best practices for managing the writing center : australia's universities
TRANSCRIPT
1
http://www.thefreeschool.education/writing-center.html
Best practices for creating and managing an
Academic Learning Skills Unit:
A study of Australia’s Universities
Dr. Jay Jericho
January 2016
Introduction
This paper was submitted as an assessment at the University of Tasmania’s Graduate
School of Education as the final project for the Professional Honors Degree in
Education.
2
An extract of this assessment is shown on page three of this document, overleaf. This
paper has been peer-reviewed by PhD qualified teaching faculty and no amendments
were suggested.
This document contains an original literature review that centers on best practices for
creating and managing the writing center. This document may be useful for scholars
who aim to undertake a critical literature review in this area for: professional
purposes, research purposes (e.g. dissertation writing) or to publish peer-reviewed
scholarship. This document has been processed through Turnitin and must not be
copied without citation as it will be detected by publishers and teaching faculty.
Any scholar who wishes to continue this work in progress project may contact Dr Jay
Jericho.
Citations
Jericho, J. (2016), Best practices for creating and managing an Academic Learning
Skills Unit: A study of Australia’s universities, Sydney, Australia: The Free School.
3
4
1.1 ALSU best practice
This research report analyses best practices for managing an Academic
Learning Skills Unit (ALSU) at post-secondary education institutions. My discussion
centres on Australia’s 41 universities and compares these organisations’ ALSUs.
My research aims to analyse management policies and best pedagogical
practices which drive these teaching centres in order to understand the unique
institutional factors that explain why each university chooses to adopt the model that it
uses to operate its ALSU. I review key features such as the ALSU’s policies, mandate,
funding levels and headcount. I also examine the dominant modes of service delivery,
i.e. online c.f. on-campus. Furthermore, I review their organisational structures. This
analysis enables me to determine whether each university maintains an ALSU that is
embedded within the faculties or if it administers a multidisciplinary centralised
ALSU or another model such as a hybrid of these two alternatives.
No prior study offers a comprehensive account of the policies and services
provided by the ALSUs that operate in Australia’s post-secondary education sector. I
aim to fill this gap by focussing on Australia’s universities because of the economic
significance of this sector which dominates the production of peer-reviewed research
5
publications in this nation. Furthermore, Australia’s 42 universities account for the
bulk of its post-secondary students. In 2014, the Department of Education and
Training (DET) reports that “92.0 percent” of Australia’s “1, 373, 200 domestic and
international students” enrolled in tertiary education courses “were enrolled in public
universities.” (DET, 2015, NP)
Prior research consistently shows that study skills advisors play an important
role in promoting academic success for Australia’s tertiary students and institutions. A
prime way in which they achieve this is by supporting students at risk who require
additional tuition beyond that provided by Faculty teaching staff (e.g. Nelson et al.,
2009). The lack of contemporary research that investigates best practices within the
ALSU is problematic. Australia’s tertiary education sector does not rank well among
post-secondary research oriented teaching institutes when compared to Western
nations such as members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). In 2014, the OECD ranked Australia 22 out of 36 nations for
“educational attainment” whereby university is the highest level of achievement
(OECD, 2015, NP). This ranking is disparate to Australia’s ranking in the United
Nations (UN) Human Development Index. In 2015, Australia ranks second in this
global league table (UN, 2015, Annexe 1).
6
ALSU instructors are expert at assisting tertiary students to realise their goals
(Gosling, 2003, p. 164). These professionals do not always receive this recognition
from their peers who teach outside of the ALSU. This injustice explains why this
research project aims to give a voice to these educational specialists in the academic
domain.
1.2 Research question
My research embarks on a descriptive, deductive policy analysis study that
extracts inferences from qualitative and quantitative data. I examine qualitative
thematic text from sources such as surveys, policy documents, websites and marketing
brochures. This analysis enables me to identify the organisational structures of each
university’s ALSU. I also construct quantitative data to count the different types of
structures that exist in Australia’s universities. This numerical analysis enables me to
determine whether the embedded model, centralised model, hybrid model or some
other alternative is currently the most common mode to deliver ALSU services at
Australia’s 42 universities (e.g. Nunan et al., 2000). Furthermore, I draw on
qualitative data to understand the reasons why the dominant model is most popular.
My research aims to understand the business factors and pedagogical rationale
that underpins the organisational hierarchy and managerial policies of each
7
university’s ALSU. It is simplistic to assume that management decisions made by the
host institution place primary emphasis on pedagogical outcomes to devise operational
policies. Educational institutions such as universities are sites of power where elites
and others defend or contest the status quo of social, cultural, political and economic
power relations (Singh & Doherty, 2004). For example, Australia’s universities may
admit students into courses that qualify graduates to work in professions that
command high salaries and exert cultural power in this nation’s society (James, 2007).
My research embarks on social inquiry. The knowledge that I gain from this
project may empower students and society as these actors benefit from the educational
services Australia’s universities provide. My research questions explore the
underlying ideologies that influence the formulation of policies that drive the
operations of the ALSU at each university. This analysis allows me to understand the
pedagogical, political and economic factors that explain why the host institutions
favour the managerial model that they use to operate their ALSU over competing
pedagogical alternatives (e.g. Nunan et al., 2000).
1.3 Pedagogical problems
The pedagogical problems that I explore extend beyond the challenge of
identifying, counting and analysing the competing models used by Australia’s
8
universities to manage their ALSU in order to determine best practices. The
overarching social problem that I explore in this research report concerns issues of
access and equity in Australia’s higher education system. The origins of the ALSU in
Australia and other countries are rooted in the desire of the host institution to
maximise student retention and graduation rates. The ALSU is a service centre that
can provide additional support to ‘students at risk’ by offering assistance with generic
study skills (e.g. McKenzie & Schweitzer, 2001). This term ‘students at risk’ normally
applies to pupils who have a history of repeated failures within their program of study.
Moreover, their current trajectory suggests that they will not successfully complete
their program unless they receive personalised support from the host institution.
Access to private tutoring in the ALSU is an example of such an intervention.
Empirical research shows that students who work alongside a private learning skills
tutor are more likely to pass their course of study than students who cannot or do not
access this service (e.g. Hattie et al., 1996).
