1

Aligning the key

dimensions of

online learning

environments to

enable student

success

iD isDDr eiaaD rD عنوان البحثand

rs r tsnrD air t DArDaD Dra via DseDs

2

Abstract

The Australian Government has set a target of 40%, of

the population aged 25-34 years, to have attained a

bachelor degree or higher by 2025. In 2011, the Gov-

ernment implemented a new Commonwealth-supported-

places scheme, so far providing an additional 150,000

places (Australian Government, 29, November, 2012).

However, increasing the number of funded university

places is not sufficient to ensure student success.

Widening participation has placed greater demands on

institutions where completion rates, rather than par-

ticipation, is now a key target. It is essential

therefore, that institutions not only establish goals

to improve learning outcomes, but have tangible

strategies, resources and services in place to real-

ise these goals through design and delivery of an

holistic quality educational experience, flexible

study options which exploit the use of technologies

in online environments; and timely student support.

Three key components to promote quality and enable

successful learning in online learning environments

include pedagogically sound learning design; student

support; and professional staff development. Each

component should be informed by evidence and insights

about learning, gleaned from analysis of data availa-

ble about student behaviour and engagement in online

and technology mediated-environments.

This paper explores the key dimensions of new and

emerging pedagogical and technological frameworks

critical to achieving the goal of successful learning.

3

Introduction

Australia has made a significant contribution to the

growth of worldwide online education, with industry

reports of 18.6% annual growth 2008-2013 and revenue

of A$5 billion (Ibis World, 2012). Furthermore, the

growth in online enrolments has outstripped tradi-

tional on-campus growth. For example, in 2010 online

growth was 29% compared to 5% for on-campus (DEEWR,

2010). This shift in student demand has led to a cor-

responding shift in universities, to an online

strategy, especially for those institutions which had

favoured conventional modes of teaching. The context

in which growth has occurred is important to under-

stand the nature of online learning environments and

the quality of the student experience.

Government Directions for Higher Education

In recent years the influence of government higher

education policies has been significant on both qual-

ity of education, through funding and regulation, and

student participation in higher education, through

opening up access.

The genesis of providing more open and equitable ac-

cess to higher education can be traced back to the

early eighties, when the Government supported the es-

tablishment of Open Learning Australia (OLA), now

4

Open Universities Australia (OUA). OLA built on the

reputation and success of universities, such as

Monash University, with a history of undertaking dis-

tance and on-campus studies. OUA today is a unique

model providing access to over 1700 units on behalf

of over 20 institutions across Australia.

Higher Education Sector Reform

In 2008-2009 the widening participation agenda found

renewed impetus from a review of Australia's higher

education, considered to be a long overdue response

to sector concerns about the future of higher educa-

tion, in particular the impact on quality brought

about by diminishing government funding. In 2004,

Australia’s public investment in tertiary education

was 0.8% of GDP compared to the OECD country average

of 1.0% (Marginson, 2009).

Hence, the Government embarked upon major sector re-

forms, commencing with a broad-ranging review chaired

by Professor Denise Bradley, (former Vice-Chancellor

of the University of South Australia). The Bradley

Review made recommendations with respect to raising

the level of participation rates of school leavers

and individuals from the lowest socio-economic strata

(SES), and the participation and completion rates of

indigenous students. Although generally welcomed

across the sector, there was some criticism, predomi-

5

nantly relating to the potential for sacrificing

quality and excellence (Marginson, 2009).

The Government adopted a number of the Bradley re-

port’s key principles on participation, equity and

quality including:

By 2025, 40% of all 25 to 34-year-olds will hold a

qualification at bachelor level or above.

By 2020, 20% of undergraduate enrolments will be

people from a low SES background.

Improve low socio-economic participation including

injection of an additional $394 million in funding.

Establishing a Tertiary Education Quality and

Standards Agency (TEQSA), focussing on quality and

accreditation. (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009).

Since then, participation rates across a wider sector

of the population have improved and there is also ev-

idence of a positive impact on completion rates. In

June 2012, the Education Minister Senator Evans

claimed significant advances in achieving wider par-

ticipation and completion goals, stating that:

• Commencements for students from low SES backgrounds

increased by 3.3% to 56,710, while total enrolments

of this group increased by 26,456 (23%) since 2007.

