Author: malagich

Websites for Friday’s meeting 26.08.2022 – Miranda

The three websites that are within the Websites for 26.08.2022, above, are enclosed and provided a lively form for discussion last Friday.

Starting with the first discussion on students coming back to universities by Peter Hurley from the Mitchell Institute at Victoria University published on February 14, 2022, it was noted that they are coming back, but nowhere near the numbers which were pre-pandemic. Some interesting statistics were also provided and I asked people to provide the latest information and statistics. He also says that “following the 2011 Knight Review, many international students have been able to apply for a post-study visa. This lets them work in Australia for between one and five years after finishing their course” and that “competitor countries are also using post-study work rights to attract a bigger share of international enrolments”. This was especially important since many international students work in the low-paid industries such as cleaning, bar attendants,  waiters, and aged and disabled carers. Elaine, provided some information and statistics, and referred to the information sent by Monique previously, in the previous week or two.

The next article, was from the Punjab in India and was published on June 2 in 2021, was on the students who were able to obtain a visa easily, due to their academic grades which were high and were in the fields that were needed here in Australia – that is, doctors. That article was more a inside look into those kinds of students.

The third article, was from Andrew Norton, from the Australian National University and was published on February 11 2022, which provided a lot of information and statistics and also some graphs to demonstrate what he was saying. It was a more complex look into the situation here in Australia, and the changes that are taking place. He was saying that students were coming back to Australia to study, and that, because of the changes to the immigration by the government, students were now able to work 40 or more hours per week, which was very encouraging for Indian and Nepalese students. However, not as inviting for Chinese students, whose numbers were far lower.  He also looked at job losses within the various universities, and he also says that “the long COVID of university employment will not clear for some time”.

Overall, the articles created quite a bit of discussion regarding this situation of the post-COVID 19 and what is being changed due to it and the various changes that have occurred because of it and the different variants of COVID that have resulted from the original. Most of the people in the room participated in the discussion, and Elaine and Seham had quite a lot to say about the situation, as did some of the others. It is notable that Monique was not present at the meeting, due to her being on annual leave.

The article: Higher education must reinvent itself to meet the needs of the world today. Enter the distributed university.  Published 25 February 2022. Author: Richard F. Heller – University of Newcastle.

The link: Higher education must reinvent itself to meet the needs of the world today. Enter the distributed university

The session today was quite lively, with most people contributing something. I was hoping that the others would provide an example of where CSU fitted in with it all, but it did not happen.

However, lots of different ideas came up and some people provided arguments against the ideas presented as some aspects were problematic, and I had considered those also. Ideas such as the problems of this outside Australia and the time and internet strength differences; the different value systems in countries outside the West and the notion of inculcating Western values; and one person was concerned about the demands on lecturers with the idea of voluntary work, together with the idea that universities need to be collaborative and not competitive. A person brought up the idea that collaboration was unnecessary as universities cannot adopt a single policy, because who would be supplying that policy? Many of the thoughts I had about the subject were brought up by various members of staff, and I and others agreed with those who brought up the different and conflicting ideas.

In all, quite a few of us thought that the ideas were quite idealistic but may not work in practice.

On Friday 03.12.2021, I conducted a post-reading discussion based on two articles in ‘Conversation’: the first article was ‘It takes a mental toll’: Indian students tell their stories of waiting out the pandemic in Australia’. This was a short reading but was particularly relevant to our cohort of International students, who are mostly from South Asia. Most of the group said that they did not find the information surprising, as they expected the same results from the students, and there was a short discussion on the material. I highlighted the importance of stressing that students came from a university culture where they are supposed to be passive learners, while in Australia they are supposed to be active, and that this articles stressed that students and staff need to work together as partners. Additionally, this was supposed to be delivered during their Orientation – Students, Partners and Induction working together, and that students need to take active ownership of their own learning, and to make this clear to new students.

However, the second reading was ‘Unis are using artificial intelligence to keep students sitting exams honest. But this creates its own problems’. This reading resulted in a lot more discussion by the whole team and proved to be more cogent and relevant for our group of students. It is important to note that both readings were very recently published in ‘Conversation’ – on October 20th and November 10th 2021, so they proved relevant to the situation with COVID happening all around the world, and the impact of Omicron, which is a new variant very recently introduced in many countries, including Australia.

The Team brought up that even face-to-face learning can bring up risks of cheating by students and that some people marking exam papers may not be fair and may be biased, which I agreed with.  However, the article brought up the fact that if cheating was not addressed by institutions, it was unfair to honest students who do not cheat. Furthermore, the article also brought up the issue of Security and that simple technical tricks can bypass many of the anti-cheating protections and therefore the tools that are available so far only provide limited benefits, and that the software needed may remain surreptitiously uninstalled. In addition, students studying overseas may be at a disadvantage due to poor internet connections and may have other problems with their devices, which is what we have experienced with some of those students.

There was also the issue of lack of privacy, as video captures the indoor environment and scrutinizes faces without being noticed, which is intimate monitoring for repeat viewings by the Institutions using this software. I stressed the importance of a judicious use of video, as in the article. However, the article states that the software available to date works best on light-skinned faces and not on darker-skinned faces, which implies a hidden bias and possible discrimination that may add to societal biases. Other researchers reported similar concerns, and therefore stressed a lack of fairness with the software that is available at present, especially as it pertains to our cohort of students.