My research is interdisciplinary. I aim to unravel the interconnectivity between
the managerial, economic and pedagogical factors that explain why each institution
favours the embedded, centralised, hybrid or another model to deliver its ALSU
services. I examine the historical and contemporary context of each institution to gain
deeper insight into the complex root causes that explain the choices made by each
post-secondary institution.
9
The managerial problem that I examine centres on whether it is best practice to
centralise or decentralise support services such as the ALSU. The philosophical
problem that I explore centres on the ideologies that management harbour towards
higher education. For example, some managers regard higher education as a public
good whereas others regard it as a free-market commodity (Winter, 2009). The
pedagogical problems that I explore focus on whether learning outcomes are
maximised using the face-to-face, online or the blended-learning mode to deliver
ALSU services. Local context factors specific to the host institution determine which
models is best suited to each institution’s needs (e.g. Nunan et al., 2000).
1.4 Historical context
The origins of the ALSU exist in the so-called ‘writing centres’ that emerged in
the United States in the 1930s (Lerner, 1998, pp. 121–122). These units expanded
rapidly during the 1950s (Entwisle, 1960, p. 243). The core focus of these centres
sought to offer remedial writing assistance, especially to racial minorities and women
who were underrepresented in many campuses in America during this era.
Furthermore, these demographics were overrepresented among these institutions’
population of at risk students (Thonus, 2003, p. 17).
10
Scholarly literature that explores the history and impact of American writing
centres first proliferated between the mid-1940s and the late 1950s (Entwisle, 1960,
pp. 250–251). Entwisle’s (1960) research captures the performance and impact of
American ALSUs using quantitative methods to analyse data that she extracts from 22
post-secondary institutes. She reports that the vast majority of ALSUs focus on
remedial writing as a core priority. Furthermore, all institutes record net positive
benefits among those students who access the ALSU. Entwisle (1960, p. 249) reports
that this “Size of Gain” is negligible to minor for the vast majority of these institutions
and reports this conclusion using either a “grade” or “points” scale.
Most of Australia’s universities established a centralised ALSU in the mid-
1980s. During the post-second World War era Australia’s universities offered on-
campus healthcare and counselling services. Prior to the 1980s, this was the extent of
the support services offered to Australia’s tertiary students beyond the tuition
provided by Faculty teaching staff (George & O’Regan, 1998; Hicks & George, 1998;
Skillen et al., 1998).
11
1.5 Prior research
There is a dearth of contemporary in-depth studies that explore the pedagogical
practices and policies that exist in Australia’s ALSUs. The exclusive teaching focus of
ALSU academics’ job description largely explains this pattern (Chanock & Vardi,
2005). In contrast to Faculty teaching staff, few ALSU academics receive paid
research time. This disparity mostly explains why these professionals normally
publish secondary source research sporadically. It also provides the dominant
explanation for why they mostly disseminate their findings at conferences that centre
on the role of the ALSU (e.g. George & Hicks, 1998).
The refereed conference proceedings from the Australasian Study Skills
Association Annual Conference of 1985 provides the most comprehensive historical
account of teaching practices which occur in the ALSU at tertiary institutions in
Australia. This publication includes the works of 22 practitioners, 20 of whom were
employed at higher educational institutions in one of Australia’s six states. Prior
research that contains some overlap with the bounds of this study is now obsolete.
Most of the pedagogical and managerial issues that these studies analyse do not fully
translate to the contemporary teaching and learning context in the new millennium.
12
Lewis (1985) analyses the techniques ALSU instructors can use in class by
using recorded cassettes as a teaching resource. This technology became virtually
defunct more than a decade ago with the advent of interactive audio-visual digital
video discs. Brown-Parker & Brown-Parker (1985) explore best practices for
supporting distance education students who engage via correspondence. This mode of
study is virtually defunct in Australia’s higher education sector as it has been replaced
with online applications such as e-mail and Moodle. Using these newer technologies,
students can communicate with the ALSU in real-time. They may also exchange
multiple interconnected messages within a short-period of time. The focus of this
study advocates the need to provide learning support for students who live in
“geographically isolated regions of the state” of Tasmania (Brown-Parker & Brown-
Parker, 1985, p. 23).
Such case reports are interesting from a historical context, but they have
become defunct since the mid-1990s. For example, the University of Tasmania
opened its Cradle Coast campus in 1995. This campus continues to grow (University
of Tasmania, 2015, p. 6) and offers access to residents in Tasmania’s North West
Region. In 2015, this university reports that 59% of students who commenced study in
2014 were distance education students. Furthermore, all students at this university
have access to its “Student Learning Drop in Service” which provides academic
support and advice (University of Tasmania, 2015, p. 20).
13
1.6 Exposition of chapters
This research report contains five additional chapters. Chapter Two explores
conceptual debates from multiple disciplines including education, sociology and
business. My critical review of the literature contributes to epistemological knowledge
by synthesising historical and contemporary studies that examines best practices for
delivering ALSU services. I connect this discussion to the Australian context. Chapter
Three outlines my methodological design.
Chapters Four and Five are data analysis chapters. In Chapter Four, I analyse
organisational theory debates that centre on the management of Australia’s higher
education sector. I use this theory to evaluate whether the managerial or customer
service model is best suited to Australia’s universities based on each university’s
mandate and funding levels. In Chapter Five, I use quantitative thematic counting
tools to count the number of competing ALSU models that currently operate in
Australia’s university education sector. Chapter Six summarises the conclusions that I
draw in this report.
14
1.7 Conclusion
There is an absence of contemporary in-depth studies that analyses evidence-
based best practices for managing the ALSU at Australia’s tertiary education
institutions. This study seeks to fill this gap by analysing business and pedagogical
practices at Australia’s 41 universities.
In the next chapter I aim to contribute to the literature by exploring shorter
studies published during the last millennium. Discussion in this chapter analyses this
context and shows how these connect to the corpus of literature that examines best
practice in the global context.
15
Chapter Two Interdisciplinary debates
2.1 Introduction
This chapter undertakes a “critical literature review” (Cohen et al., 2007, pp.
26–27) of peer reviewed scholarly works that examine best practices for managing the
ALSU at tertiary institutions. I aim to advance the literature by showing how
references to managerial ideologies are a recurring theme that threads the dominant
debates that prevail in this corpus of works. Furthermore, I also show how research
which focuses on Australia’s tertiary education sector likewise centre on management
ideology.
