Content uploaded by Johanna Elizabeth Nieuwoudt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johanna Elizabeth Nieuwoudt on Nov 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.scu.edu.au
Lismore Coffs Harbour Gold Coast
PO Box 157, Lismore NSW 2480 Australia Hogbin Drive, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450 Australia Locked Mail Bag 4, Coolangatta QLD 4225 Australia
T +61 2 6620 3000 F +61 2 6620 3700 T +61 2 6659 3777 T +61 7 5589 3000 F +61 7 5589 3700
CRICOS Provider 01241G
“I have a lot of ‘I’m doing it’
moments”: Improving the success of
non-traditional students through the
Southern Cross Model
Elizabeth Goode
Suzi Syme
Johanna E Nieuwoudt
Southern Cross University Scholarship of Learning & Teaching Research
Paper Series
Paper No. 1
November 2021
View Papers
https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/southern-cross-u-res/
Subscribe
https://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=Southern-Cross-U-RES
1
“I have a lot of ‘I’m doing it’ moments”: Improving the success of non-
traditional students through the Southern Cross Model
Elizabeth Goodea*, Suzi Symeb and Johanna E. Nieuwoudtb
aAcademic Portfolio Office, Southern Cross University, Australia; bSCU College, Southern Cross
University, Australia
* Liz.Goode@scu.edu.au
Contemporary higher education pedagogies suggest there is a pressing need to innovate beyond
didactic content delivery in standard 12-15 week teaching periods. This need has been
intensified by the growing numbers of students from ‘non-traditional’ backgrounds in higher
education, many of whom lead complex lives with competing responsibilities. Shorter delivery
models are a promising alternative for heightening the success of diverse student cohorts;
however, concerns about whether such models enable an equivalent quality of learning persist.
The current study investigates the impact of the Southern Cross Model (SCM), a distinctive
application of Technology-Enhanced Active Learning in a Shorter delivery model (TEALS), on
students in an Australian university pathway program. Focus groups and institutional data
provide rich insight into how the SCM can positively impact non-traditional students’ learning
and enable enhanced success and academic achievement. The study identified three key
elements underpinning these outcomes: constructive alignment in a six-week term; the learning-
centred design of interactive, responsive online modules; and respectful, dialogic teaching
approaches. For the novice, non-traditional students in this study these elements led to increased
focus and confidence and facilitated their transformations into critical, independent learners.
This further resulted in increased pass rates and grade point averages (GPAs). The research
indicates that the SCM, as a specific example of TEALS, can strengthen learning outcomes and
empower non-traditional students for successful university study.
Keywords: active learning; shorter delivery models; student success; non-traditional students;
enabling education
1. Introduction
1.1 Non-traditional learners and shorter delivery models
The kinds of learners engaging in higher education have diversified significantly over the past two
decades (Lacy et al., 2017; Sadowski et al., 2017). Between 2008 and 2018, the number of students
enrolled in Australian higher education providers increased from 1.07 to 1.56 million (Department of
2
Education, 2013, 2019). In that same period, the number of domestic undergraduate students from low
socio-economic backgrounds (LSES) grew by 66%, while students from regional and remote areas or
Indigenous backgrounds rose by 48% and 111% respectively (Universities Australia, 2020). Learners
are now much more likely to diverge from the ‘traditional’ western university student: a middle or
upper-class, white, male school leaver with few responsibilities outside of academia (Leathwood &
O’Connell, 2003). These ‘non-traditional’ learners have been referred to as the ‘new majority’ in
some research (Malm & Weber, 2018).
Given the increasing growth and diversity of university student cohorts, concerns over the retention
and success of students remain prominent (Devlin, 2017; Kember et al., 2021; Lacy et al., 2017;
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency [TEQSA], 2020). The completion rates for students
classified as online, Indigenous, part-time, mature-age or from a remote area are among the lowest in
Australia; for many of these students, the pressures of juggling multiple commitments are prominent
reasons for considering leaving university (Cherastidtham et al., 2018). Although in the past such
students have been pathologised by deficit discourses about their suitability for higher education
(McKay & Devlin, 2015; O’Shea et al., 2016), there is now greater recognition of the resilience
(Chung et al., 2017), high aspirations (McKay & Devlin, 2015) and capabilities (Syme et al., 2021) of
students considered ‘non-traditional’. There is thus a strong opportunity to explore alternative
delivery models that support the success of diverse student cohorts by encouraging learning in ways
that are more compatible with contemporary lifestyles combining work, family and study.
Shorter delivery models are proposed here as a viable way of addressing these concerns. Such models
vary in terminology and approach; they may be known as ‘intensive’, ‘block’, ‘compressed’,
‘accelerated’ or ‘time-shortened’ (Davies, 2006). There is great diversity in the length and contact
hours in these models (Walsh et al., 2019). For example, the length of a unit may range from 2-10
weeks, while scheduled classes can vary from one hour to whole days (Davies, 2006). In ‘block’
models students typically undertake only one unit at a time, while in other formats they can take two
or more units simultaneously.
Notwithstanding the diversity of shorter delivery models, overall, the literature tends to concur that
such approaches yield “equivalent and sometimes superior learning outcomes in comparison with
traditional-length courses” (Scott & Conrad, 1992, pp. 442–443). This conclusion was reached in
reviews by Daniel (2000), Davies (2006), and Martin and Culver (2009), as well as empirical
investigations in accounting (Eames et al., 2018), the health sciences (Faught et al., 2016; Harwood et
al., 2018), marketing (Ho & Polonsky, 2009), and psychology (Richmond et al., 2015).
