Student Success
ISSN: 2205-0795
Volume 10, Issue 1, p. 1-15
March 2019
Feature Practice Report
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time
Trish McCluskey, John Weldon and Andrew Smallridge
Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
For many years, universities around the world have been developing and enhancing the First Year
Experience (FYE), with a view to improving retention, performance and student satisfaction. This feature
practice report outlines a strategic initiative, launched in 2018 at Victoria University in Melbourne,
Australia that aims to transform the experience of Victoria University’s first-year students on an
unprecedented scale. This unique model reconceptualises the design, structure and delivery of first year
units of study in order to deliver a program that deliberately focuses on students’ pedagogical, transition
and work/life balance needs. This initiative required the disruption and redevelopment of all university
systems to ensure students experience a supportive and seamless transition into, and journey through,
their first year of study at university.
Please cite this article as:
McCluskey, T., Weldon, J., & Smallridge, A. (2019). Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report.
Student Success, 10(1), 1-15. doi: 10.5204/ssj.v10i1.1048
This practice report has been accepted for publication in Student Success. Please see the Editorial Policies under the ‘About’
section of the Journal website for further information.
Student Success: A journal exploring the experiences of students in tertiary education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. As an open access journal,
articles are free to use, with proper attribution. ISSN: 2205-0795
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 1
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report
Background
Victoria University (VU) is a multi-campus
institution with its main campus located in the
western suburbs of Melbourne, Australia, the
state capital of Victoria. A key aim of VU is to
ensure the highest levels of student satisfaction,
as measured by the Australian Quality
Indicators of Teaching and Learning (QILT)
Student Experience Survey (SES), among firstyear students of any university in Victoria by
2020. This is a lofty aspiration and in seeking to
achieve this, VU undertook a comprehensive
review of how it engaged first-year students. In
response to this feedback, as well as
institutional and sector drivers, VU introduced a
radical Australia-first learning and teaching
model in 2018. This paper details the redesign
of the first year at VU, including the reasons
necessitating a change of this scale, the complex
and multifaceted change process required to
bring about this change in an established dualsector university, and the principles and
characteristics of the model. The desired
outcome of this change was to improve student
satisfaction, enable students to better transition
into higher education and, succeed in their first
year of study leading to an increased rate of
progression into second year.
The changing role of the university
There have been considerable and constant
forces impacting the definition and role of the
university in contemporary society (see for
example discussions in Barnett & Peters, 2018
and for an Australian perspective see Coaldrake
& Stedman, 2013 and Marginson, 2016) These
include the emergence of digital and mobile
technologies which have enabled access,
sharing and production of knowledge at any
time and any place. The nature and
characteristics of the student body are also
evolving with people needing to study across
their working life to maintain career currency
and consequently demanding flexible study
options suitable for their life circumstances. The
2 | Student Success, 10(1) March 2019
traditional broadcast model of higher education
(Tapscott, 2016) employed by universities
worldwide, including VU, has remained
fundamentally unchanged for more than a
century. Under this regime, universities govern
students’ access to the educational environment
via timetables of lectures, tutorials, seminars
and semesters which suit the institutions’
operational needs rather than those of students.
The authors contend that while there have been
numerous developments in the application of
technology-enhanced learning, and undoubted
progress has been made in terms of teaching
practice, reforms have tended to stop at the
classroom door, leaving the university
unchanged and unchallenged. Other industries
which traditionally operated under broadcast
models, such as the entertainment, news media
and retail sectors, have been forced to
restructure in order to cater for customers no
longer willing to follow what they see as
arbitrary restrictive timetables, hence the rise
of user-demand driven business models such
as: streaming entertainment, the 24-hour news
cycle, and online retail. VU’s Block Model
recognises and embraces this radical disruption
via an intentional, whole of institution change
that replaces the broadcast model with one that
embeds students’ educational and operational
needs at the centre of not only the classroom but
the entire university.
