Newton, S and Goldsmith, R (2011) An analysis of stakeholder preferences for threshold learning outcomes in construction management in Australia. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
As a precursor to a new national regulatory and quality agency for higher education in Australia, the Australian Teaching and Learning Council (ALTC) has been commissioned to work with clusters of discipline communities to begin to specify how Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) particular to each discipline might be used as a basis for academic standards. In 2010, a series of 14 workshops and follow-up questionnaires was convened to examine the preferences of key stakeholder groups for particular TLOs. A thematic analysis of the workshops identified six broad classifications: Judgement, Communication, Self-Development, Knowledge, Innovation and Work-Integrated Learning. Draft TLO statements for each have now been developed. An analysis of the stakeholder preferences reveals significant differences and interesting similarities in the preferences being expressed. These differences are examined in terms of TLO and source classifications. Results confirm that Judgement is generally a low preference for Industry and Students. There is also a strong case for curriculum review around Innovation. There is consistently high preference expressed for the development of graduates as individuals. Overall, the strong message from this data is that Industry is uncomfortable with learning outcomes being expressed in other than a traditional competency statement form. A critical requirement is to come not only to a shared expression of the TLOs, but also a shared understanding of them.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accreditation; education; threshold learning outcomes |
| Index terms: | Australia, higher education, workshop, learning outcome, preference, agency, thematic analysis, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | methods and analysis, Geography, decision-making and reasoning, student development, educational institutions, sociology, construction type, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here