Recent studies indicate that shorter delivery models can have particularly pronounced effects on the
academic performance of students from non-traditional backgrounds. Several sources have found that
3
students with lower GPAs are more likely to choose shorter delivery models, but then perform just as
well or better than their peers in traditional models (Karaksha, 2013; Walsh et al., 2019). Meanwhile,
McCluskey et al.’s (2020) study of the inaugural first-year cohort in a 4-week block model found that
pass rates rose for all domestic students by 9.9% and for international students by 5.8%. Pass rates
increased even further for equity sub-groups, rising by 14% for students from non-English speaking
backgrounds (NESB), 13% for first-in-family (FiF), 15% for LSES, 21% for Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander students. Loton et al. (2020) then examined 82,031 end-of-unit results at the same
institution and found that students’ marks were predicted to be over 10 marks higher in the shorter
model than the traditional delivery. This effect was most substantial for NESB and LSES students, as
well as students who were younger, had less prior education or had lower academic performance.
In sum, the existing research provides a favourable picture of how shorter delivery models can impact
the academic performance and success of non-traditional students. However, implementing shorter
models across entire institutions remains rare: Victoria University is the only Australian institution yet
to do so, implementing a 4-week ‘block’ model across its courses (Victoria University, n.d.).
However, the subject of this investigation, the Southern Cross Model (SCM), differs from this
approach by allowing a full-time student to study 2 units at a time over 6 weeks, rather than 1 unit,
while applying a specific pedagogical approach. Key aspects of this approach are described below.
1.2 Technology-enhanced active learning
Active learning pedagogies are learner-centred approaches to learning and teaching that have gained
increasing currency in higher education since the early 1990s (Matsushita, 2017). Such approaches
commonly derive their theoretical grounding from constructivist learning theory, which emphasises
that “meaning is not imposed or transmitted by direct instruction, but is created by the student’s
learning activities” (Biggs, 1999, p. 60, original emphasis). Active learning strategies focus on the
actions and activities students undertake in the process of learning, rather than on didactic
monologues consumed passively by students (Fields et al., 2021).
Active learning is not merely about doing activities, however. In their seminal text on active learning
pedagogy, Bonwell and Eison (1991) argue that students should not only do things, but also think
about what they are doing. Active learning thereby involves both participation and evaluation
(Michael, 2006), and engages students in higher-order thinking skills (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). In
active learning environments students may be asked to gather information, question, think, problem-
solve, create, discuss, reflect, or work collaboratively (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Michael, 2006).
Importantly, this does not mean that students are unguided in their learning; rather, academics, peers,
and technology should be leveraged to scaffold knowledge acquisition, skill development, self-
4
regulation, learning strategies, and critical thinking (Lee & Hannafin, 2016). Overall, then, active
learning invites students into a “participative process of engagement” (Fields et al., 2021) where they
are encouraged to develop autonomy, responsibility and competence in a guided environment (Lee &
Hannafin, 2016).
To ascertain the effectiveness of such approaches, Freeman et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of
225 studies comparing traditional lecturing and active learning environments in undergraduate
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The study found that students were 1.5
times more likely to fail units delivered via traditional lecturing than units using active learning, and
that average marks on examinations increased by around 6% when active learning was implemented.
This supports earlier research by Hake (1998), who assessed 62 introductory physics units undertaken
by 6,542 students and concluded that the units applying active learning facilitated levels of conceptual
understanding almost two standard deviations above the traditional delivery methods.
The vast majority of the extant academic work supports various active learning approaches, from
encouraging students to generate questions (Aflalo, 2021), to using podcasts and problem-based
learning (Lancaster et al., 2011), team learning (Swanson et al., 2019) and integrating online
interactives (Sidiroglou & Fernandes, 2019). The benefits associated with active learning approaches
include gains to academic performance and success (Freeman et al., 2014; Hake, 1998; Hao et al.,
2021; Loton et al., 2020), as well as enhanced higher-order thinking (Aflalo, 2021), critical thinking,
motivation (Khalid & Ahmad, 2018), engagement and attendance (Carroll & Dunne, 2016; Thalluri &
Penman, 2018). Evidence also suggests that dialogic teaching approaches, which require students and
teachers to “engage in dialogue and work together to critique the world [and] co-create new
understandings”, are particularly important activators of learning for non-traditional students (Syme et
al., 2021, p. 3; see also Freire, 1970).
Recently, technology has become integral to active learning in higher education (Instructure, 2020),
and can be effective enablers for the success of students from non-traditional backgrounds. Devlin
and McKay (2016) interviewed 89 students from LSES backgrounds and concluded that technology
was a prominent vehicle through which LSES students could experience the desired levels of
“flexibility, variety and choice” that helped them to succeed in their studies. Through interviews with
151 staff at Australian universities, Stone (2017) also identified that technology presented strong
opportunities for enhancing access and success for non-traditional students, facilitating relationship-
building, connection, preparation, and engagement.
Despite the importance of technology to contemporary active learning, some cautions are expressed in
the literature. Several sources (Hao et al., 2021; Nicol et al., 2018; Vercellotti, 2018) indicate that
while active learning pedagogies can have significant positive impacts on student learning and
5
achievement, high-technology active learning classrooms may not. Additionally, while technology
has become increasingly critical for contemporary learners in higher education, difficulties with
access can also be a prominent barrier for the participation of students from non-traditional
backgrounds (Instructure, 2020). With these concerns in mind, ‘technology-enhanced’ active learning
is defined here as the integration of technology into active learning approaches in ways that support
the overarching pedagogy and desired learning outcomes, and which students find both accessible and
engaging. This is the approach taken in the active learning model presented in this paper.
1.2.1 The Southern Cross Model
The SCM is a specific approach to what the authors of this paper term Technology-Enhanced Active
Learning in a Shorter delivery model (TEALS). Units in the SCM are delivered to achieve the same
learning outcomes and accredited to have the same volume of learning as units taught over a longer
period at the University. In the SCM the academic calendar is scheduled across six terms
1
, each
consisting of six teaching weeks. A typical full-time student studies two units per term and completes
eight units per year. The SCM is being progressively implemented across all disciplines at the
authors’ institution between 2021-2023 and thus constitutes a radical, institution-wide transformation
to learning and teaching delivery.