• In 2011, 5,381 Indigenous students commenced a uni-

versity course, an increase of 6.1% from 2010.

6

Since 2007 Indigenous student enrolments at univer-

sity had increased by 2,437, or 26%.

• Regional and remote student commencements in-

creased, reversing a decline. Total enrolments

increased by 24,427 (17.4%) students since 2007.

• In 2012, 36.8% of Australians aged 25-34 now have a

Bachelor degree or higher qualification, compared

to 30.6% in 2007.

• 341,500 students aged 25 to 34 have achieved a uni-

versity qualification since 2007, including 73,400

students since 2011 (Australian Government, 2012).

While the figures are encouraging, greater demands

were placed on institutions for more student support.

In 2011, for example 42,111 students (4.8%) had a

disability, 10.5% more than 2010 (DIISTRE, 2011).

Mature age entry has been a significant feature of

Australian higher education since the 1970s, but less

traditional pathways into higher education have in-

creased with the popularity of online delivery. For

example, Open Universities Australia has typically

assisted the mature age student and in 2012 OUA’s

fastest growing cohort was in the 50-60 age group.

Since 1993 over 250,000 students have studied through

OUA, and from 2008-2011 there was an increase of al-

7

most 30% annual growth in enrolments. In 2012 there

were over 60,000 OUA students studying online.

All Australian universities are now showing interest

in online education. Curtin University of Technology

and Swinburne University of Technology have intro-

duced online initiatives, Curtin Online and Swinburne

Online respectively, the latter in connection with

SEEK Learning, an educational offshoot of an Austral-

ian online jobs site. Whilst not open access, entry

requirements are flexible and online study, whether

stand-alone or as a component of on-campus study, has

continued to grow (DIISTRE, 2011).

With the ongoing emphasis on widening participation,

open and more flexible access for non-traditional

student cohorts, and the increase in online course

offerings, quality has come under scrutiny. The po-

tential for lowering of standards and completion

rates has permeated the debate (Pinantoan, 2012). It

was argued that while the concept of online study was

popular, it was still perceived by many as the 2nd

best option, with universities offering online cours-

es appearing to justify their equivalency. The Curtin

Online website used the slogan 'Just like being

there', and made statements such as 'You will achieve

the same quality degree studying online you would get

if you studied on campus’. Concerns about quality and

8

standards resonated with government, higher education

providers, employers and students.

Higher Education Quality Standards

Australian higher education is highly regulated with

strong government control over which institutions can

access Commonwealth funding. As part of the emphasis

on higher education quality the government has re-

cently instituted three key initiatives as the

central pillars of a quality agenda:

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

The Higher Education Standards Panel, responsible

for developing the Higher Education Standards.

The Australian Qualifications Framework Council,

responsible for developing the framework of all

post-compulsory education qualifications.

The newly established Tertiary Education Quality and

Standards Agency (TEQSA) is of particular interest.

TEQSA’s primary aim is to ensure that students re-

ceive a high quality education from any Australian

higher education provider, including private provid-

ers, and hence it has adopted a strong regulatory

focus on quality, standards and performance. TEQSA

applies the Standards Framework comprising: Provider

Standards, Qualification Standards, Teaching and

9

Learning Standards, Information Standards and Re-

search Standards.

The significant commitment to quality and higher stu-

dent participation, has led to growing attention on

increasing levels of student success (Nelson, Duncan,

& Clarke, 2009). With many diverse stakeholders with

a vested interest in the outcomes of higher educa-

tion, from government legislators to university

managers to employers, the issue arises of “who de-

termines student success”; and “who defines success”

– governments, students, institutions, employers?

What is Student Success?

Government, with a significant investment in tertiary

education, has a focus on completion targets and

measures success in this light. Closely aligned with

completion, and the focus of much academic discourse

in the literature, are the notions of student reten-

tion, attrition and progression rates (Krause &

McEwan, 2009; Spies 2011). Concerns that attrition in

online courses outstrips more traditional on-campus

modes (DiRamio & Wolverton, 2006) has led not only to

a plethora of studies on the topic of retention and

engagement (Stone, 2012; Krause, & McKewan, 2009),

but has also been one of the institutional drivers

behind the rapidly emerging field of learning analyt-

10

ics. Thus the focus of much activity related to

learning and academic analytics is to significantly

improve retention and completion rates (Baer & Camp-

bell, 2012; Essa & Ayad, 2012).