In the first part, I explore classic works that examine the history of the ALSU
in Australia and other Western nations, in particular, the United States. Two
ideological debates emerge during this decade and I explore these themes in the
following order. The first corpus of literature considers whether the ALSU works best
when it is embedded within the Faculty or when it is managed as a centralised service.
Other scholars centre their analysis on whether the ALSU should be managed as a
public good as opposed to using a market-oriented model to deliver services and
maximise student outcomes. In more recent years, debates have focussed on whether
16
the face-to-face, online or blended learning model is best practice for delivering
services.
2.2 Service delivery models
Prior to the new millennium, most educational researchers that explore the role
of the ALSU focus on the so-called “writing center” (Boquet, 2008, p. 170) which
exists in colleges and universities in the United States (e.g. Boquet, 1999; Shih, 1986).
Prior to the 1990s, most scholars analyse research data that aims to show how most
writing centre focus on providing remedial writing coaching to struggling writers. A
common theme in this research is that students from lower socio-economic groups are
disproportionately overrepresented among those who consult the services of the
writing centre. This social problem is traceable to financial constraints imposed on
these individuals and the disadvantaged schools that they attended prior to
commencing tertiary level study (e.g. Lerner, 1998, p. 123).
During the 1990s, scholars began to discuss the ways in which the ALSU can
prioritise their allocation of scarce resources to promote equitable outcomes as a
matter of policy. Marginalised social groups identified in this body of literature
include those with a disability, women and racial minorities (e.g. Bawarshi &
Pelkowski, 1999; Harris, 1994; Lassner, 1994; Neff, 1994). The timing of this
17
development in this corpus of literature is logical. The dates of these works align with
the mass emergence of publications that examine social policies within Western
societies that aim to promote equitable outcomes for those with a physical or
intellectual disability (e.g. Pilgrim & Rogers, 2005, p. 2,547).
North (e.g. 1982; 1984a; 1984b; 1987) was the first scholar to publish in-depth
research that analyses the ways in which the services of the ALSU can empower
students and educational providers. In contrast to prior research, North (e.g. 1984b)
places a core emphasis on the student when he theorises the role of the ALSU. As
confirmed by doctoral researchers such as Herb (2014, pp. 4, 8 & 19) and Story (2014,
pp. 102 & 104), North’s (1984a) essay titled “The Idea of a Writing Center” remains
the defining authority for studies that explore the role of the ALSU.
North’s viewpoint of the role of the ALSU is dominantly ideological. A central
claim of his work is that the writing centre is unique because the student drives the
learning encounter. This arrangement rarely transpires in other contexts such lectures
and tutorials delivered by Faculty staff (North, 1984a; 1984b). As argued by Harris
(1992, pp. 380–381) in her assessment of North (1984b), in the writing centre
“students, not teachers, set the agenda; the tutor responds and suggests rather than
directs”. Furthermore, in contrast to departmental teaching staff, in the ALSU, the
instructors are not authority figures, assignors or assessors. ALSU educators work
18
alongside their clients as equal partners in order to produce better writers as opposed
to better pieces of writing that are specific to one subject or assessment (North, 1984a,
NP, cited in Ingram et al., 2012, p. 8).
I surmise that these arguments put forward by North (e.g. 1984a) and his
supporters are contestable. The manner in which a university manages all forms of
service delivery is invariably a management prerogative. However, students normally
exert more influence over such decisions at full fee paying private institutions that
adopt a customer service, free-market oriented approach to service delivery (Winter &
Sarros, 2001).
These two competing service delivery models exist in Australia’s higher
education sector (e.g. Ingvarson et al., 2005). George & O’Regan (1998, NP) use the
term “professional development” to name the operational mode that centres on the
needs of academic teaching staff. In contrast to this ideological model, they use the
label “student learning support” to name the model that devises its policies around
student needs as its “main focus” (George & O’Regan, 1998, NP).
19
2.3 Embed or centralise
An ideological debate that dominates the pedagogical theory literature centres
on whether it is best practice for a post-secondary institute to embed the ALSU and
similar services such as staff-led collaborative learning centres. This integration
occurs at the local level such as within a discipline, school or faculty. Alternatively, an
educational provider may opt to maintain a centrally managed multidisciplinary
ALSU that services students from all faculties (e.g. Blue et al., 2012). I argue that a
visible number of theorists who publish in this area harbour an ideology that favours
the centralisation of services over the decentralisation of service delivery, or vice
versa. These opinions often appear in scholarly articles that do not analyse original
primary data or review secondary data from prior studies (e.g. Kitchens, 2012).
Invariably, there are advantages and disadvantages that may be realised from
centralising or embedding the ALSU. Evidence from previous studies consistently
supports this argument (e.g. Blue et al., 2012). The nature and degree of these benefits
varies by context. In most cases, the centralised department is cheaper to run, as it has
one management team and does not duplicate staff roles and operational facilities.
Furthermore, multidisciplinary staff may keep abreast of best practices that they
observe each discipline that they support. Moreover, they may adapt this knowledge to
benefit students in other disciplines where appropriate. In contrast to this model, the
20
embedded model recruits staff with knowledge, qualifications and experience specific
to the disciplines that they support. These instructors invariably offer students more
appropriate technical advice and reference materials that align with their training and
the client’s course notes and assessments (Hicks et al., 2001).
The construction of ‘interdisciplinary research’ as a desirable alternative to
mono-disciplinary research for certain types of research projects became firmly
established in the literature during the 1970s (e.g. Kruse et al., 1975). Whether or not
interdisciplinary research offers the highest net benefits to a particular project is
normally a pragmatic issue (Connelly & Clark, 1979). This argument stands in
contrast to competing viewpoints, such as ideological standpoints. Those with an
ideological outlook may automatically favour mono-disciplinary research as a matter
of policy, primarily because it encourages scholars to centre on the core issue of
concern.
Scholars who theorise about the role of the ALSU have long explored how
pragmatism and ideology influence those who work in the writing centre. Moreover,
the dominant positions in this body of work are stable (e.g. Kitchens, 2012; North,
1987). Empirical evidence consistently shows that there are numerous contextual
variables and factors peculiar to the host institution that determines whether the
centralised or embedded model is most suitable for an institution. For example, an
21
educational provider’s management may determine that the embedded model
maximises the quality of teaching and learning outcomes. It may also not implement
this model because it is not affordable. The decision to create a single, centralised
multidisciplinary ALSU may be a pragmatic decision, because the only alternative
may be to offer no ALSU at all. This inaction does not empower students at risk who
benefit from general study assistance as opposed to receiving no additional support.