As Figure 1 indicates, in a single six-week unit in the SCM students’ learning experiences consist of:
• six self-access online modules
• two scheduled classes per week
• two or three assessments
Figure 1. Typical learning experiences in a six-week unit in the Southern Cross Model
The overarching pedagogy of the SCM is one of active, guided learning. The online self-access
1
At the time this study was conducted, terms were instead called study periods. This is reflected in the
methodology and discussion.
6
modules are designed to be media-rich, interactive and responsive, including a variety of audiovisual
and text-based instructional approaches that regularly require actions from students and provide
feedback to help them gauge their learning. The scheduled classes are designed to be active, guided
experiences focused on consolidating, extending and applying key concepts and skills through
problems, case studies, discussion and practice exercises.
The assessments are authentic, manageable, and interlinked. They have a clear connection to the real
world and engage learners in higher-order skills such as deciding, critiquing, proposing, or creating
(Villarroel et al., 2018). Assessment tasks are scaffolded throughout a unit so that they build upon
each other and provide students with timely formative feedback.
1.3 Research aims
There is a dearth of research addressing the impact of TEALS models such as the SCM on the
experiences and success of non-traditional students in higher education. And yet, the SCM is an
innovative learning-centred approach to higher education with the potential to be of much interest to
institutions who are seeking distinction and enhanced student retention and success in times of
sustained concerns about attrition (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, 2020) and
financial uncertainty (Marshman & Larkins, 2020).
Therefore, the aim of this research was to investigate how the application of TEALS in the Southern
Cross Model (SCM) can affect the learning, academic achievement and success of non-traditional
students in a university setting. Specifically, this research asks:
• How does the SCM impact the learning of novice, non-traditional students?
• How does the SCM affect non-traditional students’ academic performance as measured
through Grade Point Average (GPA)?
• How does the SCM affect non-traditional students’ success, as measured by pass rates?
2. The study
2.1 Context
This study explores the experiences of the first cohort to study in a TEALS model within an enabling
program at a regional Australian university. Similar to access programs in the UK and developmental
education in the US (Roche & Syme, 2018), Australian enabling programs provide a pathway into
higher education for non-traditional students who are typically from multiple equity groups, including
FiF, LSES, Indigenous, and from regional and remote Australia (Lomax-Smith et al., 2011; Syme et
7
al., 2021). The programs are specifically designed to prepare students for the rigour of academic study
with tools and strategies to manage their often complex, competing demands on their time and focus
(Hellmundt & Baker, 2017; Lisciandro et al., 2018), taught by expert staff within a culture of care
(Relf et al., 2017). While the students are often highly motivated to pursue their previously
unattainable dream career via the enabling program (May et al., 2016), they can also suffer from
limiting beliefs about their capabilities (Lisciandro et al., 2018; McKay & Devlin, 2014), high
anxiety, and stress (Nieuwoudt, 2021).
To prepare them for their desired field of study, students enrolled in the enabling program complete
three core units and an elective. The core units cover strategies for managing self and study, academic
communication, and mathematics; the two elective options cover science, and issues in the arts and
business. Each unit’s curriculum is carefully structured to achieve scaffolded and constructively
aligned learning experiences (Biggs, 1996), and draws on dialogic teaching approaches whereby
knowledge is constructed through a respectful two-way partnership between tutors and students
(Freire, 1970; Syme et al., 2021). The online modules do not use complex technologies, but instead
integrate videos, reflection and discussion activities, and H5P interactives such as quizzes, drag-and-
drops, clickable diagrams and interactive presentations.
2.2 Research design
This study employed a parallel mixed design (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009) involving the
simultaneous collection of qualitative and quantitative data. The approach was chosen to enable
inferences for each of the three research questions, as well as meta-inferences from considering both
strands of data (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Thus, the research design was intended to facilitate a
richer and more comprehensive account of student experiences and outcomes (Bryman, 2006) by
integrating accounts of lived experience alongside institutional data. Ethics approval was obtained
from the University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number 2021/026).
The qualitative strand comprised focus groups with students (n=13) who had successfully completed
one term of study in the enabling program during March and April of 2021. Investigating the lived
experiences of students via focus groups is an increasingly prominent method in educational research,
enabling convergences and variations in participants’ lived experiences to be explored through group
interaction (Ambler et al., 2021). A convenience sampling approach was used, and invitations to
participate were issued via class visits and emails sent to all students who had completed study period
2 and were active in study period 3. Five focus groups of 40-50 minutes duration were subsequently
held; these followed a semi-structured guide and were audio recorded before being transcribed.
Quantitative data were collected from the University’s standard Unit Performance Reports. This data
8
included aggregated GPAs and success rates from students in the enabling program in the traditional
model in sessions 1 and 2 in 2019 and 2020 (comprising 7,774 observations)
2
, and in the SCM in
study periods 2 and 3 in 2021 (comprising 1,300 observations).
2.3 Participants
According to institutional data from 2020, a typical course cohort profile in the enabling program
includes 25.9% LSES, 9.7% with a disability, 7% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, 2.6% NESB,
and 53.2% regional/remote. The majority (around 70%) of students are female, which is reflected in
the focus group sample.
As indicated in Table 1, the focus group participants covered a range of enrolment loads and modes,
and were aged between 19 and 42. All participants indicated that they enrolled in the enabling
program because they did not have a method of entry for a degree. Some did not complete year 12
and/or had not studied for many years, and others had failed units in the first year of a degree.