One Team member also flagged atypical eye or head movement in exam takers, which can lead to unwarranted suspicions about students who are not neuro-typical or who have idiosyncratic exam-sitting styles. The Team member mentioned reading aloud when reading, which she does even when there is no-one else in the room. That kind of behavior may lead to further surveillance and interrogation by invigilators within the university, which would not be fair to those people with those kinds of issues.

Additionally, it brought about a discussion about Surveillance culture or ‘Big Brother’, as automated exam monitoring may set a broader precedent and make monitoring of our actions more ‘acceptable’ within the broader communities. The authors mentioned that the public concerns about surveillance and automated decision-making are growing within societies. Therefore, they warned about being cautious when introducing potentially harmful technologies, especially when “they are imposed without our genuine consent”, and this is what I find particularly problematic.

Finally, the authors stress the importance of finding ways to fairly administer exams remotely, as they stress that institutions need to be accountable and transparent with students and offer alternatives such as in-person options, which are fundamental to informed consent and which would comply with what I feel would need to be considered.

The two discussions took up the whole of our allocated time of 1 hour and it was considered a well-discussed topic, which was relevant to our cohort of students and which was relevant considering the direction that online learning is going throughout the world, in this time of COVID-19 and its various variants.

https://charlessturt.zoom.us/rec/share/-sx8Vd3tIAJh3AZsZU6J87Zoq5zEgnE0ATlOISnbk6CLBeyRv1w3aiz9d_oIXw.QDEFY_fi8UD5rVkk

On Friday 20.08.2021, I spoke and got our Study Support and Library Team to discuss Supporting international students in an online environment by Dr Amanda Müller from Flinders University.

This article was chosen since it was related to TEQSA and I wanted to check how far our Team has gone in relation to the requirements made by them. It seemed as though most of the staff agreed that we were on the right track, apart from a couple of points that were raised and discussed:

One member of staff, Peter Head, responded to my comment on “the students may need to be prompted to contribute, may be surprised if you ask for their opinion, and will need more time for a verbal reply”. He gave us some ways that he does that, by asking student questions very early and just shortly after he has presented something: He puts something on the Chat box and expects both typed and verbal answers. This is something I could consider doing more for our ASDP and ASC workshops. I managed to link that to the little time we had and how that is linked to “expect to cover less content in live online classes” and “have pre-reading activities and questions before the class”.

However, the fact that there is little time to present the ASCs, in particular, means it would make it difficult to cover a lot of material. Other members of staff agreed with this point.

I asked Lorna Clark if there was much feedback from the ASDP workshops, and she came up with the following:

• Most of the comments were favourable.
• Some students wanted the explanations delivered more slowly.
• Some students wanted more examples given to explain things in more detail.
• One student wanted us to share what problems other students have.

This last point led to some speculation as to what this last point actually meant – whether  this happens in other countries, and is therefore a cultural difference, or why they wanted to know that information?

Seham brought up the issue of Etiquette when sending emails to staff at CSU and Madelle reiterated that the Course Coordinators and others presenting should send us their slides earlier in Orientation week, so that we know what the contents are and who to refer the students to, when they come to us with questions. A consensus was reached when Madelle suggested that a couple of points for etiquette should be added to the slides for Orientation Week students.

There was a general discussion that followed about Orientation Week and that perhaps during that time, it was necessary to show students how to access the different parts of their courses online: Madelle and Lorna and some others suggested that it should be part of the Orientation, as some of us are asked, especially by overseas students, to show them where to go. There was a general consensus that that should be looked at, as an area of possible weakness, and I pointed out that we had that last year, in 202060, when the first part of the Orientation session was presented.

Some staff suggested that the Course Coordinators or other people presenting should send us the PP slides early on, so that we know what was on them, and we all agreed with that, as none of the people at the meeting that day knew definitely what was being presented by other staff during Orientation Week, whereas last year, we were sent that information. Lorna pointed out that some information was available now on the iLearn site, and we speculated on when that information was posted on the site and who was the person to contact, though the information from CSU now stated who to contact.

In all, we all agreed that we were doing most of the things in the TEQSA requirements, but that some areas may need to be modified somewhat, to make it more in line with what the requirements are. As when I asked Lorna for comments on the Essential Skills and the lead-in before that on iLearn, that guides students to the relevant authority to answer their questions, she confirmed that it does that. The problem may be that students do not know that it exists, especially if they have not attended Orientation week or the ASDPs workshops and that was the major issue we may still need to resolve.

Altogether, it was a relatively communicative and inclusive session, which lasted about 45 minutes.

The recording of the discussion is here: https://charlessturt.zoom.us/rec/share/rwqdtNdciMHhneyIeaRJarXoEEyeI5WXjIEfB_5B5v90a8oM0vM0MBzlBDTQwXsm.wKvqBFcTsn4Zdmcq

The article used: supporting-international-students-online-environment.pdf