The embedded structure has traditionally been regarded as a model of best
pedagogical practice among Australia’s research academics who also teach in the
ALSU (e.g. Hicks & George, 2001). Skillen et al. (1998, p. 5) capture the essence of
this debate. They argue that “By integrating or embedding learning development into
the curricula, it becomes contextualised, relevant and discipline specific”. The major
reason why the centralised model is popular in Australia is largely explained by
pragmatic factors. For example, the cost of maintaining multiple discipline-specific
ALSUs may not facilitate the best use of an institution’s scarce resources which they
allocate for various types of student support. This imperfect option remains feasible as
most learning skills, such as reading and writing, are core competencies that scholars
must master in order to succeed in all disciplines (Beasley, 1985).
22
2.4 Online technologies
There is no consensus in the literature whether the benefits of using technology
to deliver ALSU services outweigh the costs. Those who argue one way or the other
rarely offer empirical data to support their argument. This lack of objectivity largely
explains why these scholars do not quantify the cost and benefits of competing
alternatives (e.g. Kanuka & Kelland, 2008, p. 49–50). In a similar vein to debates that
centre on the efficacy of centralised and embedded models, the issue of “expense”
(Hobson, 1998, p. 120) is dominant among research that evaluates whether the online,
face-to-face or blended learning approaches are best practice to deliver the ALSU’s
services (e.g. Hicks et al., 2001, p. 45). Hobson (1998, p. 120) argues that policy
makers who influence these decisions are “never ideologically neutral”. The higher
costs of maintaining a face-to-face LSU may explain why some post-secondary
managers automatically favour minimising the amount of face-to-face tuition that they
provide and opt to maximise the provision of online support.
Contrary to popular myth, the online learning environment is invariably more
expensive to operate in the short- to medium-term because it incurs multiple large
financial outlays. These costs normally include hardware, software and staff training
costs. These expenditures normally reduce net operating costs in the long-term only if
23
management continue to use the same teaching model and equipment, rather than
switching to a new system (Njenga & Fourie, 2010).
A dominant debate in the literature examines whether the quality of the
ALSU’s services are maximised via the on-campus face-to-face mode, the online
delivery mode or by using a combination of both formats, i.e., the blended-learning
approach (e.g. Nunan et al., 2000). A pragmatic viewpoint asserts that the
management should favour the model that is most appropriate for their specific
context rather than automatically favour one model. For example, the online or
blended-learning model is usually best practice for regional institutions that enrol a
large proportion of distance education students and maintain multiple campuses over a
vast geographical area. For such institutions, a significant percentage of their students
never/rarely attend any campus. Therefore, some form of online tutoring is the only
viable way for these pupils to engage with an ALSU tutor (Bates, 2001).
Institutions that have very high levels of off-campus distance education
students may opt to offer a basic face-to-face ALSU service. This may transpire
because of the unique benefits that this mode may bestow on students who engage
with the instructor in person (e.g. Anson, 2000, p. 169). For example, some students
and teachers have negative attitudes towards online learning and numerous reasons
24
may account for this attitude. An example of these factors may include student/teacher
anxieties about coping with unfamiliar technologies. Another explanation is that many
students/teachers are fearful about making embarrassing mistakes online that cannot
be corrected or erased (Christensen, 1997).
Debates that centre on the role of online learning in the ALSU first become
prominent in Australia around the turn of the new millennium. This timing is logical,
as many universities’ traditional distance education programs transitioned from a
correspondence study model to an integrated online learning model during this period
(Taylor, 2001). An article by Richards (2002) captures the essence of a series of
publications which pose similar arguments during this era. He points to the fact that
some educators automatically favour face-to-face learning in a manner that is
ideological. He argues that many educators perceive the online teaching model to be
“superficial”. This is because it tends to encourage students to overly rely on online
search techniques. Furthermore, students may not meet teachers and their peers in
person. Many pupils and academics view this detachment as the antithesis of
traditional teaching models which have stood the test of time (Richards, 2002, p. 38).
In reality, the pros and cons of online and on campus models of learning vary
by context. Web-based learning coursework models are invariably “flexible” to some
degree (Richards, 2002, p. 30). They may allow students to access education services
25
that they might otherwise forego if on-campus delivery is not accessible for them. The
evolution of online service delivery might be seen as a “pragmatic” (Nunan et al.,
2000, p. 96) development. This is because this system reflects the way in which
education has transformed into a free-market good that competes in a global world,
with other educational products.
2.5 Conclusion
The core debates that examine policies and practices which drive the teaching
and learning experience in the ALSU are often characterised by pragmatic and
ideological influences. In reality, there is no uniform experience at any ALSU within a
given educational provider and across institutions. Numerous variables and factors
determine whether net benefits are maximised. These include the location of the
ALSU, its use of technologies and the ways in which it prioritises its allocation of
scarce resources to students at risk.
Academic staff and managers who work in the ALSU may draw on this chapter
to reflect on whether they harbour any ideological preferences which are
counterproductive to decisions that they make in this professional context. In the
forthcoming chapter, I offer these professionals insights into the ways in which I
gather and analyse evidence from their colleagues. The design of this process aims to
26
collect quality primary and secondary data so that I may accurately discuss empirical
observations and best pedagogical practices in the data analysis chapters of this report.
27
Chapter Three Methodological design
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines this project’s architectural framework. In the first part I
justify the selection of my research paradigm and the qualitative and quantitative
methods that I use to collect and analyse data in order to contribute to epistemological
knowledge. The next section discusses the limitations and challenges that impinge on
this study. I next summarise the ethical designs that guide the ways that I collect,
analyse and store data.
3.2 Architectural design
This research report critically reviews the pedagogical literature to identify the
taxonomy of best pedagogical techniques, methods and approaches for teaching
learning skills at post-secondary level (e.g. Grol & Grimshaw, 2003; Grol & Wensing,
2004). Furthermore, this project embarks on “deductive research” (Ezzy, 2002, p. 8). I
use theoretical principles to shape my analysis and interpretation of evidence.
