen, Lateral Economics, encapsulated this idea in the form of “T-shaped Credentialing”, which is about building credentials across disciplines to improve this skills of our workforce and ensure that skills are transferable and will in turn benefit our society and our economy.

Helen Hayes closed the conference, praising the various partnerships and players involved in knowledge engagement activities for the value they give to society, the community and the economy. She said that there is always room to improve and that we can always learn and do better with our partnerships.

UniGateway

2009-08-13T11:50:00.000+10:00

Over the last four years, all Victorian universities have been working in collaboration to produce an annual showcase entitled ‘University Innovation Showcase’. This collaboration is now known as UniGateway.

UniGateway has been established to make it easy for business to talk to Victorian universities. One point of contact within each university, someone who understands both the business problem and the strengths of their own organisation, will own an enquiry and help businesses to find the right person to talk to in relation to their particular challenge.

To facilitate these connections, UniGateway has developed a new website that will enable business to connect with Victorian university expertise in one click – www.unigateway.com.au. It is to go live in mid August and features the primary business contact at each of the universities. This group of nine individuals will take calls from business, identify the best contact either within their own university or at one of the other eight, and take charge of engaging the business enquiry with a ‘live’ contact who can help them.

Should further information be required, please contact: Gael Andrews, Project Manager, University Innovation Showcase, 0403 920 377, gael.andrews@unigateway.com.au

Developing the Knowledge Economy

2009-08-06T10:06:00.004+10:00

It's an interesting and fairly intimidating activity writing for the Higher Education community. As a member of the vocational education and training (VET) community, engaged in an uneasy dance around partnership and new opportunities, thanks to the Bradley Review, I think it an appropriate time to be discussing the Knowledge Economy.

I worry about the term 'Knowledge Economy' which like 'Social Media' means both everything and nothing. If taken purely as the production, distribution and use of knowledge, then I am an integral part of the knowledge economy. In my day job I manage the development of online training content for the Australian Flexible Learning Framework and e-Works. I ensure the distribution, interoperability and high quality multimedia training materials nationally and globally.

So far so mainstream. It is interesting that a field that was cutting edge 10 years ago, is now central to the distribution of knowledge and skills development in the VET sector. The Knowledge Economy for my sector is present, not future, not just for the development teams I work with, but also for consumers of my product.

The knowledge economy does not acknowledge the traditional boundaries between work and play. As a member of the IT community, I have some sense of ownership of the term; after all, we invented the systems through which this knowledge is now exchanged in bits and bytes. As an educator, I have ceased noticing the pipes and channels through which the knowledge flows. The flow of knowledge is the core business around which I operate. As a mother, migrant and time-poor working mother I engage, consume and exchange information.

So what's new? It is not possible to be a part-time member of the Knowledge economy, I am witness and consumer, participant and leader. I observe what is happening in the uncontrolled world of user generated content, social learning, and crowd-sourced curriculum and blend this with the more structured requirements of standards, interoperability and compliance. I watch jealously when other countries make breakthroughs - whether the UK government's social media strategy, or the Canadian projects with Indigenous students. I emulate, adopt and share.

Most importantly, the knowledge economy has given me the ability to communicate directly with great thinkers, individuals, business people and politicians who, only a decade ago, I would have had little chance of meeting.

The Knowledge Economy provides us with enormous potential - the opportunity to find new connections, to act directly, to add meaning to the complex data pouring out of information systems. It is an opportunity for knowledge itself to be of value. It is a means to empowerment, and an opportunity to create new forms of leadership.

The pipes of the 'Knowledge Economy' enable the random collision of ideas, the application of local to global, high-tech to the community. The excitement lies in the development of business models that celebrate and support the very fluidity of this economy - a truly cross-sectoral opportunity. However, we must also develop support mechanisms that acknowledge and overcome the intimidation (to which I referred at the start) many feel at moving outside our comfortable sectoral
relationships.

I look forward to exploring these opportunities over the next few days.

by Harriet Wakelam
Manager, E-learning Content
www.eworks.edu.au

Developing the Knowledge Economy update

2009-07-07T16:53:00.002+10:00

The new research reform agenda and budget measures will be discussed at the conference on Developing the Knowledge Economy.

Dr. Caroline Perkins has moved from the Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations and is now the General Manager, Compacts & Coordination Branch at Department of Innovation, Industry, Science & Research. In the capacity of her new position, she will discuss critical issues regarding government funding for researching and innovation, which will help to drive the knowledge economy.

Jason Coutts, Manager, Performance, Coordination & Accountability Branch, Higher Education Group, Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations, has just joined the speaker faculty and is set to discuss Caroline’s original confirmed topic - “The road to full participation in the Australian knowledge economy”.

For more details, visit the agenda at www.informa.com/knowledge

Highlights of Higher Education Summit 2009!

2009-07-03T10:07:00.001+10:00

The first newsletter includes the highlights of Higher Education Summit 2009 with 3 interviews, reviews and a white paper by Professor Brian Cantor of the University of York!

The 7th Annual Higher Education Summit 2009
In its 7th year, Informa's Higher Education Summit met with another year of success as academics and the education industry gathered together at this to discuss the outcomes and impact of the Bradley review, students' involvement in the growth of universities, internationalisation, business and industry engagement with higher education, climate change and the relationship between universities and TAFE.

We had the chance to interview Professor Stephanie Fahey, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International) of Monash University, who talks about how the Bradley reforms have impacted on international challenges for universities.

Plus, we have Professor Brian Cantor, Vice Chancellor, University of York, UK, whom we asked to compare Australian universities with universities in the UK and how we ensure that we remain relevant within our own cities/countries and also in the relation to the rest of the world.

On the different side of the coin, we have David Barrow, National President of National Union of Students, who spoke to us about how universities are responding to the heightened focus on equity challenges.

Enjoy!

Till next time,
The Informa Higher Ed Series team

Welcome to Informa Higher Education Series blog!

2009-06-26T14:20:00.000+10:00

Hello everyone!

We are pleased to announce the launch of our Higher Education Series newsletter!

Click on image to view more

The first newsletter features highlights of the 7th Annual Higher Education Summit:
- interviews with ANU's Professor Elizabeth Deane, National Union of Students' President David Barrow, Monash University's Professor Stephanie Fahey and University of York's Professor Brian Cantor to name a few

- sessions reviews by BHERT's Dr Sharon Winocur and Christopher Goldsworthy

- launch of Informa Higher Education Series Linkedin group

+ much more!

From the feedback we've received so far, this was an excellent networking event. To facilitate pre and post event networking, we're moving into the electronic age. We have set up a group on Linkedin here. If you are not yet a Linkedin member, not to worry, just sign up when you're prompted to do so when you click on this link. If you have any problems troubleshooting, send us an email or leave a comment here and we'll try to help!

If you'd like to be included in the distribution list of the newsletter, please send an email to me and we'll add you into the list!

Signing off,
The Informa Higher Ed Series team