Research to discover the ways in which writing is taught and assessed in the Bachelor of Nursing (BN) program at Griffith University, and more widely in Australia and New Zealand, was undertaken in this Fellowship. Models which best describe and guide the teaching and assessment of writing in the BN program were identified and ways of capacity development of staff, to more effectively teach and assess writing, were explored.
The Resource Library contains a collection of higher education learning and teaching materials flowing from projects funded by the Commonwealth of Australia including those from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Results may be sorted filtered by keywords.
6 resources found for ‘academic literacy’.
National Standards for Psychological Literacy and Global Citizenship: Outcomes of Undergraduate Psychology Education
A programmatic approach to developing writing embedded in nursing courses
Web 2.0 authoring tools in higher education: new directions for assessment and academic integrity
Investigating the efficacy of culturally specific academic literacy and academic honesty resources for Chinese students
The project team conducted research into the use of culturally specific multimedia resources to help Chinese students better understand the principles of academic literacy and plagiarism. Key theoretical concepts addressed included dealing with ideas and knowledge, transition and acculturation, critical thinking, prescriptive activities and creativity, and general academic conduct in an Australian university environment. The project website presents research and resources.
Writing In Nursing Education
The Writing In Nursing Education (WINE) EndNote library consists of 300 references on the learning and teaching of writing. As well as references from nursing journals, hard copy and online resources are included.
The enclosed resource can be opened by EndNote
Historical thinking in higher education
This is a well-researched, lucidly and frank report on the similarities and contrasts in attitudes between academics and students involved in university-level study of history. It is a most valuable report and deserves wide discussion among staff and students about the 'why' and 'how' of historical study.
In general, it highlights (although does not identify) the contrasts between academics who would like all students to be like those they eventually teach in Honours, and the majority of students who simple find history 'interesting'. Few students understand an undergraduate 'major' in history as more than a collection of subjects chosen from interest.
The report highlights the importance of the sharing of good practice. It does not provide practical examples of how better to engage students, particularly in introducing them to research methodologies, but has an extensive bibliography.
There are perplexing contrasts revealed between student responses at different universities, suggesting that heads of departments should find this a most useful starting-point for curriculum discussion. This is all the more important because of the worrying evidence adduced that some academics respond to student 'disengagement' by expressing despair about current student and cultural behaviours rather than by seeking innovative ways to re-engage students with sustained historical study.
The report suggests that individual heads of history programs should take the initiative in working with professional bodies to make improvements. For the recommendations to be more effective, those bodies (particularly the Australian Historical Association) should also be responsible for ensuring that this happens: they were established to provide national leadership.