I engage in post-positivist emancipatory social research. My research is post-
positivist as it analyses qualitative and quantitative data to draw inferences (Johnson
& Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 16). A tenet that that underpins my research is that multiple
28
realities exist over various limiting divides such as time, place and institutional
boundaries (Quinlan, 2011, pp. 13–14). This research is descriptive and emancipatory
as the knowledge gained can be used to empower marginalised minorities who are
disproportionately overrepresented (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 33) in the ALSU at
Australia’s tertiary institutions. Examples of these social groups include persons with
a disability and those from the lowest socioeconomic classes (e.g. Hicks & George,
2001, NP).
I draw on the “four frameworks” (Quinlan, 2011, p. 6) concept to construct the
design of this research project. These include the “conceptual framework” which
supports my “theoretical framework”. It also encompasses the “analytical framework”
and the “methodological framework” (Quinlan, 2011, p. 6).
The “key word and phrases” that define my “conceptual framework” (Quinlan,
2011, p. 4) from the research question are ‘best practice’ and ‘evidence-based
practice’. I use these search strings and close variants alongside other terms such as
‘higher education’ and ‘tertiary education Australia’ to search scholarly databases
such as Proquest. The analysis I extract from my critical literature review informs my
“theoretical framework” (Quinlan, 2011, p. 4) which I use to conceptualise my
interpretation of data. For example, when I analyse evidence such as text transcripts
from qualitative interviews, I am careful to note references to teaching techniques,
29
methods and approaches that are highly successful. My data analysis refers to the
inferences that I draw from primary and secondary data in Chapters Four and Five.
These in turn comprise my “analytical framework” that I use to scrutinise data that I
collect (Quinlan, 2011, p. 6).
3.3 Data collection
I use the semi-structured interview (Jick, 1979, p. 606) to extract data from
academic staff using “purposive” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 140) sampling techniques.
This technique assists me to collect representative data from the population of
teaching staff and academic leaders who currently work in Australia’s universities.
Figure 1.0, overleaf, shows how I “stratify” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 103) and
“layer” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 579) the sample of participants that I interview and
survey. I use this technique to obtain thematic qualitative data using the criteria of the
‘embedded c.f. centralised’ ALSU model and ‘manager c.f. tutor’ staff member type.
30
Figure 1.0 Layering and stratifying interviewees
ALSU Staff
Manager Tutor
ALSU ALSU
Embedded Centralised Embedded Centralised
ALSU ALSU ALSU ALSU
3 interviewees 3 interviewees 3 interviewees 3 interviewees
Non ALSU Staff
Academic Faculty
Managers Academics
Within University Teaching Coordinator
Faculty Wide Focused e.g. Honours
3 interviewees 3 interviewees 3 interviewees 3 interviewees
31
I interview a range of academic staff in order to extract the breadth of
perspectives and experiences from these personnel about the performances and
functions of the ALSU. Staff outside the ALSU normally has an interest in the
services the ALSU provides. For example, Faculty teaching staff may refer students
who struggle to use academic referencing to ALSU staff for assistance (Chanock,
2008, p. 4). Referring to established statistical sampling principles, 24 respondents for
the interview and survey are sufficient to achieve what Cohen et al. (2007, p. 116)
terms “theoretical data saturation”.
An advantage of using the semi-structured interview is that I may adapt my
questions and probe deeper if I suspect more relevant information can be extracted. I
may also create new questions spontaneously in real-time based on unforeseen
answers that the participant provides during the interview (e.g. Thorpe, 1998, p. 274).
Having a partially rigid structure that repeats core questions ensures that there is a
base level of consistency between the interviews. This in turn aids my ability to
extract data in a way that is fair for the participants and enables meaningful
comparison of their contributions.
I use “speech analysis” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 389) to analyse qualitative
evidence that I obtain from interviewees. This technique is appropriate as I obtain this
data via free-flowing dialogues that occurs between the researcher and the volunteer.
32
Survey data
This project uses the “online survey monkey” (Sherry et al., 2010, p. 35). I plan
to send an e-mail request to 30 persons (i.e. 240 persons in total) from each of the
eight staff categories shown in Figure 1.0. I assume a conservative estimated response
rate of 10% and based this figure on past outcomes from recent studies (Sherry et al.,
2010, p. 33). I anticipate that I should be able to secure a response from three
responses from each category. This survey shall ask similar questions to those that I
ask during the semi-structured interviews. This structure allows me to use across
method triangulation to check the reliability of my data (Jick, 1979, p. 602).
The online survey is a more time-efficient way for me to conduct research
within the time limits imposed on this study. Furthermore, academics are more likely
to participate and offer more honest responses if they may do this from the privacy of
their office. Employees are less likely to be embarrassed by the presence of the
interviewer if they provide feedback which may be seen to critical of their employer.
Using a short survey with 20 questions should maximise response rates. Busy working
professionals are less likely to respond to online surveys that are too cumbersome to
complete (Fricker & Schonlau, 2002). I shall offer participants the option of typing in
text feedback after they complete the 20 questions. This design enables me to obtain
richer data from participants who are willing to provide such content.
33
Online content
I collect qualitative textual evidence using online searches to gather analytical
data content from sources such as policy documents, annual reports and university
web-pages (Weare & Wang-Yin, 2001). In contrast to the obtrusive methods, the
quantity of evidence that I collect is close to the population of data that relates to this
study. As Australia has only 42 universities, I am able to extract all publicly available
policy documents and web pages that relate to these institutions ALSUs. I use
statistical data analysis techniques such as counting to tally the “frequency” of
thematic codes (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 480) such as ‘online’ and ‘on campus’ delivery
of ALSU services.
3.4 Data analysis
I analyse textual evidence using “explicit content analysis” (Cohen et al., 2007,
p. 480). This research project uses a range of “manifest” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p.
1,283) qualitative content analysis methods to analyse and interpret qualitative data
that I collect from the online survey and semi-structured interviews. “Thematic
analysis” (Cohen et al., 2007, pp. 184 & 368) and “text analysis” are the dominant
data analysis methods. I use thematic analysis method to identify and count
distinguishable topics that repeat in the data that align to my research questions.
