research candidates’ skill development: questions of curriculum and pedagogy margaret kiley and...

Research candidates’ skill development: Questions of curriculum and pedagogyMargaret Kiley and Jim Cumming

CEDAM

The Australian National University

Margaret Kiley, Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods

The ‘push’ for explicit skills training

Government e.g. reducing time frames for candidature

Changes in characteristics of doctoral candidate enrolments

Employer groups


When undertaking research related to HDR skill development to what extent should the views of these various stakeholders be considered? Should they all be given a similar weighting? Are there others?


Theories and concepts Two-tiered model (Barrie, 2004): Scholarship,

Lifelong learning, and global citizenship with Information literacy, Research & inquiry, Ethical, social & professional understanding, Communication, and Personal & intellectual autonomy

Practice-identify model (Holmes, 2000): practice and identity are integrated and performed in a social context

Levels of capability and situational variation (Bowden et al, 2000): levels of capability related to context and focussed on candidate


Is it possible/reasonable to develop a research framework based on the various aspects of these models, for example a focus on the messiness and complexity of HDR skill identification, provision, acquisition and enactment, and quality assurance?


Which skills are we talking about?

Research skills e.g. research, reading, reflecting, writing and teaching, publishing, etc

Generic capabilities e.g. communication, problem solving, teamwork/collaboration, innovation/enterprise


As researchers, which of these skills or skill clusters should/could be the focus of attention, research skills, generic skills or some intersection of these?In which contexts?


What environments and strategies?

Issues include:• Environment• Personnel• Timing• Approaches• Assessment• Disciplinary differences


What could/should the focus of a mapping of HDR skills development across Australia: the environment, the provider, the timing, assessment, a combination of these?Should this work be located purely within a disciplinary context or a broad, generic context?


Conclusion: Curriculum Issues

Mandatory versus voluntary? Mandatory for all candidates, or only some?

Formal assessment, informal, or no assessment? Reporting? On the candidate’s transcript? Formal accreditation and if so, by whom? Levels of standardisation across universities, disciplines? Recognition of Prior Learning? Articulation? Breadth or depth in the learning experiences? Issues of access and equity? Discipline-specific and interdisciplinary experiences?


Conclusion: Pedagogical issues

Observable support yet recognising candidates as autonomous, enterprising adults?

Institutional recognition of supervisory team and the role of peers and others in learning and teaching?

Institutional account of candidates authentic learning experiences prior to, and within candidature

Support for supervisors and research leaders in developing collaborations with industry, the professions, and other research groups to assist with meaningful learning opportunities for research candidates?


Acknowledgement

Support for this research has been provided by The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.

research candidates’ skill development: questions of curriculum and pedagogy margaret kiley and...

Documents