Pseudonym
Age
Gender
First-in-
family
Carer
responsibilities
Hours of paid
work per week
Study load
Study mode
Abby
21
F
Y
Y
0-9
Mixed
Mixed
Amira
34
F
Y
N
0
Full-time
Online
Callie
19
F
Y
N
25
Full-time
Campus
Hayley
19
F
N
N
35
Full-time
Campus
Jennifer
42
F
N
N
35-45
Part-time
Online
Josh
20
M
N
N
30-45
Full-time
Online
Kathy
41
F
Y
Y
0
Full-time
Campus
Maree
42
F
Y
Y
64
Part-time
Campus
Mitchell
22
M
Y
N
0
Full-time
Campus
Naomi
24
F
N
N
0
Full-time
Campus
Prue
33
F
Y
Y
27+
Full-time
Campus
Tamara
28
F
N
N
10
Part-time
Campus
Tia
29
F
N
N
20-30
Full-time
Online
Table 1. Characteristics of the focus group participants
2
Following Loton et al. (2020), ‘observations’ refers here to the instances of data used to calculate a unit’s
success rate and average GPA. Given that students must complete four units in the enabling program, the
number of individual students captured in the dataset is less, at around 400.
9
2.4 Data analysis
The focus group transcripts were uploaded into NVivo (11) for analysis. To enhance reliability,
intercoder agreement was established by the first and second authors separately and recursively
sorting excerpts into nodes, and then comparing and merging their analysis to generate a final set of
agreed themes (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
Descriptive statistics were used to explore GPA and success rates of students enrolled in sessions 1
and 2 in 2019 and 2020, and study periods 2 and 3 in 2021.
3. Findings
Analysis of the focus group data yielded four themes capturing students’ perceptions of how the SCM
influenced their learning. These four themes – focus, confidence, critical thinking, and independence
– are explained below.
3.1 Focused learning
The concept of focus emerged strongly from the data, empowering students to stay motivated and
achieve their goals. Mitchell, who had unsuccessfully attempted study in a session model in the past,
commented:
I was relieved, because I remember trying to juggle four subjects was hard. So only focusing on
two was a big relief for me.
A greater sense of clarity about timelines and goals was central to this enhanced focus. Students, such
as Kathy, felt better able to prioritise their time and energy:
Having a focus point and being, knowing that's where I got to go, I think having more subjects on
top of [two] would possibly come crashing down around me pretty quickly... Knowing what to
prioritise, I would struggle with that.
Due to the more imminent deadlines, participants also reported heightened motivation to maintain
momentum with their studies. Students experienced a healthy sense of urgency that they found helpful
for focus and progress, as Kathy’s comment demonstrates:
I reckon I'd procrastinate if it was drawn out longer as well. Having that final time, like knowing
it's got to be done… has probably helped with my procrastination.
Importantly, the design of the assessment schemes, and in particular the scaffolding of tasks
throughout the term, were key to the perceived manageability of the six-week units. Prue elaborated
on this:
10
It just all kind of built, so you weren't just thrown into a twelve-hundred word essay, you were
thrown a three-step twelve-hundred word essay over six weeks... you actually don't even realise
you're doing it, but you're doing, you know, the last assessment in the first two.
When reflecting on reaching the end of a six-week term, participants voiced their appreciation for the
opportunity to rest and rejuvenate. Mitchell described it as a feeling of “going up and then having a
break and then going up and having a break”, and Hayley offered:
I honestly prefer the six weeks, just because it gives you a break in between, as well, to re-collect
yourself and then attack the next two topics.
Students also emphasised a sense of timely accomplishment, as Tamara expressed:
I didn't feel like I was in too deep.... And then you felt like you'd achieved it. You'd done it.
The SCM thereby resulted in a focused educational experience, which students perceived as
manageable, motivating and affirming. The next theme arising from the focus group data was
confidence.
3.2 Building confidence
Participants repeatedly described how studying in the SCM built their confidence as learners in a
university setting. Elaborating on how their confidence was enhanced, students highlighted the
responsiveness of the self-access modules, and the dialogic, guided nature of the classes.
Students reported that the online modules captured their interest by employing a variety of
instructional approaches, including videos, explanatory text, and interactive online H5P activities such
as quizzes and drag-and-drops. Kathy explained the benefits of this approach:
It keeps you engaged, I think, works different parts of your brain and keeps yourself awake a bit
to work through it.
The responsiveness of the modules also allowed students to identify areas where they needed to seek
additional clarity. Students emphasised that this did not diminish their confidence but, conversely,
enhanced it. They felt clearer about their progress, and of what to ask to further their learning. Tia
explained: “I still have questions that I'm bringing to class, but I know what questions to ask”, while
Prue elaborated that: “you kind of know where you're struggling before you get to class, so where
your questions need to be and where your focus needs to be”. Overall, students felt that the
interactivity and responsiveness of the modules made their learning feel more tangible and successful.
As Callie articulated, the modules involved “learning as you're reading, other than just reading”.
Students further explained that engaging with the modules helped them to feel more comfortable with
11
the classroom discourse. The on-demand availability of the modules, and their clear alignment with
class activities and assessment tasks, meant that when students participated in classes they had
“already heard the words and the terms” (Prue) and “knew what we were talking about straight away”
(Abby). This enabled students to focus on clarifying and deepening their learning, as Tia summarised:
I loved those modules. They were a warm up for the tutorials... They just had the need to know
info. Then that was elaborated in the tutorials.
Meanwhile, the classes were experienced as dialogic and supportive. Participants referred to how the
tutors actively encouraged input from students, while creating an environment of safety and respect.
Naomi described one of her tutors as “so present”, and that she "really engages with us, like asking
questions, trying to get us to speak as well”. Kathy also explained:
It didn't matter what the question was, never felt like it was a silly question. And then the response
was always given in a respectful way and explained, so that I could understand.
This pedagogy of respectful guidance (Hellmundt & Baker, 2017) was another critical factor
underpinning students’ burgeoning confidence.