Other factors which impact retention, and clearly are

associated with student success, are performance and

grades. While there is a strong connection between

grades and student satisfaction, and assessment

grades clearly influence the rate of academic pro-

gression, the impact is more far-reaching than an

individual student. Academic progression has consid-

erable impact on institutional resources and

performance.

Concerns about poor performance associated with

online learning require constant monitoring as new

models emerge, but generalised views about lesser

quality were not substantiated in a recent U.S. De-

partment of Education report (2010) which found “...

on average, students in online learning conditions

performed modestly better than those receiving face-

to-face instruction” (p. xiv).

Clearly there are multiple factors which can contrib-

ute to student success such as student motivation,

alignment of expectations, and overall course satis-

faction. However the evidence for the importance of

11

engagement on student success is overwhelming partic-

ularly with respect to 1st year students (Nelson,

Duncan, & Clarke, 2009). There is a strong case

therefore to incorporate student engagement and par-

ticipation into learning design to enable student

success in online courses.

Key dimensions of online learning

A quality online learning environment is multi-

faceted and complex. Early attempts at the provision

of online learning focused primarily on simply con-

verting existing teaching materials into a format

suitable for online delivery (Tsolis et al., 2010).

Quality online learning environments for contemporary

times require the successful coalescence of multiple

facets, involving many participants throughout the

entire learning lifecycle.

The key facets or dimensions of the environment in-

clude course design and development, provision of

student support, staff professional development and

use of appropriate learning technologies. Many of the

principles ascribed to quality teaching and learning

in all educational contexts, are equally valid in

fully online environments, but it is argued that

there are particular elements of greater importance

in the latter.

12

Course Design and Development

A recent project at Open Universities Australia iden-

tified the following pedagogical dimensions as of

critical importance for course design in the online

learning context: Personalisation, Adaptive Learning,

Authentic Learning and Collaboration. Personalised

Learning provides students with the appropriate level

of control over when and how they access learning re-

sources and over the look and feel of their

individual online learning space (McLoughlin & Lee,

2010). In more mature contexts, students may set

their own learning goals, manage content and partici-

pate in a variety of discussion forums at their own

discretion, in order to achieve the common predefined

learning outcomes of a course.

Personalised Learning can resonate particularly well

for online learners, where teachers and tutors can

tailor their style to make each student, even in

large scale online courses, feel personally tutored.

For many new learners, especially those new to the

tertiary education environment, this sense of connec-

tion and personalisation can be very important in

what might otherwise be quite an alienating experi-

ence, particularly if one’s only previous formal

education has been in a traditional classroom.

13

A complementary pedagogical component of the online

learning environment is Adaptive Learning, which

acknowledges that learners have different prefer-

ences, approaches, background knowledge and

motivations. Applied at the course design phase,

Adaptive Learning permits the student to navigate in-

dividual pathways through a course, matching

materials and learning activities, depending on their

ability to demonstrate mastery of set tasks or under-

standing of key concepts.

Creating adaptive learning designs, however, presents

a number of the resourcing challenges: time, cost,

content availability and assessment, as well as the

inherent design complexity of producing a quality

adaptive program on an affordable and scalable magni-

tude (Dagger et al., 2005).

In addition to the challenges posed through the so-

phistication of adaptive learning designs, technology

platforms must also be built to support and manage

adaptive learning activities. Tsolis and colleagues

(2010) argue that the “traditional LMS offers to all

it's users the same services and content, meaning

that all learners taking an LMS-based course, regard-

less of their knowledge, goals, and interests,

receive access to the same educational material and

the same set of tools, with no further personalized

14

support” (p. 38). Alternatively what is required are

learning systems which not only enable the profiling

of content, annotation and collaboration, but also

provide specialized features and tools, tailored for

individual learners and teachers based on the user’s

profile and updated information about how a student

is learning.