Higher education has dabbled with userdemand models via MOOCs and online courses
however such dabbling has tended to be limited
in scope and applicability and has not really
changed the underlying business model. The
vast majority of undergraduate students are
still required to adhere to an on-campus
timetable and teaching model which takes no
account of what satisfies them as students,
workers, carers and/or consumers.
VU has endeavoured to disrupt the traditional
approach and generate a higher level of
satisfaction by introducing a new hybrid model
of course design and student engagement
McCluskey, Weldon & Smallridge
known as The VU First Year Model, or
alternatively the VU Block Model. This
innovative approach is flexible, immersive,
inclusive and is designed specifically to provide
excellent educational outcomes such as
employability, retention and completion for the
21st century student. The model simplifies and
streamlines the student experience by allowing
them to focus on one unit of study at a time.
Units are run consecutively over four, fourweek blocks across a 16-week semester rather
than concurrently across a 12-week semester
and four-week exam period. Students cover all
learning activities and assessment in that fourweek block before moving onto the next unit,
knowing their results from the previous one.
This model avoids the need for students who
may be juggling the multiplicity of competing
demands,
deadlines,
availabilities
and
relationships that currently complicate the
traditional four units at once semester. Further,
a simple timetable consolidates all classes into
three regular periods of three to five hours, on
three days each week, allowing students to
manage their study, with work and other
responsibilities.
2018). According to the Department of
Education and Training (2017), VU has the
highest proportion of students from a nonenglish speaking background and the secondhighest proportion of low socioeconomic
students of all universities in Victoria.
The context of VU
The drivers of change
The present initiative positions VU as offering a
uniquely different higher education experience
in the context of 40 Australian universities.
Tracing its roots to the Footscray Technical
School which began in 1916, VU has been
described as the university of Melbourne’s
western suburbs, and VU’s vision statement
describes the institution as, “the university of
opportunity and success” (Victoria University,
2017a).
A complex array of factors, which have included
student enrolments at VU not keeping pace with
the expanding Victorian higher education
sector, a reduction in state funding for Training
and Further Education (TAFE), high attrition
rates and low quality educational ratings, have
all been factors contributing to the introduction
of the new model at VU.
These previous institutional titles reflect the
history and purpose of VU, and the make-up of
the student body. In 2017, VU had nearly
27,000 students, or just over 19,000 equivalent
full-time enrolments (Victoria University,
1
In Australia, VU is known as a dual-sector
institution, meaning it offers both vocational
education and training as well as higher
education programs, which span all 10 levels of
the Australian Qualifications Framework
(AQF)1. This breadth means that VU students
are able to articulate from an AQF level 1
certificate, to a level 10 doctoral level degree
while remaining in the same institution.
Institutional retention is therefore critical for
VU where internal pathways are an integral part
of its education operations.
In 2017, VU was placed within the top 2% of
universities globally (Victoria University,
2018), with its position in the Times Higher
Education league table improving from the 351400 band ranked universities to the 301-350
band.
Financial sustainability
In 2012, in response to the Australian Review of
Higher Education (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent &
Scales, 2008) the Australian Government lifted
the caps on funding for most undergraduate
university places and the resulting demand-
Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) https://www.aqf.edu.au/
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 3
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report
driven system allowed institutions to determine
how many students they would enrol, with
government funding being linked to enrolment
numbers.
In Victoria, demand-driven
enrolments resulted in an expansion of some of
the largest and more highly ranked universities,
and little or no growth for others. For example,
Figure 1 details the growth in the Victorian
higher education sector, which shows that
despite sector growth in the state, certain
universities did not grow in student numbers,
including VU.
Subsequently, in 2018 the
Victorian Auditor-General’s analysis of
university financial sustainability, including
higher education and TAFE, concluded that
some universities, including VU, would have a
challenge remaining financially viable (Victoria
Auditor-General’s Office, 2018).