Students reported that at the end of their first term, they felt “more self-assured" (Josh) and “way
more capable now... I'm like, I can actually do this” (Naomi). Kathy offered:
(Silence.) I'm getting emotional. I didn't think I could be academic, but I do now.
Many of the participants clearly experienced strong gains in their confidence as learners. This further
enabled them to extend and develop their ways of thinking; this is discussed next.
3.3 Developing critical thinking
Students described participating in classroom dialogues – both online and off – that extended beyond
question-and-answer exchanges and instead invited them to articulate, listen to, and reflect on
multiple perspectives. Jennifer relayed:
[In tutorials] we were given an opportunity to look at it from a different perspective. So it's not
just about taking one person's belief or why that it's presented, we were actually given an
opportunity to actively have those conversations to see who agreed and who didn't agree within
that and help us to actually look at it from multiple views and multiple people's understandings.
This opportunity for dialogue and exposure to “multiple views and... understandings” challenged and
developed students’ thinking, encouraging them to reflect critically on the limitations of their own
perspectives and the possibilities offered by other points of view. Prue’s response typified this:
12
And we got in groups, and people explained what they were doing, and then what the other side
was. And it was just really good because it gave us a completely different view of the topics that
we were doing... And it made you draw back and look at what you were doing more.
Importantly, the tutors reinforced and legitimated this sharing and critiquing of perspectives,
encouraging students to form and express their own views. Tamara narrated an example of this:
Oh, the coolest thing for me was like in the assessment... I felt like [the tutor] sort of encouraged
us to be critical about the journal... I said to her in one of the classes, “I feel insecure about
commenting on a journal that's been written by an academic and I'm just [a student]”... She just,
like, reaffirmed that that's okay... And that also gave me more motivation to want to read more
and like suss it out more.
These evaluative, critical ways of thinking extended beyond the classroom. Students also became
more aware of the wider social discourses that in the past had limited their thinking about their
capabilities. Participants such as Callie and Naomi explicitly recognised this progression:
Callie: Studying and doing the PSP has really opened my eyes to see the odds. Once you know
what you're doing and how to do things, it's...
Naomi: Like a structural thing rather than an actual smartness thing.
Callie: Exactly. And yeah, you don't have to be this extremely smart person because I always used
to compare myself to people who went straight to uni after high school... Whereas now I'm like,
“Ha! I can do it.”
Students thus indicated that they had developed into confident, critical thinkers through their
engagement with the SCM. This had another important impact: enabling students to become self-
directed independent learners.
3.4 Becoming independent learners
It was evident from the focus groups that the SCM’s implementation in the enabling program fostered
successful, independent approaches to learning. In addition to describing how they used the self-
access material to guide their focus and generate questions, participants also spoke about reflecting on
their learning strategies, and independently investigating, critiquing, and applying alternative
approaches. Hayley commented:
I was like, “Okay, I wasn't actually doing any of these things”. I was still trying to do it in a way
that wasn't fitting with my studies. So, I think that was good, I was able to find what worked best
for me, with work and just the way I learn and need to do stuff.
Further demonstrating not only independence but also the critical thinking skills referred to above,
Jennifer reinforced that the dialogic, active learning pedagogy of the program enabled her to take
ownership of the strategies she applied:
13
There was also the opportunity for us to actually research what different learning techniques
might be, so that we're not just following on what was actually on the modules themselves. It was
an opportunity for us to actually stretch our legs a little bit and find something that worked for us
and then be able to disseminate that information… So being able to be really quite articulate about
how that's actually worked. And I think that once you understand how that works for you, you've
got that ownership on it and you know that it works for you.
In sum, students noted that engaging in the SCM, supported by tutors acting as respectful and
encouraging guides (Hellmundt & Baker, 2017), meant that “there’s all the resources there for you to
do well” (Naomi). The combination and alignment of the media-rich, responsive modules, the
interactive and dialogic classes, and the respectful guidance from tutors created an environment
within which students were able to transform into confident, critical and independent learners. They
did not depend on ‘answers’ to be fed to them, but proactively took advantage of the resources
available to them to facilitate their success. As Kathy recognised: “I’m having a lot of ‘I’m doing it’
moments.” Abby and Amira’s comments further typified this important outcome:
By the end of the class, you've already watched the modules, you've looked at the videos, done a
few examples, and then you’ve done some more in class, asked your questions, you know pretty
much how to do it. (Abby)
I think that it was the combination of all of the different methods, like watching videos, multiple
choice questions, little quizzes on Quizlet. Really, I think everything together for me was… just a
good combination for success. (Amira)
Further evidence for how the SCM enhanced the performance and success of students was obtained
by examining the success rates and GPAs across several years of the program.
3.5 Academic performance and success
The focus group participants were all successful in the enabling program and achieved an average
GPA of 5.82, well above the University’s 2020 average of 3.48. To ascertain whether enhanced
academic performance and success was achieved across the enabling cohort, descriptive statistics
were generated for four 13-week sessions of study, and two 6-week study periods, as shown in
Figures 2 and 3.
14
Figure 2. Success rates of enabling cohorts in sessions and study periods
Figure 3. GPAs of enabling cohorts in sessions and study periods
As these figures demonstrate, the aggregated success rate and GPA in the enabling program increased
after the introduction of the SCM. Importantly, the learning outcomes remained the same between the
session and study period offerings and only minor changes were made to assessment tasks; the most
substantial change was reducing the length of final assessments by 300 words. These data therefore
extend the focus group findings by indicating that the enhanced success and achievement of the focus
group participants was not limited to this smaller group, but instead applied more generally to the
larger cohort studying in the enabling program in the SCM.