With the recent uptake of massive open online courses

(MOOCs), adaptive learning is being employed on a

larger scale. For example, a common MOOC format sees

the “chunking” of content into small digestible bits,

followed by short quizzes or assessments. Advanced

course design ensures that a student’s assessment re-

sult determines the subsequent learning pathway

(whether that entails a review of the previous learn-

ing, a remedial or an accelerated learning option).

A third pedagogical dimension of online learning en-

vironment is Authentic Learning (Herrington, Reeves &

Oliver, 2010). “Learning by doing” in real world con-

texts and the integration of authentic tasks and

assessment into course design provides learners with

valuable practical and relevant experience which, to

date, has often proven too difficult or expensive to

create online. However, authentic tasks and experi-

ences can be critical in enabling quality learning

outcomes, particularly in disciplines such as the

15

sciences, and professional subject domains such as

engineering, nursing, education and others.

Authentic Learning also implies real world ways of

working. Engineers, for example, often need to work

together on projects which require familiarity with

collaborative work processes and tools, in order to

devise feasible and practical solutions. Authentic

learning activities and assessment tasks expose stu-

dents, not only to real world scenarios and content,

but can also provide opportunities for students to

apply the appropriate methodologies (e.g. project

management applications) and tools (e.g. mobile phone

apps) that they are likely to encounter in the work-

force or everyday life.

Authentic Learning is often underpinned by high lev-

els of learner interactivity and engagement with

content and peers, tutors or subject matter experts.

Collaborative Learning, the fourth pedagogical dimen-

sion is, in many ways, an integral part of authentic

learning environments. Collaboration is about con-

necting and staying connected with peers, teachers

and subject matter experts. For example, repeated

findings from the Australian Council for Educational

Research (ACER, 2008; 2011) found that interactions

between students and staff are critical to the quali-

16

ty provision of higher education. For students en-

gaged in online learning the feeling of being alone

can be especially detrimental, but their sense of

isolation can be effectively ameliorated through par-

ticipation in collaborative online environments which

engender a sense of belonging and being part of a

group. The benefits of social interaction are now

well accepted, with social learning being recognised

as one of the new literacies of a contemporary educa-

tion system (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011).

Navigating through online learning courses is poten-

tially daunting for both learners and staff. As

levels of higher education participation have in-

creased dramatically (Australian Government, 2012),

it is vitally important to ensure that learning sup-

port is integrated into the learning design of online

courses. The provision of timely learning support for

students studying online, such as self diagnostics,

backed up by well designed, self-paced and structured

materials, is critical. Units, courses and tasks must

be designed with the appropriate scaffolding and

signposting to support learning, with clear direc-

tions about assistance – such as help with maths

concepts, English language or academic writing.

Supported learning can be enhanced based on evidence

gathered in real time from system data collected from

17

learning systems about how students are learning and

their behaviours, as well as the more structured evi-

dence provided through performance in assessments and

quizzes (Essa & Ayad 2012).

OUA has recently developed a model which integrates

these pedagogical components along with other key

principles of a quality online learning environment.

The model, represented in figure 1, is being applied

to all new course development.

Figure 1

OUA Learning

Teaching and

Assessment Model

Student Support

There is ample evidence of the link between success-

ful academic outcomes and student’s connection and

engagement with learning communities (Krause &

McKewan, 2009; ACER, 2011). Stone (2012) argues that:

“Having a sense of connection and engagement with the

institution, through their contact with lecturers,

fellow students, other university staff, can make all

the difference between persistence and academic suc-

18

cess; and disillusionment, disappointment and aban-

donment of studies.” (p. 49)

The value of a comprehensive suite of student support

services, from pastoral services (counselling) to ac-

ademic support services, should not be underestimated

and according to Tinto (2009)”promotes student reten-

tion”. Student mentoring programs are good examples

of support initiatives which contribute to retention

and student satisfaction (Stone, 2000).