High attrition
Overall rates of student attrition have remained
stable in Australian higher education. Despite
growing recognition of the complexity
surrounding the issue from institutions and
government, and extensive scholarly work on
the topic, including the development of
frameworks such as Sally Kift’s Transition
Pedagogy (2009), and the role of non-cognitive
factors including student engagement (Trowler,
2010), the national attrition rate of around 15%
has changed very little since 2005 (Department
of Education and Training, 2016). Arguably, this
may indicate some degree of improvement,
given the ‘massification’ of the sector, i.e. the
increased participation from larger numbers,
including non-traditional students, since 2012,
which has not resulted in increased national
attrition rates.
Nonetheless, attrition remains a serious and
persistent problem. Successive government
reviews identified major drivers of attrition as
the learning environment, teaching capability,
lack of student engagement, high student/staff
ratios, lack of student support and student
personal factors such as “financial, emotional,
Figure 1. Victorian Auditor-General analysis of financial performance of universities in Victoria
4 | Student Success, 10(1) March 2019
McCluskey, Weldon & Smallridge
health or other life events” (Department of
Education and Training, 2018, p. 5).
The latest findings from the longest-running
and most comprehensive study of the first-year
university student experience in Australia were
published in 2015 (Baik, Naylor & Arkoudis,
2015). This report provided unique insight into
the changing experiences of university entrants.
Some positive trends were present, with
increases in clarity of purpose for going to
university, reduction in intention to leave,
clearer continuity from school to university, and
increases in perceptions of some aspects of
teaching quality and overall course satisfaction.
Yet, other markers, such as social interaction at
university declined, as did classroom
engagement. These declines are concerning
when considered alongside the increasing
importance of 21st century skills, which have a
very strong emphasis on social engagement,
including in collaborative work (Griffin & Care,
2014). A subsequent study utilising a subset of
items from the longitudinal panel study
revealed that students at-risk of attrition had
significantly lower perceptions of belonging,
being supported, and intellectually engaged at
university, and that this group had significantly
higher study-related stress (Naylor, Baik &
Arkoudis, 2018).
The Australian Department of Education and
Training (2017) most recently reported
attrition for 2016, which indicates VU had a rate
of 21.41%, compared to the national total of
14.32%. As the university of ‘opportunity and
success’, VU has an institutional strategy to
combat attrition, investing in monitoring and
early intervention, as do other Australian
universities. However, VU wanted to do more to
address this issue and to ensure student
success, so they developed a design-based
curriculum model that targets known transition
challenges.
Low educational quality ratings
Another challenge at VU are relatively poor
outcomes in measures of educational quality,
with VU performing poorly on national surveys
relative to other institutions. In the 2017 QILT
SES VU has the lowest overall score for student
satisfaction in Australia at 72.6%, considerably
lower than the national average of 78.5% (QILT,
2017). VU performed significantly below the
national average on teaching quality, student
support and learning resources, but equal to the
national average (with overlapping 90%
confidence intervals), in skills development and
learner engagement, Together, these indicators
support a need to strive for higher quality, and
while VU has an extensive range of processes
designed to support continual quality
improvement, a radical change was determined
as necessary.
Exploration of a new first year
model
As a result of these challenges, VU leadership
determined a radical change was needed. In
early 2017, VU held a series of meetings with its
staff to canvas ideas on how to enhance the first
year experience of VU students in order to
reduce attrition and increase student
satisfaction. Much of the discussion and
feedback echoed the numerous initiatives and
principles implemented across the Australian
higher education sector over recent years (Kift,
2009; Krause, 2005; Nelson, Creagh, Kift &
Clarke, 2014) rather than seeking to find new,
and perhaps more VU-relevant, solutions.
Specifically, Kift’s Transition Pedagogy (2009)
put forward six curriculum design principles to
help institutions explicate initiatives to support
student transition into university. These
principles, and corresponding institutional
initiatives, focus on the many transitional
changes occurring during early university
study. This focus includes diversity of student
cohorts, the importance of student engagement,
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 5
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report
and institutional processes that can play a part
in smoothing the transition, such as educational
design, strategy and policy, and quality
assurance. The findings of the recent review of
attrition in Australian higher education
mirrored much of the Transition Pedagogy
literature stating, “as a result of the new
economy, digitalisation and complex factors
leading to attrition, institutions should be
continually adjusting curriculum, pedagogy and
academic policy design to meet student needs
and expectations” (Department of Education
and Training, 2018, p. 6).