15
4. Discussion and conclusion
The findings from the focus groups and unit performance data indicate that the application of TEALS
in the SCM can have powerful impacts on the learning and achievement of novice, non-traditional
students in higher education. Success rates and GPAs both rose after the introduction of the Model
(Figures 2 and 3), and students described personally meaningful gains to their focus, confidence,
critical thinking and independence. Hence this study supports earlier findings that shorter delivery
models can enhance focus, confidence and motivation (Faught et al., 2016; Lee & Horsfall, 2010;
Richmond et al., 2015) and positively impact student success and performance (Klein et al., 2019;
Loton et al., 2020; McCluskey et al., 2020).
However, this study also adds to the literature by demonstrating how TEALS, and specifically the
SCM, can maximise learning for non-traditional students. Recent data of global trends in education
identify access to technology as one of the six key trends that exacerbates inequities to student
engagement and success (Instructure, 2020). As noted in the introduction, a high proportion of
students in this study come from equity groups including 26% from LSES backgrounds. Despite this,
the success rates (Figure 2) and average GPAs (Figure 3), combined with students’ lived experiences
of studying in the SCM, clearly indicate that access to online resources was not a barrier to their
learning, and in fact enhanced it. Feedback from students indicate that the learning-centred used of
technology in the online modules seemed key to this outcome; the aim was to engage and streamline
sensemaking (Covello, 2019) rather than to dazzle and distract. Interactive H5Ps were embedded in
the materials and familiar media types were used, such as videos and diagrams. Learning can be
enriched through the effective, learner-centred design of the online learning environment, and
flexibility can be increased by providing choice and control through self-access learning opportunities
(Nieuwoudt, 2020). Thus, the online modules embedded into curricula in the SCM permitted students
(including students from equity groups) to successfully combine work, family and study.
The responsiveness of the modules further allowed students to gauge their learning in ways that built
confidence and fostered independent, inquiry-based learning strategies. Students reported deriving
guidance from the online modules that aligned clearly with their immediate learning goals and thus
supported their participation and engagement. Instead of the teacher providing the gateway into
understanding university conventions and academic language, the self-access materials allowed
students to take agency of their learning. Their intellectual curiosity was piqued by the interactive
modules; based on the automated feedback they received from activities, they wrote down questions
to ask in class, applying their critical thinking skills and indicating they were already becoming
independent learners. The SCM thereby improved students’ academic self-efficacy by providing
mastery experiences through the interactive, responsive online modules. Academic self-efficacy is a
powerful motivation construct that can influence academic performance (Schunk & Pajares, 2002).
16
The results of this research suggest that learner-centred, constructively aligned and scaffolded
approaches to TEALS can deepen reflection (Hailkari et al., 2021), increase motivation and
engagement (Fisher et al., 2021), and facilitate independent learning strategies.
Critically, however, this study also illustrates the importance of pedagogy and teaching presence to
student success in TEALS. Participants in this research described encountering respectful and dialogic
teaching approaches that did not emphasise the authority of the tutor, but rather guided them towards
finding their own voices and their capacities for critique and participation (Hellmundt & Baker, 2017;
Syme et al., 2021). This further activated not only students’ independence, but also their critical
thinking, and was positioned by students as key to their transformations as learners.
Overall, therefore, this study suggests that carefully-aligned curricula in a six-week format, supported
by the learner-centred design of interactive, responsive self-access modules and respectful, dialogic
teaching approaches, can enhance focus, confidence, critical thinking, independent learning, and
ultimately academic achievement and success. This is captured in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Enabling success through the Southern Cross Model
Nevertheless, this study has several limitations. The focus group participants had only completed one
term of study when the groups were conducted, and the convenience sampling approach may have
resulted in self-selection of students with positive experiences. Those students who dropped out or
failed were not interviewed. Including such students in further research will help develop a fuller
picture of the impact of the model on students. Additionally, the quantitative analysis was limited to
the descriptive level, and success rates in 2021 were affected by a rule change allowing the
withdrawal of students who did not submit their first assessment. However, only 8% of students were
affected by this change in study period 2, which still places the success rate well above session-based
success rates and the national average for enabling programs, which in 2019 was 58.41% (Department
Educational design and delivery
Constructive alignment
within a 6-week term
Learning-centred
technology that is
interactive, responsive,
media-rich
Dialogic, respectful
teaching
Learner transformations
Focus
Confidence
Critical thinking
Independence
Learner achievements
Academic performance
Academic success
17
of Education, Skills and Employment, 2020). While we acknowledge these limitations, the findings
may still be illuminating for others in the field. Future studies could apply more sophisticated
statistical analysis techniques which would confirm whether these findings are significant. Analysis of
longer-term data in the enabling program will shed light on whether TEALS can also enhance
academic performance and success among ‘traditional’ students, and the impact it is having on
specific equity groups (e.g. those from LSES backgrounds, first-in-family, or Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander students).
Despite the need for further research, the findings of this study may be taken into consideration to
enhance higher education practice. It is important to re-emphasise that unit learning outcomes and the
volume of required learning remained unchanged for the program’s offering in the new model;
students in the SCM were therefore achieving heightened standards in relation to the same learning
outcomes as their traditional-model counterparts. The study indicates that the SCM, as a specific
application of TEALS, can strengthen learning outcomes and empower non-traditional students for
successful study at university.
Declarations
The authors have declared there are no conflicts of interest or competing interests.
References
Aflalo, E. (2021). Students generating questions as a way of learning. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 22(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418769120
Ambler, T., Solomonides, I., & Smallridge, A. (2021). Students’ experiences of a first-year block
model curriculum in higher education. Curriculum Journal, 32(3), 533–558.
https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.103
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–
364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. International Journal of
Phytoremediation, 21(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative
18
Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877
Carroll, J.-A., & Dunne, M. (2016). Innovations in teaching international health: Evaluation of a
combined use of Blackboard Collaborate, Facebook, and lectorials to enhance student
academic engagement and outcomes. CAPHIA 2016 Public Health Teaching & Learning
Forum. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/101456/
Cherastidtham, I., Norton, A., & Mackey, W. (2018). University attrition: what helps and what
hinders university completion? https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/University-
attrition-background.pdf
Chung, E., Turnbull, D., & Chur-Hansen, A. (2017). Differences in resilience between ‘traditional’
and ‘non-traditional’ university students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 77–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693493
Covello, S. (2019). Teaching with rich media. Granite State College (USNH).
https://granite.pressbooks.pub/rich-media/
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Daniel, E. L. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines. College Student Journal,
34(2), 298–308.
