Search results

In 2012, the Department of English at the University of Sydney, Australia, established The LINK Project, a faculty-driven outreach program that builds sustainable partnerships with low socioeconomic status (SES) secondary schools across the state of New South Wales. Focused on discipline-centered engagement, LINK positions pedagogic work as a vital site for the advancement of a social inclusion agenda. However, the operative logic of such programs present a distinct set of pedagogical challenges if they are to negotiate the established scholarly frameworks that resist principles of inclusion and threaten to displace and exclude the cultural knowledges, skills, and capitals of students of low SES backgrounds.

This chapter postulates a framework for productive disciplinary engagement that generates new spaces for “relational equity” (Boaler, 2008) between post-secondary institutions and outreach high schools and within diverse tertiary classrooms. It draws on three LINK learning modules designed to foster new ways of forming attachments and enhancing achievement in outreach contexts. In doing so, it describes an approach that seeks to open higher education institutions to multiple knowledges and ways of knowing (Gale & Mills, 2013) in the pursuit of what Jacques Rancière (1987, p. 2) calls “the minimal link of a thing in common.”

This chapter reports on the findings from an Australian study exploring how best to facilitate the success of students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds who are studying at regional universities. Interviews with 69 successful students from low SES backgrounds and with 26 stakeholders experienced in supporting these students were carried out across six regional universities. The chapter focuses on one of the key findings to emerge from the study – the criticality of the technology use in facilitating the success of these particular equity group students. The ways in which the use of technology enables flexibility and facilitates connectedness for students are foregrounded as research-based strategies for improving practice within universities.

This chapter explores a set of principles that underpin ensuring that the learning needs of all students are addressed in next generation learning spaces. With increasingly diverse higher education environments and populations, higher education needs to move from seeing student diversity as problematic and deficit-based, to welcoming, celebrating and recognising diversity for the contributions it makes to enhancing the experience and learning outcomes for all students. The principles of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2011) provide a framework for high-quality university teaching and learning, as well as guidance on the multiple methods and means by which all students can be engaged and learn in ways that best suit their individual styles and needs. An inclusive approach is important pedagogically and applies to both the physical and virtual environments and spaces inhabited by students. When the design of physical environments does not incorporate universal design principles, the result is that some students can be locked out of participating in campus or university life or, for some, the energy required to participate can be substantial. With the digital education frontier expanding at an exponential rate, there is also a need to ensure that online and virtual environments are accessible for all. This chapter draws on the relevant research and the combined experience of the authors to explore an approach to inclusive practices in higher education next generation learning spaces and beyond.

Through exploration of the Addressing Higher Education Access Disadvantage (AHEAD) Program, this chapter will outline how outreach programs contribute to national equity targets, university social responsibility practices, and university recruitment targets. The chapter explores innovations in tertiary outreach and its relationship to the student recruitment chain. Presenting insights and considerations to higher education (HE) leaders regarding approaches to equity outreach at an institutional level and the benefits of authentic university-based outreach initiatives. The chapter will draw on the experience of the AHEAD program since inception in 2014, and the data relating to student impact and university first preference scores from the Tertiary Institute Service Centre database, to demonstrate the Program’s effectiveness in developing student aspirations for HE. Additionally, the available data suggest that the creation of place-specific aspiration and learning experiences within the program has resulted in a recruitment advantage for the host institution, despite the program presenting information and pathways for all universities in Western Australia. The chapter presents the position that institution-specific affinity and natural transition pathways are cultivated through programs that seek to engage with low socioeconomic communities with a focus on co-solving-specific demographic challenges.

This chapter enters an old debate on the shape of validation processes in qualitative research. We discuss a reflective research validation framework related to teaching approaches and practices. The majority of investigations in this area draw mainly on indirect observation, semi-structured interviews or the application of questionnaires and inventories. To this extent, only “half-the-story” has been reported. The validation framework here develops a five-part three stage structure, conceptualized as an “iterative-interactive-process,” integrating a set of strategies aimed at the “minimization of invalidity.” The application of the framework is illustrated through a longitudinal study investigating the relationship between classroom questioning practices and teachers’ preferential teaching approaches. Fieldwork in this naturalistic-interpretative research was conducted during four academic years and entailed close collaboration with a group of four university teachers lecturing biology to undergraduates.

This chapter covers many angles of the role national identity plays in the production, consumption, and reception of sport via social media channels. More specifically, it explores what sociology specifically brings to the equation regarding theories of group identity, identifies the core studies that represent what we currently know about national identification in the social mediated sports world, and determines fruitful themes and paths for subsequent investigation.

The approach to the chapter largely involves the synthesis of a diverse set of literatures in the academic spaces of nationalism, fan behavior, and social media.

The chapter advances the argument that only a handful of investigations in social media content focus on how national identity is forged within sport. Global events (Olympics, World Cup) seem to be the current areas of investigation, with social media facilitating various forms of BIRGing and CORFing depending largely on real-time results.

Relevant and understudied areas for future investigation on the nexus of sport, social media, and national identity include gendered correlates, GORFing (Glory Out of Reflected Failure), redefinitions of sport fandom, eSports, and the application of new technologies, applications and platforms in the social media space.

The chapter establishes a foundation of knowledge triangulating sport, social media, and national identity while creating warrants for key scholarly agenda advancement in the future.

In higher education, interdisciplinarity involves the design of subjects that offer the opportunity to experience ‘different ways of knowing’ from students’ core or preferred disciplines. Such an education is increasingly important in a global knowledge economy. Many universities have begun to introduce interdisciplinary studies or subjects to meet this perceived need. This chapter explores some of the issues inherent in moves towards interdisciplinary higher education. Definitional issues associated with the term ‘academic discipline’, as well as other terms, including ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘cross-disciplinary’, ‘pluridisciplinarity’, ‘transdisciplinarity’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ are examined. A new nomenclature is introduced to assist in clarifying the subtle distinctions between the various positions. The chapter also outlines some of the pedagogical and epistemological considerations which are involved in any move from a conventional form of educational delivery to an interdisciplinary higher education, and recommends caution in any implementation of an interdisciplinary curriculum.