Support services, to be effective however, must be

tailored, targeted and timely, throughout a student’s

entire study lifecycle (Nelson, Duncan & Clarke,

2009). For students enrolled in full degree programs,

the journey typically begins with enrolment in the

first unit of a course and progresses according to

the institutional structure of the program over two,

or more years (AQHE, 2012, p.8-9). Support can be

shaped and monitored according to the student’s needs

and delivered at the appropriate time as the student

progresses towards completion of the full degree. For

example, information literacy (Hunn & Rossiter, 2006)

programs may be available, through generic skills ac-

quisition, as well as an integrated approach where

learning is contextualised within a subject.

19

The quality of the student experience also extends to

the academic related or administrative aspects of a

student’s engagement with the educational institu-

tion. For example, the provision of easily understood

information for those students who are just consider-

ing tertiary education study, career advice or

assistance for those students with special needs, are

examples of support services which can make the dif-

ference between failure and success. The e-

counselling service at Swinburne University is an ex-

ample of pastoral care service geared towards

sustainable, affordable and timely student support.

Even the institutional administrative systems associ-

ated with enrolment, fee payment, access to library

or student support services, examination schedules or

work placements can prove overly daunting for many

students, particularly those who may be the first in

their family to attend university or are returning to

study after a long break. The ability of the institu-

tion to be “student-centred” in all areas of academic

and student support is vital in removing barriers and

enabling success.

Students enrolled through Open Universities Australia

have greater access to, and flexibility of, study op-

tions. OUA students can enrol in single units of

study rather than full degree programs. There are,

20

however, specific challenges for many non-traditional

students, which when combined with studying fully

online, exacerbate the need for quality student sup-

port.

The multiple points for student support interventions

are provided at a more granular scale in OUA’s stu-

dent engagement lifecycle, shown in figure 2.

Figure 2 –

OUA Student

Engagement

Lifecycle

This framework provides a phased approach to a sched-

ule of student interventions and activities, for

example, providing advice on what to study or study

load prior to enrolling, and personal phone contact

in the first three weeks of study for those students

who have been identified are most vulnerable to drop-

ping out. The cycle repeats itself for each unit of

study, providing multiple opportunities for personal-

ised and timely support.

Staff Professional Development

There are compelling arguments to ensure that appro-

priate staff development is an integral part of the

21

overall institutional strategy to improve both stu-

dent learning outcomes and the student online

learning experience. These include the diversity of

the student population and the changes required in

teaching practice for online delivery as well as the

increasing number of sessional staff employed to man-

age larger enrolments in online courses.

Many staff are unfamiliar with teaching practice, and

even more uncertain when this is in an online envi-

ronment. Important skills such as providing effective

feedback, and engaging students in online discussion,

are frequently highlighted as influencing both stu-

dent satisfaction and student success (ACER, 2011).

A flexible and responsive staff development framework

provides a range of strategies, resources and articu-

lation pathways, between the informal self-help

materials and accredited formal coursework. OUA’s

framework, for example, has a strong online focus and

offers clear articulation pathways between:

• Informal (self-help) online resources

• Formal unaccredited professional development

• Accredited professional development

The informal online resources are designed to be

bite-sized, self-help resources for academic staff

22

and tutors. Relevance and just-in-time access are key

selling points for this type of informal learning re-

sources. Topics include, using asynchronous

collaboration through wikis, providing effective

feedback and using e-portfolios for reflection. These

informal resources can build towards credit for more

structured and formally accredited programs.

Learning Technologies Framework

Oblinger (2012) identifies information technology as

‘game changers’ in higher education. ICT has been a

key driver of educational innovation, but in the past

decade the dominant technology in the online learning

environment has been the learning management system

(LMS), such as Moodle and Blackboard. The LMS will

continue to play a central role in the delivery of

online learning, however the rapid emergence of web

2.0 and social media platforms such as Facebook,

Twitter and Yammer, are giving rise to more informal

learning, away from the more conventional classroom

practices supported by the LMSs (Leaver, 2012).

A key requirement for modern learning technologies is

the capacity to provide spaces for collaboration,

both synchronous (such as real-time chat) and asyn-

chronous (such as online forums, blogs and wikis).

Tools can be integrated within existing learning

23

platforms, such as Blackboard’s “Collaborate”, while

enhanced communication experiences can be offered

through telepresence environments.

