Brookes International HE Reading Group

In this session we will examine Montgomery and Trahar’s (2023) recent examination of the intersection between internationalisation and decolonialisation and how, whilst often seen as mutually supportive, internationalisation may perpetuate coloniality. We look forward to seeing you at what promises to be a stimulating discussion.

Paper: Catherine Montgomery & Sheila Trahar (2023) ‘Learning to Unlearn: Exploring the Relationship between Internationalisation and Decolonial Agendas in Higher Education’, Higher Education Research & Development, 42:5, 1057-1070, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2194054

In this session we consider internationalisation in respect of the challenges presented by the pandemic with a particular emphasis upon knowledge mobility. In this paper, Yue, de Souza and Townsin (2023) examine the emergence of ‘internationalisation at a distance’ in respect of the affordances of information and communication technologies and impact the lack of immersion has had / is having on students’ identity construction. 

Paper: Yun Yue, Denise De Souza & Louise Townsin (2023) ‘No Human Mobility: How is Knowledge Mobile in a Context of Internationalisation at a Distance? A Case study’, Higher Education Research & Development, 42:5, 1165-1181, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2023.2216643

Moving on from our focus on issues pertaining to trends and theoretical perspectives, in this session we take a critical delve into the student experience by discussing Soong and Maheepala’s (2023) recent paper examing decreases in international student wellbeing since the pandemic. The paper considers the situation in South Australia during the height of the pandemic, and offers insights into how local community engagement can help improve the student experience.  Please book your place above to join this session.

Paper: Hannah Soong & Vihara Maheepala (2023) ‘Humanising the internationalisation of higher education: enhancing international students’ wellbeing through the capability approach’, Higher Education Research & Development, 42:5, 1212-1229, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2023.2193730

This session will focus on Bamberger, Morris and Yemini’s (2019) recent dissection of the topic in respect of how it is ‘entangled’ with neoliberalism, inequalities and progressive humanitarian values whilst analysing the issues in a way that critiques the often dominant, North American, eurocentric focus. The theoretical and philosophical perspectives that run throughout this paper are sure to provide us with plenty to discuss.   Please book your place above to join this session.

Paper: Bamberger, A., Morris, P., & Yemini, M. (2019). ‘Neoliberalism, internationalisation, and higher education: Connections, contradictions, and alternatives’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(20), 203–216. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569879

What better place to start our series on internationalisation than de Witt and Altbach’s (2021) review of recent trends and the future of internationalisation in ‘a critical time of transformation as a result of nationalist-populist developments, climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic’. This wide ranging survey, taking in issues such as massification, the global knowledge economy, institutional reputations and academic freedom, offers an ideal platform for us to get discussions started around our core theme for this year’s sessions. Please book your place above to join this session.

Paper: Hans de Wit & Philip G. Altbach (2021) ‘Internationalization in higher education: global trends and recommendations for its future’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 5:1, 28-46, DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2020.1820898

For our final meeting before the summer break we turn our attention to supervisory feedback for graduate students. In this paper, Bastola and Hu (2021) investigate supervisory comments on thesis drafts, beliefs and expectations, and discuss their findings in relation to improving practice. If you’re involved in any kind of project / thesis supervision, this paper should be of great interest. We hope to see you there.

Bastola, Madhu Neupane, and Hu, Guangwei, (2021) Supervisory Feedback across Disciplines: Does it Meet Students’ Expectations?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46:3, pp.407-423.

• Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1780562

No recording available for this session.

Feedback, especially its uptake and assimilation by students, is an ongoing source of professional head scratching. In this month’s paper, we will discuss Carless and Boud’s (2018) analysis of the operationalisation of peer feedback and analysing exemplars. These modes of feedback are well-established, but Carless and Boyd discuss how they may be re-focused in respect of developing students’ feedback literacies. We hope to see you there.

Carless, David, and Boud, David, (2018) ‘The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43:8, pp.1315-1325

• Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

In this session we delve into a review of how educational theory is used (or not) in educational research, especially as it pertains to assessment and feedback. Nieminen, Bearman and Tai (2023) argue that theory is often underutilised and call for a deeper engagement with interdisciplinary theory to help us avoid a further ‘siloing’ of the field. We hope you can join us for what promises to be a fascinating and thought -provoking discussion. 

Nieminen, Juuso Henrik, Margaret Bearman, Margaret, and Tai, Joanna, (2023) ‘How is Theory used in Assessment and Feedback Research? A Critical Review, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 48:1, pp. 77-94.

• Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2047154

ChatGPT and AI Special

In this final session on the theme of assessment and feedback we take a more holistic view and consider Jessop, El Hakim and Gibbs’s (2013) analysis of feedback, expectations and inconsistencies across modules. The article describes an truly worldwide initiative that aims to help redesign assessment regimes, so the session promises to be of great interest to all of us in terms of fostering assessment coherence across programmes. We very much hope to see you at the link below:

Jessop, Tansy, El Hakim, Yassein, and Gibbs, Graham, (2014) ‘The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts: A Large-scale Study of Students’ Learning in Response to Different Programme Assessment Patterns’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), pp 73-88.

• Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.792108

To build on the November session on inclusion, in this session we’ll consider Hanesworth, Bracken and Elkington’s (2019) discussion and analysis of socially just assessment praxis. The article discusses Universal Design for Learning (UDL and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP), and as such should have relevance for us all in our endeavours to promote assessment for learning for all students. We hope you can join us at the link below:

Hanesworth, Pauline, Bracken, Sean, and Elkington, Sam, (2019) ‘A Typology for a Social Justice Approach to Assessment: Learning from Universal Design and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy’. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1), pp 98-114.

• Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1465405

Whilst assessment accommodations (often individual) are the most frequent response to the challenging of making assessment inclusive, in this article Nieminen (2022) proposes a rethinking of assessment with inclusion designed in through a critical, socio-political analysis of academic ableism. Inclusion is at the forefront of our thinking about pedagogy in recent times and as such this article should give us plenty of food for thought. We hope you can join us for what promises to be a stimulating discussion at the link below:

Nieminen, Juuso Henrik, (2022) ‘Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education’, Teaching in Higher Education, pp.1-19

• Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2021395

Anonymous marking, sometimes spearheaded by students unions, has been brought in across many areas of the sector, often in the interests of fairness. However, its effect on student learning and relationship building with lecturers has been less well understood. In this session we’ll interrogate Pitt and Winstone’s (2018) examination of whether it undermines the learning potential of feedback and whether it really does promote fairness. We hope you can join us at the link below:

Pitt, Edd, and Winstone, Naomi, (2018) ‘The Impact of Anonymous Marking on Students' Perceptions of Fairness, Feedback and Relationships with Lecturers’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), pp 1183-1193.

• Article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1437594