34
My qualitative data is entirely textual. I therefore use specific text analysis
methods such as “policy analysis” (Cohen et al. 2007, p. 41) techniques to analyse
policy documents. An example of such an ALSU policy guidance document enforced
by universities is “The MASUS procedure – Measuring the academic skills of
university students: A diagnostic assessment” (University of Sydney Learning Centre,
2007). Policy analysis requires me to consider the organisational and bureaucratic
structures of the institution that owns each document. This technique enables me to
comprehend the unique historical context of this instrument and the effect that each
document has at the host institution (Grossman & McDonald, 2008).
I also use “comparative analysis” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 139) as a tool to
compare and contrast policy document content and feedback provided by interviewees
from different universities. For example, some institutions maintain a single
centralised ALSU whereas others maintain multiple embedded ALSUs. When
analysing data, I aim to discover if there are sound business practices that justify an
institution adopting the model that they use. I evaluate whether this choice is a ‘best-
fit’ based on the operational factors that are unique to that university.
To aid my data analysis, I unitise my data set and code it according to central and
marginal themes. This classification system enables me to infer what issues are
35
dominant. I focus more on central topic when I narrate my conclusions in order to
contribute to epistemological knowledge (Krippendorf, 2004, pp. 45–98).
3.5 Epistemological framework
I use “pragmatism” as a “philosophical assumption” (Creswell, 2003, p. 6). As
argued by Garrison (1994, p. 5), pragmatists seek to construct a more positive society.
They aim to do this by raising questions about the competing values and political
systems that shape their community. I argue that this objective aligns with the grand
aim of the ALSU. This unit aims to empower students by maximising their chances of
success. This in turn increases these pupil’s chances of growing personally and
professionally as graduates than can compete in a globalised, competitive job market
(e.g. Singh & Doherty, 2004).
Pragmatism is a suitable philosophical approach for mixed methods social
research because it combines objectivism with the qualitative notion of ‘particularism’
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, pp. 14 & 16). People’s experiences and
interpretations are not uniform. Pragmatism is an appropriate analytical paradigm as I
reject dualism and binaries of choices and realities (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.
18). For example, I reject the simplistic argument that an ALSU may be centralised or
embedded. I recognise that competing alternatives exist such as the hybrid model
36
whereby a university offers a centralised ALSU and a local ALSU within one or more
faculties. I also acknowledge the reality that certain individuals (e.g. adult educators)
are more likely to advocate a pragmatic approach. This practice may transpire as they
choose to focus on what is effective based on access to scarce resources as opposed to
making an ideological decision based on theoretical strengths and weaknesses listed in
organisational theory texts. Finally, I aim to construct knowledge by placing the social
problems that I explore at the forefront of analysis. This practice is appropriate for a
research design that uses pragmatism as a paradigm (Creswell, 2003, pp. 11–12).
3.6 Reflexive design
My methodological design incorporates multiple processes that aim to
maximise the “reliability”, “validity” and “replicability” of this study (Poulton, 1996,
p. 26). For example, I use within method and across method triangulation in order to
achieve content validity (Adcock & Collier, 2001, p. 538). This technique enables me
to distinguish between dominant and peripheral themes when I analyse data (Jick,
1979).
This research incorporates self-reflexive design considerations that aim to
reduce internal and external bias so that I may be confident that my research findings
are accurate (Ezzy, 2002, pp. 52 & 56). For example, during all phases of this project,
37
I aim to ensure that my personal preferences and opinions do not cause me to
consciously or subconsciously select data samples as a means to produce a
predetermined outcome in order to drive a personal agenda.
At all times during this research project, I aim to be self-aware of the
“situatedness” (Contu & Wilmott, 2003, p. 283) of all participants in this project. This
in turn establishes ‘context validity’ when I collect and analyse data. For example I
assume that those who participate in a semi-structured interview are cautious about
revealing information that is confidential or embarrasses their employer. One design I
use that aims to maximise construct validity for organisation research (Doty and
Glick, 1998) is to clearly label all surveys and interview invitations ‘private and
confidential’. This practice may maximise the quality of data provided by research
participants. Volunteer research participants normally seek reassurance that the
information they offer social researchers shall not be disclosed to others without their
written consent (e.g. Rudd & King, 1998, NP). Moreover, the University of
Tasmania’s Ethics Committee require this from their researchers (University of
Tasmania, 2015c).
38
3.7 Ethics
I respect the dignity of all persons that I engage with at all times during the
research process (Gomm, 2004, pp. 298–322). I will obtain informed consent from all
participants. This project does not deal with persons who require special consideration
because of cultural issues (e.g. Indigenous Australians) or because they are at risk of
exploitation, such as homeless persons. I do not engage with the environment and I do
not make contact with live or dead plants/animals (University of Tasmania, 2015a;
2015b).
3.8 Conclusion
I use the semi-structured interview, the online survey and online content
analysis methods to pursue post-positivist emancipatory research. In Chapter Four, I
analyse data that I obtain from the online survey and the semi-structured interview. I
review this evidence to determine whether the managerial or customer service model
is best suited to running the ALSU at Australia’s universities.
39
References
Adcock, R., and D. Collier. (2001), Measurement validity: A shared standard for
qualitative and quantitative research, American Political Science Review, 95,
529–546.
Anson, C. (2000), Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture of technology, in
Bonny, G. (Ed), Trends & issues in post-secondary English studies (pp.167–
189), Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bates, T. (2001), National strategies for e-learning in post-secondary education and
training, Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization.
Bawarshi, A. and Pelkowski, S. (1999), Postcolonialism and the idea of a writing
center, The Writing Center Journal, 19(2), 41–58.
Beasley, V. (1985), Study skills development and academic chauvinism, In Quintrell,
N. (Ed), Learning to Learn: Language & Study Skills Conference (pp. 1–16),
Peer reviewed proceedings from the 6th
Annual Australasian Study Skills
Conference, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, May 19851,
Adelaide, South Australia: Flinders University Relations Unit.
Blue, A. et al. (2012), Changing the future of health professions: Embedding
interprofessional education within an academic health center, Academic
Medicine, 85(8), 1,290–1,295.
Boquet, E. (1999), Our little secret: A history of writing centers, pre- to post- open
admissions, College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 463–482.
––––– (2002), Noise from the writing center, Salt Lake City, USA: Utah State
University Press.
Boquet, E. and Lerner, N. (2008), Reconsiderations: “After the idea of a writing
center”, College English, 78(2), 170–189.