The unrelenting demand for mobile access through de-

vices such smartphones (e.g. iPhones and Galaxies)

and tablets (e.g. iPads and eBook readers), has in-

fluenced the development of learning environments.

Consumer demand has driven a ubiquitous and upward

trend for better mobile access, giving rise to new

terms such as “digital omnivores” to describe the

seamless modalities which provide internet access

(Comscore, 2011). This demand has also generated an

insatiable need for greater bandwidth and improved

access, which in Australia is being partially ad-

dressed through the implementation of initiatives

such as the National Broadband Network (Australian

Government, 2012).

Increased bandwidth is required for new modes of

learning which support more authentic and sophisti-

cated learning activities and assessment. The game is

changing, and while still in their infancy, environ-

ments which support simulations, virtual

laboratories, visualisation, immersive and game-based

learning (Ifenthaler, Eseryel & Ge, 2012) are now be-

coming more realistic options for the many, rather

than exceptional events for the few. A framework for

24

future learning technologies which enables the co-

creation of content, personalisation, networking and

authentic experiences must work in tandem with new

pedagogies to enhance the quality of online learning.

As Oblinger (2012) states “A high-quality learning

experience changes the game for learners” (p. 39).

This paper has identified course design, student sup-

port, staff development and learning technologies as

key dimensions of online learning environments. To

realise significant improvement in the quality of

online learning across all these dimensions, system-

atic and institution-wide approaches towards strategy

development and operational planning are needed.

A Systems Approach to Quality Online Learning

In order to effect enterprise level change it is

helpful to understand the online learning environment

from a systems perspective, including all its multi-

farious elements and interconnections. Systems

theories share universal concepts including the rela-

tionships between the components of the system whole,

and the identification and exploration of the inter-

actions and activities which occur within and outside

the system boundary (Kuhn & Beam, 1982). It is the

alignment of the system components, in order to

achieve balance or cohesion, which is important for

25

the success, indeed the survival, of innovations such

as online learning. Alignment occurs through inter-

ventions in a planned or structured way (Sterman,

2000), or through the emergent and self organising

behaviour (Stacey, 2000, p. 294).

Strategies for Alignment

Thus the key to the success of any system is the de-

gree of alignment between the system parts (Campbell,

2011), as the weakest component of the system exposes

its vulnerability and ultimately the efficacy of the

whole. For example, if an institution’s learning man-

agement system is reliable and user friendly, the

course design exemplary, but the course content poor

or inaccessible, the overall satisfaction with the

course will be impacted negatively by the weakest

part of the system, the poor content.

Designing for successful learning in online environ-

ments needs to take into account all the key

elements, course design, technology, student support

and staff development, attributing to each the appro-

priate weight and aligning each with each other to

enable the best learning outcomes for all students.

Reeves (2006), argues that alignment is critical when

creating quality learning environments.

26

Biggs (2012) offers a framework for operationalising

alignment, introducing the concept of constructive

alignment with respect to designing to support the

achievement of learning outcomes, “All components in

the system address the same agenda and support each

other. The students are ‘entrapped’ in this web of

consistency, optimising the likelihood that they will

engage the appropriate learning activities.” (p.45)

Institutions adopting online learning, or enhancing

their existing capability, require clear strategies

and operational plans which facilitate alignment be-

tween pedagogy and course design, learning

technologies, staff and student support. Frameworks

are useful tools to achieve the necessary degree of

synergy between these components.

Information and Tools for Action

Quality frameworks are useful in that they provide an

overarching perspective, but the tool which promises

a quantum leap in the quality agenda is data analyt-

ics. Information gleaned from data capture offers

insights to inform the policies and practices which

sit under frameworks. Learning and academic analytics

provide the evidence to inform key decisions about

student engagement and retention.

27

In particular the data gleaned from LMSs or social

networking tools (Twitter, Facebook) provides in-

sights into how learners are engaging with content

and each other, which can be used to inform the na-

ture and timing of learner support interventions. At

the institutional level, data can be used for predic-

tive modeling to identify patterns of success,

informing decisions about course design, resource al-

location or staff training. The thoughtful

application of insights drawn from such data allows

individuals and institutions to be more intelligent

and intentional about how and where to direct re-

sources and services to achieve improved outcomes

(Baer & Campbell, 2012).