Davies, W. M. (2006). Intensive teaching formats: A review. Issues in Educational Research, 16(1),
5–22. https://doi.org/http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/davies.html
Department of Education (2013). Attachment A – Summary of the 2008 higher education student
statistics. https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/resources/2008-student-
summary
Department of Education (2019). 2018 full year higher education statistics.
https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/resources/2018-student-summary-
infographic
Department of Education, Skills and Employment (2020). Attrition, retention and success rates for
commencing higher education students.
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYWM2NjRkYTktZGJkNC00MGVkLWJlYjItMGRj
NTc3Y2FkNmVkIiwidCI6ImRkMGNmZDE1LTQ1NTgtNGIxMi04YmFkLWVhMjY5ODR
mYzQxNyJ9
19
Devlin, M. (2017, February 27). The typical university student is no longer 18, middle-class and on
campus – we need to change thinking on ‘drop-outs.’ The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/the-typical-university-student-is-no-longer-18-middle-class-and-
on-campus-we-need-to-change-thinking-on-drop-outs-73509
Devlin, M., & McKay, J. (2016). Teaching students using technology: Facilitating success for
students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian universities. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2053
Eames, M., Luttman, S., & Parker, S. (2018). Accelerated vs. traditional accounting education and
CPA exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 44(April 2017), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2018.04.004
Faught, B. E., Law, M., & Zahradnik, M. (2016). How much do students remember over time?
Longitudinal knowledge retention in traditional versus accelerated learning
environments. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca
Fields, L., Trostian, B., Moroney, T., & Dean, B. A. (2021). Active learning pedagogy
transformation: A whole-of-school approach to person-centred teaching and nursing
graduates. Nurse Education in Practice, 53, 103051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103051
Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., & Birdthistle, N. (2021). The positive relationship between flipped and
blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 22(2), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801702
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.
P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Herder & Herder.
Hailkari, T., Virtanen, V., Vesalainen, M., & Postareff, L. (2021). Student perspectives on how
different elements of constructive alignment support active learning. Active Learning in
Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787421989160
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student
survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics,
66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
20
Hao, Q., Barnes, B., & Jing, M. (2021). Quantifying the effects of active learning environments:
separating physical learning classrooms from pedagogical approaches. Learning
Environments Research, 24(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09320-3
Harwood, K. J., McDonald, P. L., Butler, J. T., Drago, D., & Schlumpf, K. S. (2018). Comparing
student outcomes in traditional vs intensive, online graduate programs in health professional
education. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1343-7
Hellmundt, S., & Baker, D. (2017). Encouraging engagement in enabling programs: The students’
perspective. Student Success, 8(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v8i1.357
Ho, H., & Polonsky, M. (2009). Exploring marketing students’ attitudes and performance: A
comparison of traditional and intensive delivery. Marketing Education Review, 19(3), 41–47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2009.11489086
Instructure. (2020). State of student success and engagement in higher education: 2020 global
research study and trends. https://www.instructure.com/canvas/resources/insights/student-
success-engagement-higher-education-research-study-trends
Karaksha, A. (2013). Benefits of intensive mode teaching to improve student performance. 6th
International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2013) Proceedings,
5212–5218. http://hdl.handle.net/10072/59795%0Ahttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/59795
Kember, D., Leung, D., & Prosser, M. (2021). Has the open door become a revolving door? The
impact on attrition of moving from elite to mass higher education. Studies in Higher
Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1629411
Khalid, K., & Ahmad, S. A. (2018). Effectiveness of interactive lectures on knowledge retention and
students' motivation in undergraduate medical education - a mixed method study. Pakistan
Armed Forces Medical Journal, 69(1), 205–211.
https://www.pafmj.org/index.php/PAFMJ/article/view/2523/2078
Klein, R., Kelly, K., Sinnayah, P., & Winchester, M. (2019). The VU way: The effect of intensive
block mode teaching on repeating students. International Journal of Innovation in Science
and Mathematics Education, 27(9), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.27.09.004
Lacy, W. B., Croucher, G., Brett, A., & Mueller, R. (2017). Australian Universities at a Crossroads:
Insights from Their Leaders and Implications for the Future. Melbourne Centre for the Study
of Higher Education and Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education.
https://apru.org/resource/australian-universities-at-a-crossroads-insights-from-their-leaders-
21
and-implications-for-the-future/
Lancaster, J. W., McQueeney, M. L., & Van Amburgh, J. A. (2011). Online lecture delivery paired
with in class problem-based learning ... Does it enhance student learning? Currents in
Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2010.10.008
Leathwood, C., & O’Connell, P. (2003). ‘It’s a struggle’: The construction of the ‘new student’ in
higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(6), 597–615.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093032000145863
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-
centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
Lee, N., & Horsfall, B. (2010). Accelerated learning: A study of faculty and student experiences.