1The published proceedings and other online records do not state the specific dates of this conference.
40
Brown-Parker, J. & Brown-Parker, J. (1985), A distance education strategy for
assisting learners bridge the gap to Tasmanian higher education: Cost effective
study skills options to overcome institutional presdigitation, pious principles,
procrastination, in Learning to Learn: Language & Study Skills Conference
(pp. 17–34), Peer reviewed proceedings from the 6th
Annual Australasian Study
Skills Conference, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, May
1985, Adelaide, South Australia: Flinders University Relations Unit.
Chanock, K. (2008), When students reference plagiarised material – what can we
learn (and what can we do) about their understanding of attribution,
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 4(1), 3–16.
Chanock, K. and Vardi, I. (2005), Data: We’re standing in it, Refereed proceedings
from the Teaching and Learning Forum 14th
Annual Conference, Perth,
Western Australia, 3 February to 4 February 2005.
Christensen, R. (1997), Effect of technology integration education on the attitudes of
teachers and their students (unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis), Denton,
Texas: University of North Texas.
Cohen, L. et al. (2007), Research methods in education (6th edition), London,
England: Routledge.
Connelly, T. and Clark, D. (1979), Developing interdisciplinary education in allied
health programs: Issues and decisions, Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional
Education Board.
Contu, A. and Wilmott, H. (2003), “Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of
power relations in learning theory”, Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296.
Creswell, J. (2003), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
(Second edition), California, USA: Sage.
Department of Education and Training, (2015), Summary of the 2014 full year higher
education student statistics, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government
Department of Education and Training.
Doty, H. and Glick, W. (1998), Common methods bias: Does common methods
variance really bias results?, Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406.
41
Entwisle, D. (1960), Evaluations of study skills courses: A review, Journal of
Educational Research, 53(7), 243–251.
Ezzy, D. (2002), Qualitative analysis: practice and innovation, Sydney, Australia:
Allen
& Unwin.
Fricker, R. and Schonlau, M. (2002), Advantages and disadvantages of internet
research surveys: Evidence from the literature, Field Methods, 14(4), 347–367.
Gall, D. et al. (1990), Tools for learning: A guide to teaching study skills, Virginia,
USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Garrison, J. (1994), Realism, Deweyan Pragmatism, and Educational Research,
Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5–14.
George, R. and O’Regan, K. (1998), A professional development model of student
support, Refereed proceedings from the Transformation in Higher Education
Conference, University of Auckland, 1998: nd [unspecified] <www2.
auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDSA/HTML/LearnSup/GEORGE.html>. Accessed 5
January 2015.
Gomm, R. (2004), Social research methods: A critical introduction, Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gosling, D. (2003), Supporting student learning, in Fry, H. et al. (2003), A handbook
for teaching and learning in higher education (2nd edition) (pp. 162–181),
Virginia, USA: Kogan Page.
Grol, R. and Grimshaw, J. (2003), From best evidence to best practice: effective
implementation of change in patients’ care, The Lancet, 362, 1,225–1,230.
Grol, R. and Wensing, M. (2004), What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for
achieving evidence-based practice, Medical Journal of Australia, 180
(Supplement), S57–S60.
Grossman, P. and McDonald, M. (2008), Back to the future: Direction for research in
teaching and teacher education, American Educational Research Journal, 45,
184–205.
42
Harris, M. (1992), Collaboration is not collaboration is not collaboration [sic]: Writing
center tutorials v peer-response groups, College Composition and
Communication, 43(3), 369–383.
–––––– (1994) Individualized instruction in writing centers: Attending to cross-
cultural differences, Mullin, J. & Wallace, R. (Eds) (1994), Intersections:
Theory-practice in the writing center (pp. 96–110), Urbana, Illinois: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Hattie, J. et al. (1996), Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A
meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99–136.
Herb, M. (2014), Reimagining the dominant narratives of peer tutoring: A study of
tutors’ and writers’ stories (unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis), Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, USA.
Hicks, M. et al. (2001), Enhancing on-line teaching: Designing responsive learning
environments, International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2), 143–
151.
Hicks, M. and George, R. (1998), A strategic perspective on approaches to student
learning support at the University of South Australia, Peer reviewed
proceedings from the 1998 Higher Education Research and Development
Society of Australasia Annual International Conference: Transformation in
Higher Education Auckland New Zealand, 7 July to 10 July 1998.
–––––– (2001), Making connections: The changing identity of learning support at the
University of South Australia, Peer reviewed proceedings from the Changing
identities: 2001 Language and Academic Skills Biennial Conference,
University of Wollongong, 29-30 November 2001.
Hobson, E. (1998), Wiring the writing center, Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State
University Publications.
Hsieh, H. and Shannon, S. (2005), Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis,
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1,277–1,288.
Ingram, K. et al. (2012), An investigation of the feasibility of a writing center at Olivet
Nazarene University: The implementation of a pilot program, Scholarship –
Academic Affairs Office Series Paper 1,
43
<www.digitalcommons.olivet.edu/accaf_facp/1>. Accessed 28 December
2015.
Ingvarson, L. et al. (2005), Factors affecting the impact of professional development
programs on teacher’s knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy,
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1–26.
James, R., (2007), Social equity in a mass, globalised higher education environment:
The unresolved issue of widening access to university, Melbourne, Australia:
Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne
Jick, T. (1979), Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.
Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004), Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kanuka, H. and Kelland, J. (2008), Has e-learning delivered on its promises? Expert
opinion on the impact of e-learning in higher education, Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 30(1), 45–65.
Kitchens, J. (2012), The postdisciplinarity of lore: Professional and pedagogical
development in a graduate student community of practice, Atlanta, Georgia:
Georgia State University Department of English.
Krippendorf, K. (2004), Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology,
Thousand Oaks, California USA.
Kruse, R. et al. (1975), Interdisciplinary research teams as status systems, Peer
reviewed proceedings from the American Society for Engineering Education
Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, 16-19 June 1975.
Lassner, P. (1994) The politics of otherness: Negotiating distance and difference,
Mullin, J. and Wallace, R. (Eds) (1994), Intersections: Theory-practice in the
writing center (pp.148–160), Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Lerner, N. (1998), Drill pads, teaching machines, and programmed texts: Origins of
instructional technology in writing centers, in Hobson, E. (Ed), Wiring the
writing center (pp. 119–136), Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State University
Publications.
