Reframing theory of, and for, practice in higher education

When the Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice — JUTLP as we have come to know it — was established in 2004, it was to fill a perceived gap in publications related to teaching and learning practice in higher education, with practice being the operative word (Carter, 2004). While other higher education journals existed, they were mainly the purview of academic developers and the most prodigious of disciplinary academics researching their teaching. In contrast, JUTLP was to be built as open-access and its readership as ‘practitioners looking for good ideas based soundly on a body of accessible theory and research’ (McInnes, 2004, n.p.). JUTLP was established in the Australian context at a time when promoting excellence in teaching and learning was regarded as an important government agenda to improve the student experience, and not accidentally, coincided with the creation of the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (later the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, and later again the Office for Learning and Teaching). The Carrick Institute supported national cross-institutional grants and fellowship schemes, and promoted national networks of educational research into practice to support the mission of the then Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) to ensure all ‘Australian higher education institutions provide high quality teaching and learning for all students’ (Carrick, 2009). How times have changed.

Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds

Academics may actively respond to the expectations of the academic status market, which have largely been shaped by the World University Rankings (WURs). This study empirically examines how academics’ citation patterns have changed in response to the rise of an “evaluation environment” in academia. We regard the WURs to be a macro-level trigger for cementing a bibliometric-based evaluation environment in academia. Our analyses of citation patterns in papers published in two higher education journals explicitly considered three distinct periods: the pre-WURs (1990–2003), the period of WURs implementation (2004–2010), and the period of adaption to WURs (2011–2017). We applied the nonparametric Kaplan–Meier method to compare first-citation speeds of papers published across the three periods. We found that not only has first-citation speed become faster, but first-citation probability has also increased following the emergence of the WURs. Applying Cox proportional hazard models to first-citation probabilities, we identified journal impact factors and third-party funding as factors influencing first-citation probability, while other author- and paper-related factors showed limited effects. We also found that the general effects of different factors on first-citation speeds have changed with the emergence of the WURs. The findings expand our understanding of the citation patterns of academics in the rise of WURs and provide practical grounds for research policy as well as higher education policy.

Preparing Scholar-Practitioners for Systemic and Systematic Inquiry: Methodology Published and Practiced

This study explores the methodology presented in four leading educational leadership journals for a period of three years to investigate the predominant methodologies reported in journals most read by faculty members in educational administration or leadership programs. This content analysis study uses frequency and percentages to gather data on the published methodologies of four educational leadership journals. We used an established coding protocol, and our coding was not interpretive. The analysis revealed that qualitative methods were published more frequently than quantitative methods in the leading educational leadership journals with an emphasis on studies using a descriptive qualitative design, a descriptive quantitative design, correlational research, and case studies. This study replicated a study conducted by Wells, Kolek, Williams, and Saunders (2015) which was a content analysis of three major higher education journals to examine the methodologic characteristics of published research from 1996-2000 and 2006-2010 respectively. The authors discuss the relevance of the study for EdD programs in Educational Administration/Leadership. The analysis may inform decisions about how to best develop scholar-practitioners’ capacity to use systemic and systematic inquiry to solve complex problems of practice.

Quality of Feedback in Higher Education: A Review of Literature

In raising the standards for professional educators, higher educators must be prepared to provide the highest quality feedback on student performance and work products toward improved outcomes. This review of the literature examined the major findings of 70 quantitative, mixed methods, or qualitative studies found in higher education journals across a range of disciplines. Multiple recommendations and results for feedback emerged which fall into the categories described by Susan Brookhart. This review found research for each of Brookhart’s categories, with results indicating differences between the perceptions of adherence to sound feedback practices versus the reality of implementation, the potential for innovative tool use, and a disagreement about the effectiveness of peers for providing effective feedback. Indicators for quality within the research confirmed the importance of commonly accepted standards such as positivity, specificity, timeliness, and encouraging active student participation. Additionally, trends and themes indicated a need for the consistent implementation of the feedback exchange process and flexibility to account for student input/preferences. Greater consistency toward the application of these quality indicators should be undertaken when determining the quality of higher education feedback for preservice teachers prior to undertaking summative licensure assessments.