These
recommendations
included
institutions
forming and evaluating a comprehensive
retention strategy which should, among other
activities, take account of support services.
However, many of the recommendations in first
year Transition Pedagogy were already in place
at VU and many of the principles and initiatives
were already embedded in its organisational
practices and ways of operating. A
comprehensive retention policy was also in
place in 2017, which included procedures for
triaging at-risk students, promoting use of
support services, and supporting decisions
about enrolment.
Internal discussions within VU called for a
solution that moved beyond, or arguably, more
wholeheartedly adopted, the frameworks and
principles of first year transitions. What was
required was an approach that, while
incorporating these initiatives, would also
position the university as legitimately agile,
innovative, open and ready to deliver an
educational experience suited to the 21st
century student. VU developed an internal
White Paper (2017a), which explored how VU
could radically change first year student
outcomes. As indicated by the excerpt below,
the document reflected the expectations around
the implementation of the Block Model and also
importantly gave insight into the key outcomes
desired by VU:
6 | Student Success, 10(1) March 2019
Victoria University’s First Year Model, an
Australian first, will be introduced in 2018
by the new First Year College. Instead of
insisting students engage with four units of
study concurrently, the First Year College
will offer students the ability to study their
chosen degree course in sequential blocks;
completing one unit and its assessment at a
time, over three to four weeks, before
moving to the next. Students will be able to
focus on a single subject in depth rather than
juggling multiple units with competing
demands
and
deadlines;
immerse
themselves in each unit, learning through
discussion and group interaction; form
strong and lasting peer connections formed
through close contact with one group at a
time; get to know and be known by their
educators; receive timely and targeted
support; and, crucially, they can achieve
success early to build confidence and
motivation. The block model is ideally suited
to ensuring a sense of belonging, learner
sophistication and the other known
predictors of learning gain. (p.7)
Fung (2017a) suggests that the higher
education sector should take a step back and
“ask some fundamental, values-based questions
about what a university is, and about what kinds
of educational developments they want to
prioritise, within and across disciplines, in the
years ahead” (p. 144). Such questions were
considered by VU in unpacking the need for
change in how we engage our students in their
courses of study. Key to this discussion was the
idea that genuine reform could not be limited to
classroom delivery nor academic practice, but
rather had to involve all the institutional
systems that support the student experience.
But how? The mode of delivery was identified as
a central feature that could motivate change
across many aspects of the VU’s educational
policy and practice.
Alternative delivery modes
Contemporary
universities
have
been
increasingly trialling and implementing
alternative delivery modes to the traditional
McCluskey, Weldon & Smallridge
multi-unit semester. Dating back to at least the
1960s, there is a small but informative body of
literature exploring intensive higher education
units. Researchers have noted the expansion of
what are variously termed intensives, summer
or winter schools, time shortened, compressed,
accelerated or block modes in the delivery of
higher education (see Davies 2006 for a review
of earlier literature). The delivery mode has
partly increased to provide greater student
flexibility, allowing students to complete their
course faster by foregoing what would
otherwise be a semester break, and also attend
classes on weekends or nights, outside of
professional commitments.
A recent survey gives some insight into the
prevalence and characteristics of intensive
delivery models in Australian higher education.