44
Lewis, J. (1985), The instructional design of ‘facets of learning’ – An audio base
program to teach study skills, In Quintrell, N. (Ed), Learning to Learn:
Language & Study Skills Conference (pp. 63–69), Peer reviewed proceedings
from the 6th
Annual Australasian Study Skills Conference, University of
Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, May 1985, Adelaide, South Australia:
Flinders University Relations Unit.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (1999), Designing qualitative research (3rd edition),
London, England: Sage.
McKenzie, K. and Schweitzer, R. (2001), Who succeeds at university? Factors
predicting academic performance in first year university students, Higher
Education Research & Development, 20, 21–33.
McEvedy, M. (1985), Write it! Then get it right!, Suggestions for assessing,
programming and teaching writing skills at tertiary level, In Quintrell, N. (Ed),
Learning to Learn: Language & Study Skills Conference (pp. 71–83), Peer
reviewed proceedings from the 6th
Annual Australasian Study Skills
Conference, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, May 1985,
Adelaide, South Australia: Flinders University Relations Unit.
Mullin, J. and Wallace, R. (Eds) (1994), Intersections: theory-practice in the writing
center, Illinois, USA: National Council of Teachers of English.
Neff, J. (1994), Learning disabilities and the writing centre, in Mullin, J. & Wallace,
R. (Eds), Intersections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center (pp. 81–95),
Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Nelson, K. et al. (2009), Student success: the identification and support of first year
university students at risk of attrition, Evaluation, Innovation and
Development, 6(1), 1–15.
Njenga, J. and Fourie, C. (2010), The myths about e-learning in higher education,
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 199–212.
North, S. (1982), Training tutors to talk about writing, College Composition and
Communication, 33(4), 434–441.
45
–––––– (1984a), “The Idea of a Writing Center”, in Graves, R. (Ed), Rhetoric and
Composition: A Sourcebook for Teachers and Writers (pp. 232–246),
Portsmouth, England: Heinemann.
–––––– (1984b), The idea of a writing center, College English, 46(5), 433–446.
––––––1987, The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging field,
Portsmouth, England: Heinemann.
Nunan, T. et al. (2000), Rethinking the ways in which teaching and learning are
supported: The flexible learning centre at the University of South Australia,
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 85–98.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2015), OECD better life
index: Education (Australia),
<www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/australia/>. Accessed 5 January 2015.
Pilgrim, D. and Rogers, A. (2005), Psychiatrists and social engineers: A study of an
anti-stigma campaign, Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2,546–2,556.
Polkinghorne, D. (2005), Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative
research, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137–145.
Poulton, B. (1996), Use of the consultation satisfaction questionnaire to examine
patients’ satisfaction with general practitioners and community nurses:
reliability, replicability and discriminant validity, British Journal of General
Practice, January 1996, 26–31.
Quinlan, C. (2011), Business research methods, Hampshire, England: Cengage.
Reid, I. (1999), Beyond models: Developing a university strategy for online
instruction, Journal of Asynchrous Learning Networks, 3(1), 19–31.
Richards, C. (2002), Distance education, on-campus learning, and e-learning
convergences: An Australian exploration, International Journal of E-Learning,
1(3), 30–39.
Rudd, A. and King, K. (1998), Legal and ethical dilemmas for disability liaison
officers in tertiary institutions, Refereed conference proceedings from the
Tertiary Education Disability Council of Australia, Pathways National
46
Conference – Creating the Future, 1 December to 4 December 1998, Perth,
Western Australia.
Sherry, M. et al. (2010), International students: a vulnerable student population,
Higher Education, 60(1), 33–46.
Shih, M. (1986), Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing, TESOL
Quarterly, 20(4), 617–648.
Singh, P. and Doherty, C. (2004), Global cultural flows and pedagogic dilemmas:
Teaching in the global university ‘contact zone’, TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 9–
42.
Skillen, J. et al. (1998), The IDEALL approach to Learning Development: a model for
fostering improved literacy and learning outcomes for students, Peer reviewed
proceedings from the Australian Association for Research in Education
Conference, University of Adelaide, 29 November-3 December 1998.
Story, J. (2014), Leader’s experiences with high school-college writing center
collaborations: A qualitative multiple-case study (unpublished Doctor of
Educational Leadership thesis), Arizona, Phoenix: University of Phoenix.
Taylor, J. (2001), Fifth generation distance education, Instructional Science and
Technology, 4(1), 1–14.
Thonus, T. (2003), Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center,
TESOL Journal, 12(1), 17–24.
Thorpe, M. (1998), Assessment and ‘third generation’ distance education, Distance
Education, 19(2), 265–286.
United Nations Development Program, (2015), Human Development Report 2015,
New York, USA: United Nations Development Program.
University of Sydney Learning Centre, (2007), The MASUS procedure – Measuring
the academic skills of university students: A diagnostic assessment, University
of Sydney Learning Centre, Sydney Australia.
47
University of Tasmania (2015a), Office of research services: Animal ethics,
<www.utas.edu.au/research-admin/research-integrity-and-ethics-unit-
rieu/animal-ethics>. Accessed 28 December 2015.
–––––– (2015b), Office of research services: FAQ social science HREC,
<http://www.utas.edu.au/research-admin/research-integrity-and-ethics-unit-
rieu/human-ethics/human-research-ethics-review-process/social-sciences-
hrec/faqs-social-science-hrec>. Accessed 5 January 2015.
–––––– (2015c), University of Tasmania’s responsible conduct of research
framework, <www.utas.edu.au/research-admin/research-integrity-and-ethics-
unit-rieu/research-integrity/university-of-tasmania-responsible-conduct-of-
research-framework>. Accessed 28 December 2015.
Weare, C. And Wang-Yin, L. (2000), Content analysis of the World Wide Web:
Opportunities and challenges, Social Science Computer Review, 18(3); 272–
292.
Winter, R. (2009), Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity
schisms in higher education, Journal of Higher Education Policy &
Management, 31(2), 121–131.
Winter, R. & Sarros, J. (2001), Corporate reforms to Australian universities: Views
from the academic heartland, Peer reviewed proceedings from the Critical
Management Studies Conference, University of Manchester, 11 July to 13 July
2001.