Innovative Higher Education, 35(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9141-0
Lisciandro, J., Jones, A., & Geerlings, P. (2018). Enabling learners starts with knowing them: Student
attitudes, aspiration and anxiety towards science and maths learning in an Australian pre-
university enabling program. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 58(1), 14–40.
https://ajal.net.au/downloads/enabling-learners-starts-with-knowing-them-student-attitudes-
aspiration-and-anxiety-towards-science-and-maths-learning-in-an-australian-pre-university-
enabling-program/
Lomax-Smith, J., Watson, L., & Webster, B. (2011). Higher education base funding review: Final
report. DEEWR. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/191943
Loton, D., Stein, C., Parker, P., & Weaven, M. (2020). Introducing block mode to first-year university
students: A natural experiment on satisfaction and performance. Studies in Higher Education.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1843150
Malm, E., & Weber, M. (Eds.). (2017). Academic transformation: A design approach for the new
majority. Rowman & Littlefield.
Marshman, I., & Larkins, F. (2020, June 3). COVID-19: what Australian universities can do to
recover from the loss of international student fees. The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/covid-19-what-australian-universities-can-do-to-recover-from-
the-loss-of-international-student-fees-139759
Martin, H., & Culver, K. B. (2009). To concentrate, to intensify, or to shorten? The issue of the short
22
intensive course in summer sessions. Summer Academe, 6, 59–69.
http://doi.org/10.5203/sa.v6i0.371
Matsushita, K. (2017). An invitation to deep active learning. In K. Matsushita (Ed.), Deep Active
Learning: Toward Greater Depth in University Education (pp. 15–33). Springer Nature.
May, J., Delahunty, J., O’Shea, S., & Stone, C. (2016). Seeking the passionate career: First-in-family
enabling students and the idea of the Australian university. Higher Education Quarterly,
70(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12104
McCluskey, T., Smallridge, A., Weldon, J., Loton, D., Samarawickrema, G., & Cleary, K. (2020).
Building on the VU Block foundations: Results from the inaugural first year cohort. In E.
Heinrich & R. Bourke (Eds.), Research and Development in Higher Education: Next
generation, Higher Education: Challenges, Changes and Opportunities, 42, 61–72.
https://www.herdsa.org.au/publications/conference-proceedings/research-and-development-
higher-education-next-generation-6
McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2014). ‘Uni has a different language … to the real world’: Demystifying
academic culture and discourse for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Higher
Education Research & Development, 33(5), 949–961.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890570
McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2015). ‘Low income doesn’t mean stupid and destined for failure’:
Challenging the deficit discourse around students from low SES backgrounds in higher
education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(4), 347–363.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1079273
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? American Journal of Physiology
– Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167.
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Nicol, A. A. M., Owens, S. M., Le Coze, S. S. C. L., MacIntyre, A., & Eastwood, C. (2018).
Comparison of high-technology active learning and low-technology active learning
classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 253–265.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731176
Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2020). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors
of academic success in online education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
36(3), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.5137
23
Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2021). Psychological distress among students in enabling education: An exploratory
study. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 61(1), 6–25.
https://ajal.net.au/downloads/psychological-distress-among-students-in-enabling-education-
an-exploratory-study/
O’Shea, S., Lysaght, P., Roberts, J., & Harwood, V. (2016). Shifting the blame in higher education –
social inclusion and deficit discourses. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(2),
322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087388
Relf, B., Crawford, N., O’Rourke, J., Sharp, S., Hodges, B., Shah, M., & Katersky Barnes, R. (2017).
Lighting the path(way): Articulating curriculum design principles for open access enabling
programs. Department of Education and Training. https://ltr.edu.au/resources/SD15-
5063_NEWC_Relf_Final%20Report_2017.pdf
Richmond, A. S., Murphy, B. C., Curl, L. S., & Broussard, K. A. (2015). The effect of immersion
scheduling on academic performance and students' ratings of instructors. Teaching of
Psychology, 42(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314562675
Roche, T. & Syme, S. (2018). Editorial: Emerging trends and future directions of enabling education.
Student Success, 9(1), i–iv. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v9i1.427
Sadowski, C., Stewart, M., & Pediaditis, M. (2017). Pathway to success: Using students’ insights and
perspectives to improve retention and success for university students from low socioeconomic
(LSE) backgrounds. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(2), 158–175.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1362048
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J.
S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 15–31). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6
Scott, P. A., & Conrad, C. F. (1992). A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research. In J.
C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 411–459).
Agathon Press.
Sidiroglou, F., & Fernandes, N. (2019). The impact of blended learning on student performance in an
intensive block mode teaching setting. ICICTE 2019 Proceedings, 101–112.
http://www.icicte.org/2019-proceedings.html
Stone, C. (2017). Opportunity through online learning: Improving student access, participation and
success in higher education. NCSEHE. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-
24
content/uploads/2017/03/CathyStone_EQUITY-FELLOWSHIP-FINAL-REPORT-1.pdf
Swanson, E., McCulley, L. V., Osman, D. J., Scammacca Lewis, N., & Solis, M. (2019). The effect of
team-based learning on content knowledge: A meta-analysis. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 20(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731201
Syme, S., Roche, T., Goode, E., & Crandon, E. (2021). Transforming lives: The power of an
Australian enabling education. Higher Education Research & Development. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1990222
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences. Sage.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2020). Good Practice Note: Improving retention
and completion in Australian higher education - February 2020.
https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/good-practice-note-improving-retention-
and-completion-students-australian
Thalluri, J., & Penman, J. (2018). “We just don’t sit there. We participate, interact and learn, and we
rarely get bored” – That is a lectorial. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-
Professional Journal, 19(2), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v19i2.241
Universities Australia. (2020). 2020 higher education facts and figures.
https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/publication/higher-education-facts-and-figures-2020/
Vercellotti, M. Lou. (2018). Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A
comparison of classroom context. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 197–210.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735606
Victoria University (n.d.). VU block model. https://www.vu.edu.au/study-at-vu/why-choose-vu/vu-
block-model
Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment:
Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,
43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396
Walsh, K. P., Sanders, M., & Gadgil, S. (2019). Equivalent but not the same: Teaching and learning
in full semester and condensed summer courses. College Teaching, 67(2), 138–149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579702