Conclusion

The key message from this paper is that enabling stu-

dent success in online learning requires careful

management of a complex mix of multiple factors.

Quality online learning environments are essential to

enable student success, but are contingent upon the

alignment of all key factors at all levels of system

granularity. Purposeful strategies are required to

achieve alignment, as are realistic and contextual-

ised operational plans. Learning analytics offers the

potential for significant advances towards the en-

hancement of learning for student success, by

28

providing valuable insights about how teachers teach

and how students learn.

References

ACER. (2008). Attracting, engaging and retaining: New

conversations about learning. Australasian Survey of

Student Engagement, Australasian Student Engagement

Report. Melbourne.

ACER. (2011). Uniting teachers and learners: Critical

insights into the importance of staff-student inter-

actions in Australian university education, RESEARCH

BRIEFING Australasian Survey of Student Engagement

Volume 12, September, 2011.

AQHE (Advancing Quality in Higher Education Reference

Group). (2012). Development of Performance Measures,

June, 2012.

http://www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Docum

ents/AQHEreport.docx

Australian Government, Ministers' Website for Innova-

tion, Industry, Science and Research, Labor’s record

investment producing more graduates, 29 Nov. 2012.

http://minister.innovation.gov.au/chrisevans/MediaRelease

s/Pages/Laborsrecordinvestmentproducingmoregraduates.aspx

Australian Government, Department of Broadband, Com-

munications and the Digital Economy, 2012.

http://www.nbn.gov.au/?gclid=CNLd7qL7trQCFcZfpgodzigAiQ

Baer, L. and Campbell, J. (2012). From Metrics to An-

alytics, Reporting to Action: Analytics’ Role in

Changing the Learning Environment in Oblinger, D.

29

(ed.) Game Changers, Education and Information Tech-

nologies. Educause. pp. 53 -65.

http://www.educause.edu/research-publications/books/game-

changers-education-and-information-technologies

Biggs, J. (2012). What the student does: teaching for

enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Devel-

opment, 31(1), pp. 39-55.

Campbell, B. (2011). Alignment and Dynamic IS Capa-

bilities – A Systems Perspective. Communications of

the IBIMA Vol. 2011, 14 pp.

http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/CIBIMA/cibima

.html

Curtin Online website,

http://courses.curtin.edu.au/course_overview/curtin-

online/)

Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Transforming Aus-

tralia’s Higher Education System. Canberra. 66p.

http://www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/ResourcesAnd

Publica-

tions/TransformingAustraliasHigherEducationSystem/Pages/d

efault.aspx

Comscore. (2011). Digital Omnivores: How tablets,

smartphones and connected devices are changing U.S.

digital media consumption habits. October, 2011.

http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitep

apers/2011/Digital_Omnivores

Dagger, D., Wade, V. and Conlan, O.(2005). Personali-

zation for all: Making adaptive course composition

easy. Educational Technology and Society: Special Is-

sue on Authoring of Adaptive Hypermedia,8(3), pp.9-25.

30

DiRamio, D. and Wolverton, M. (2006). Integrating

learning communities and distance education: Possi-

bility or pipedream?. Innovative Higher Education,

31(2), pp. 99-113.

Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Re-

lations (DEEWR). (2010). Full Year Student Summary

Tables.

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/Statistic

s/Publications/Pages/2012StudentFullYear.aspx

Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research

and Teaching Education (DIISRTE). (2011). Student

2011 Full Year: Selected Higher Education Statistics

Publication.

http://www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/HigherEducat

ionStatistics/StatisticsPublications/Pages/default.aspx

Essa, A. and Ayad, H. (2012). Improving student suc-

cess predictive models and visualization. Research in

Learning Technology, pp. 58-70. ATC-C 2012 Conference

Proceedings.

Evans, C. (2012). University doors open to more re-

gional and Indigenous students, Press Release,

Minister for Tertiary Education, Senator Chris Evans,

11 July.

http://minister.innovation.gov.au/chrisevans/MediaRelease

s/Pages/UniversitydoorsopentomoreregionalandIndigenousstu

dents.aspx

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. and Oliver, R. (2010). A

Guide to Authentic e-Learning. Routledge, Abingdon,

Oxon. 213 pp.

