Purge of lectures at Adelaide ‘breaches co-creation commitment’

Staff get a say on how, but not whether, to ditch lectures at merged university

九月 17, 2024
An immersive installation with a person looking into a mirror box in a bright yellow room overrun with black dots in Adelaide Australia to illustrate Purge of lectures at Adelaide ‘breaches co-creation commitment’
Source: Amer Ghazzal/Alamy

The leaders of Australia’s newest university have “fundamentally breached” their commitment to “co-creation” by unilaterally jettisoning in-person lectures, according to the academic union.

Administrators said face-to-face lectures would “gradually be replaced” at Adelaide University following its 2026 establishment from a merger of the universities of Adelaide and South Australia.

In a response to questions from the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), executives from the constituent universities said “rich digital learning activities” would deliver “an equivalent learning volume to traditional lectures”.

A “common baseline for digital learning across courses” will provide a “consistent experience” for “a more diverse pool of learners” without “compromising the on-campus experience”, they said.

A questions-and-answers page on the forthcoming university’s website promises teaching through tutorials, workshops, clinical activities, forums, studios and practical sessions, but does not mention lectures.

The approach reflects a widespread exodus from long-form lectures as educators opt for modes of delivery considered less passive and more flexible for students with jobs or children. A survey of Australian universities during the pandemic found that only a minority were committed to maintaining face-to-face lectures.

But NTEU’s South Australian secretary, Andrew Miller, said administrators were obsessed with “miniaturising the curriculum”. Dr Miller said long-form lectures forced students to “sit” with ideas and “follow complex arguments through to their completion, rather than everything being carved up into…bite-sized YouTube videos”.

He said contemporary lectures were highly interactive, allowing academics to detect and correct students’ misconceptions. “How do you build sustained concentration, listening skills and deep engagement through time when you’re removing that kind of education from the curriculum?” he asked.

Adelaide University’s leaders have promised “meaningful co-creation” whereby key stakeholders “help design core elements” of the future institution. Dr Miller said these were hollow words, with staff and students given “no mechanism” to reject proposals they considered “bad”.

He said NTEU polling of staff from both constituent universities had found overwhelming opposition to Adelaide University’s plan to adopt a trimester-based academic calendar. “Co-creation…should mean genuine empowerment of all participants and the power of staff and students to say ‘no’.”

The universities have promised to consult staff to ensure “an effective implementation” of the trimester model, but ignored NTEU questions asking if staff would have a say on whether the proposal proceeded. “Co-creation is not a process where ideas from our people are approved or rejected,” they told the union. “It…seeks to optimise the collective skills, ideas and knowledge of our staff to inform…the successful establishment…of Adelaide University.”


Campus resource: The lecture is dead, long live the lecture: Redefining higher education in a digital age


University of South Australia provost Joanne Cys said staff had been “comprehensively engaged in a collaborative process”. She said more than 2,400 people had played a role in “advancing the new institution’s teaching and learning transformation”, including more than 900 staff with curriculum expertise.

Professor Cys, who is overseeing curriculum development for the new university, said on-campus, face-to-face learning would predominate. “Most courses will include some digital learning activities that students can do at a time that suits them, such as videos, podcasts, simulations, reading and discussion forums. We are modernising and enriching our offerings to ensure that learning is tailored to the needs of different programmes and students,” she said.

Dr Miller said the purging of lectures undermined academic freedom, which included discretion over teaching modes. He said replacing lecturers with “content creators” risked diluting academic expertise, pastoral care and the updating of teaching material.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (3)

The decision to abandon live lecturing will please ambitious academics. Australian promotions panels now far undervalue teaching in favour of research grants and publications. For what used to be a series of lectures, put a set of videos online and refresh it in a few years if students start to complain about staleness, irrelevance, or whatever. If the 'lectures' don't change, no need to create new exam papers and essay questions. You will have much more time available for activity that will get you up the corporate ladder and minimise your interaction with students. Great idea!
The term "co-creation" is also troubling. It suggests an an attempt to force equality where none exists. One of the roles of the academic is to construct a curriculum based on years of expertise that structures and guides the student through the material. You would not dum a pile of bricks, wood etc on a vacant site and tell the owner: come we will co-create a building. Never mind about planning permission or quality. Rather than disposing of lectures it sounds like the longterm plan is disposal of academics.
Surprisingly, my former university, the University of Adelaide, is considering eliminating in-person lectures, practical sessions, and tutorials. While online learning offers flexibility, I have concerns. My recent diagnosis of autism and ADHD (AuDHD) has highlighted the challenges I face in resuming my Master of Education studies, despite holding a First-Class Honours degree and having tackled a PhD. This transition is confusing after being a dedicated learner throughout my life. A sense of community and belonging is vital; it helps alleviate isolation, loneliness, self-doubt, and imposter syndrome, prompting me to question my educational path. While some future students may thrive in a flexible online environment, others may struggle to catch up. Students who feel they belong are more engaged and likely to succeed academically, which is crucial for neurodiverse individuals, those with disabilities, First Nations students, and other marginalised groups facing barriers to inclusion. Despite the rise of online learning, recent studies (Ahn & Davis, 2020) reveal potential drawbacks for vulnerable student populations: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1564902 Reduced social interaction: In-person classes foster socialising and relationship building, which is crucial for developing belonging, especially for neurodiverse and marginalised students (Moriña, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215249 Limited access to support services: On-campus learning provides easier access to vital services like disability support and counselling, which online education may restrict O'Shea & O'Shea, 2019). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3913 Technological barriers: While online learning can enhance accessibility, it poses challenges for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or rural areas, increasing educational inequalities (Drane et al., 2020). https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NCSEHE_V2_Final_literaturereview-learningathome-covid19-final_30042020.pdf Cultural considerations: In-person learning enables teaching that respects Indigenous knowledge, whereas online education can diminish these cultural connections (Nakata et al., 2019). https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2017.36 Teachers must influence curriculum delivery decisions, as they are the backbone of our education system. Ignoring their expertise can lead to the following: Lower motivation and satisfaction: Disrteachers'teachers’ insights may result in feelings of undervaluation. Standardised teaching: A one-size-fits-all approach does not cater to diverse student needs. Disconnecting from classroom realities: Policies that overlook practical challenges can hinder effective teaching. Neglect of student-centred learning: Teachers know best how to engage students and create personalised experiences. Cultural insensitivity: Teachers ensure the curriculum reflects students' diverse backgrounds. Lost opportunities for teacher development: Excluding teachers from curriculum decisions impedes their professional growth. Misalignment with educational goals: Curriculum policies lacking teacher input may struggle to promote meaningful classroom learning. When teachers are involved, it leads to: 1. Increased motivation: Engagement rises when teachers contribute to curriculum design. 2. Adaptable teaching: Lessons can be tailored to various learning styles. 3. Culturally responsive education: All students feel acknowledged. Empowering teachers to shape curriculum delivery is essential for valuing their expertise and ensuring every student receives the best education possible.
ADVERTISEMENT