Language and learning in the Master of Accounting at Macquarie University

Anil, like many other postgraduate accounting students at Macquarie University, sees that her future professional life may take her anywhere in the world. The introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards in 2005, and action by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA) and CPA Australia to seek international recognition for their members are moves that are helping to increase international opportunities for Australian accounting graduates. While acknowledging that students cannot rely solely on their university education to achieve transnational mobility (Singh, 2003), it is clear that ‘immigration, multiculturalism and global economic integration’ (Kalantzis & Cope, 2001a:9) have meant that among other educational goals, many professionally oriented university programmes now face the challenges of preparing students to participate in workplaces that are increasingly linguistically and culturally diverse, and where new language demands are being created by organisational and technological change (Johnson & Kress, 2003; Kalantzis & Cope, 2001b). Meeting the first of these challenges means ‘integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery’ of education, as recommended in Knight’s (2004:11) definition of internationalisation. In meeting both, teaching staff in the Master of Accounting programme at Macquarie are coming to see that, rather than simply being desirable outcomes that will prepare graduates for professional practice, communication skills also have a role to play in disciplinary learning

Reading print and electronic texts

Reading is a theoretically complex process for which there is, as for learning itself, no complete model or theory. While there are many similarities between reading print and electronic texts – given that they share symbol systems – it has been suggested that the shift to the electronic medium involves changes in comprehension and decoding and, more significantly, in ‘what counts as literacy’ (Leu et al 2004: 1584’). Leu et al claim that, while reading electronic texts requires all that reading print texts entails – including ‘skill sets such as phonemic awareness, word recognition, decoding knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, comprehension, inferential reasoning … and others’ – these skills are not enough to be fully literate in electronic media. However, as discussed later in this chapter, others argue that it is not helpful to question whether reading online texts is fundamentally the same as reading print texts, employing the same skills and strategies in a different medium (Burbules 1997: 102)

Connecting generic academic integrity modules to professional integrity through curriculum design

Many higher education providers have introduced online, academic integrity modules to maintain academic standards, control risks to quality, and demonstrate that students are aware of fundamental principles of academic integrity. In Australia, these modules assist providers in meeting regulatory requirements and controlling risks to the credibility of qualifications and institutional reputation. Often developed by academic librarians, generic academic integrity modules demonstrate the expertise librarians contribute to broader educative approaches to academic integrity. They are generally one of a range of institutional strategies to address risks posed by academic cheating services and other emerging challenges to academic integrity. Students are generally required to complete them as a prerequisite to enrollment or within a set period following enrollment. Failure to complete modules can lead to consequences for students, such as preventing them from enrolling in their chosen course, accessing the learning management system or receiving assessment results, or limiting further progression. Providers may benefit from economies of scale derived from centralized online modules and compulsory completion supports compliance. However, a punitive approach to noncompletion may not lead to the outcomes intended when completion is mandated, especially where outcomes are framed in general terms related to increasing awareness of academic integrity, perceptions of misconduct, or, in more specific terms, related to engagement in misconduct. Taking a  “carrot”  approach, where students see the relevance to their chosen discipline and profession, can support meaningful engagement, connecting students with professional standards and values rather than completing modules simply to avoid consequences for noncompletion. As part of an educative approach to academic integrity at the course or program level, this can add value by strengthening or leveraging existing systems of social regulation rather than undermining them. Framing outcomes with reference to professional accreditation standards can support internal quality assurance, overcoming some of the limits of external quality assurance

Student perspectives on data provision and use : starting to unpack disciplinary differences

How can we best align learning analytics practices with disciplinary knowledge practices in order to support student learning? Although learning analytics itself is an interdisciplinary field, it tends to take a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to the collection, measurement, and reporting of data, overlooking disciplinary knowledge practices. In line with a recent trend in higher education research, this paper considers the contribution of a realist sociology of education to the field of learning analytics, drawing on findings from recent student focus groups at an Australian university. It examines what learners say about their data needs with reference to organizing principles underlying knowledge practices within their disciplines. The key contribution of this paper is a framework that could be used as the basis for aligning the provision and/or use of data in relation to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment with disciplinary knowledge practices. The framework extends recent research in Legitimation Code Theory, which understands disciplinary differences in terms of the principles that underpin knowledge-building. The preliminary analysis presented here both provides a tool for ensuring a fit between learning analytics practices and disciplinary practices and standards for achievement, and signals disciplinarity as an important consideration in learning analytics practices