Hunn, R. and Rossiter D. (2006). Design and Develop-

ment of an Online Information Literacy Tutorial:

31

Evaluation and Lessons Learned (So Far). Internation-

al Journal of ELiteracy and ITALICS, Joint Issue

December, 2006.

Ibis World. (2012). Online Education in Australia:

Market Research Report. September.

http://www.ibisworld.com.au/industry/default.aspx?indid=1

907

Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D. and Ge, X. (2012).

Assessment in Game-Based Learning: Foundations,

Innovations, and Perspectives. Springer, New York.

Krause, K. and McKewan, C. (2009). Engaging and re-

taining students online: a case study in the Student

Experience, Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Con-

ference, Darwin, 6-9 July 2009. pp. 25-262.

Kuhn, A. and Beam R. (1982). The logic of organiza-

tion: A System-based social science framework for

organization theory. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies:

Everyday practices and social learning. Open Univer-

sity Press.

Leaver, T. (2012). Twittering informal learning and

student engagement in first-year units. In Herring-

ton, A., Schrape, J. and Singh, K. (eds.), Engaging

students with learning technologies, pp. 97-110.

Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University.

http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au:80/R?func=dbin-

jump-full&local_base=gen01-era02&object_id=187303

Marginson, S. (2009). Australia Bradley: a short-term

political patch-up. University World News, January,

32

2009 Issue No:58

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2009

0108192939538

McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. (2010). Personalised and

self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: Interna-

tional exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social

software. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology, 26(1), 28-43.

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html

Nelson, K., Duncan, M. and Clarke, J. (2009). Student

success: The Identification and support of first year

students at risk of attrition. Studies in Learning,

Evaluation Innovation and Development, 6(1), pp. 1-15

http://sleid.cqu.edu.au

Oblinger, D. (2012). IT as a game changer. In

Oblinger, D. (ed.) Game Changers: Education and In-

formation Technologies. Educause. pp. 37-52.

http://www.educause.edu/research-publications/books/game-

changers-education-and-information-technologies

Pinantoan, A. (2102). What do employers think of

online education?, August 27, 2012.

http://newsroom.opencolleges.edu.au/career-tips/what-do-

employers-think-of-online-education/

Reeves, T. (2006). How do you know they are learn-

ing?:the importance of alignment in higher education.

Int. J. Learning Technology, 2(4), pp. 294-309.

Spies, M.(2011). Engaging the online learner: Student

reactions to the use of audio podcast in off campus

courses. In Williams, G. Statham P., Brown, N. & Cle-

land, B.(Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions,

Proceedings Ascilite Hobart 2011. pp.1167-1177.

33

Stacey, R. (2000). Strategic management and organiza-

tional dynamics: The challenge of complexity (3rd

ed.). Harlow, England, Pearson Education.

Sterman, J. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems think-

ing and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin

McGraw-Hill.

Stone, C. (2012). Engaging Students across Distance

and Place. Journal of the Australia and New Zealand

Student Services Association, No.39,April, pp.49-55.

Stone, C. (2000). The SOS program (Students for Other

Students): A student mentor program. Journal of the

Australian and New Zealand Student Services Associa-

tion, No. 16,October, pp. 55-74.

Swin-e-counselling, (2012)

http://www.swinburne.edu.au/stuserv/counselling/swin_

ecounselling/welcome.htm

Tinto, V. (2009). Taking Retention Seriously: Re-

thinking the First Year of University. Keynote

address at ALTC FYE Curriculum Design Symposium,

Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Aus-

tralia, February 5.

Tsolis, D., Stamou, S., Christia, P., Kampana, S.,

Rapakoulia, T., Skouta, M. et al. An adaptive and

personalized open source e-learning platform, Proce-

dia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 9, 2010,

pp. 38-43.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704

2810022172

34

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Office of Plan-

ning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Evaluation

of Evidence Based Practices in Online Learning: a Me-

ta-Analysis of Online Learning Studies, Washington,

DC. http://eprints.cpkn.ca/7/1/finalreport.pdf