Exploring the contribution of professional staff to student outcomes: a comparative study of Australian and UK case studies

Graham, C; Regan, JA

Exploring the contribution of professional staff to student outcomes: a comparative study of Australian and UK case studies

Graham, C

Regan, JA

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2016, 38 (6), pp. 595 - 609
Issue Date:: 2016-11-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (1.78 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Graham, C https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6901-1048	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Regan, JA	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-05-25T19:10:36Z
dc.date.issued	2016-11-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2016, 38 (6), pp. 595 - 609	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1360-080X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/47903
dc.description.abstract	© 2016 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management. This paper reports on the second stage of a comparative study between two higher education institutions: one in Australia and the other in the United Kingdom, which explored the contributions of professional staff to student outcomes. The first stage acted as a scoping exercise to ascertain how the contributions of professional staff to student outcomes could be investigated. The second stage of the study aimed to undertake a more in-depth exploration of self-reported behaviours in a range of professional staff roles, within the two case studies. The main finding of the comparative study is the broad similarities between the case studies, in self-reported behaviours that contribute to successful student outcomes. Four key factors were identified, which enable or inhibit the contributions of professional staff to successful outcomes. Three of the four factors were found to be the same in both case studies, whereas technology was more important in the Australian case study.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/1360080X.2016.1211935	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Education	en_US
dc.title	Exploring the contribution of professional staff to student outcomes: a comparative study of Australian and UK case studies	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	38	en_US
utslib.for	1301 Education Systems	en_US
utslib.for	1303 Specialist Studies in Education	en_US
utslib.for	1605 Policy and Administration	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	6	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	38	en_US

Abstract:

© 2016 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management. This paper reports on the second stage of a comparative study between two higher education institutions: one in Australia and the other in the United Kingdom, which explored the contributions of professional staff to student outcomes. The first stage acted as a scoping exercise to ascertain how the contributions of professional staff to student outcomes could be investigated. The second stage of the study aimed to undertake a more in-depth exploration of self-reported behaviours in a range of professional staff roles, within the two case studies. The main finding of the comparative study is the broad similarities between the case studies, in self-reported behaviours that contribute to successful student outcomes. Four key factors were identified, which enable or inhibit the contributions of professional staff to successful outcomes. Three of the four factors were found to be the same in both case studies, whereas technology was more important in the Australian case study.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/47903