Male et al. (2016) surveyed 105 course coordinators across 26 Australian institutions and
found that 52% of intensive units were taught at
both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
The most common reasons for their
introduction were to allow students to
accommodate study with outside activities
(30%), to promote engagement with interactive
learning (25%), to allow students to focus on
one unit at a time (10%), and to mitigate
geographic distance challenges for staff and
students (9%). Although the number or
prevalence of the cases for each model was not
reported, the study reported that intensive
models included:
two full days of classes following online
preparation
one full-time week of classes
two, three or four moderately intensive
weeks of classes
a full day of classes once a week for seven
weeks
five half days over a full semester
Scholarly literature on intensives includes
several comparative studies of particular units
with a focus on using matched samples to test
educational aspects, satisfaction or outcomes of
intensive versus traditional delivery model (see,
for example, Eames & Luttman, 2018; Kucsera &
Zimmano, 2010; Smith et al., 2016). These
studies generally aim to establish the rigor or
efficacy of intensive mode units, in order to
address concerns about possible impacts on
quality (see Daniels, 2000 for a review). There
are also some rarer examples of very large-scale
comparative studies, generally in single
disciplines or institutions (Austin & Gustafson
2006; Lutes & Davies, 2013, 2018). Lutes and
Davies (2013; 2018), in particular, comprise
analyses of very large datasets, described in
more detail below. In addition to comparative
studies, there are also studies exploring
teachers’ perspectives (Kuiper, Solomonides &
Hardy, 2015), students’ perspectives (Scott,
2003), and pedagogical and design elements
(Male et al., 2017; Marques, 2012; Wlodkowski,
2003) including very recently developed bestpractice guides for intensive education in
Australia (Male et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, delivery mode does not, by itself,
appear to be a predictor of improved student
satisfaction or enhanced learning outcomes.
Both traditional and intensive delivery modes
can provide excellent or poor educational
outcomes, depending on other factors such as
instructor characteristics, teaching approach,
classroom environment, and curriculum and
learning design.
Davies (2006) found that across 17 comparative
studies from 1960 onwards, 12 reported no
significant difference between traditional and
intensive mode delivery on student learning
outcomes; one study reported poorer and four
studies reported superior results for the
intensives. However, study design was lacking
in many, with no attempt to control for differing
baseline characteristics of students choosing, or
not choosing, to undertake intensives. Some
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 7
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report
later comparative studies did
baseline student characteristics
intensives to be associated with
higher satisfaction and grades
Zimmaro, 2010).
control for
and found
significantly
(Kucsera &
A very large-scale study of student workload in
intensives, including institutional data from
29,000 students at Brigham Young University
(Lutes & Davies, 2013; 2018) concluded that
out-of-class workload was significantly lower in
intensive courses, and that higher teacher
autonomy in designing assessments had an
effect on both out-of-class work and how much
value students assigned to their work in
intensive
units
(Wlodkowski,
2003).
Importantly, the authors’ coding of the syllabi
across traditional and intensive units showed
very little difference, suggesting similar content
breadth. In the same study, teachers (n=39)
reported advantages of memory recall in
intensives, but that deep learning suffered and
that effectiveness varied across disciplines, with
longer content disciplines generally not being as
well suited to intensives.
These findings highlight that delivery mode is
only one factor, and it is necessary to consider
other features of the curriculum. To highlight
this point, Smith et al (2016), provide reasons
why intensive learning may be superior in
engineering, including incorporating service
learning, visiting speakers and site visits; while
other studies describe them as enabling more
‘real-world’ learning (Kucsera & Zimmaro,
2010). Some features are clearly enabled by
intensive delivery mode, such as flexible class
scheduling, which potentially increases staffstudent interactions, peer-to-peer interaction,
and time spent undertaking interactive
learning.
Research investigating teacher and student
perceptions, as well as pedagogical and design
principles, highlight features that are important
in an intensive-mode curriculum. A small
sample of Australian teachers with a successful
8 | Student Success, 10(1) March 2019
track record of delivering intensives reported
the units worked best when they were flexibly
structured to meet student needs, fitted with
the students life context, encouraged
commitment and engagement early, made
expectations clear, scaffolded and sequenced
assessment, were blended and made use of
interactive online tools, and where teachers
were available to students almost all of the time
(Kuiper, Solomonides & Hardy, 2015).
In the Male et al. (2016) study which produced
a good practice guide, the benefits of the
intensive model included a strong learning
community,
increased
immersion
and
interaction, continuity of learning, ‘real-world’
learning, and increased teacher-student
communication. Students reported they
enjoyed the bonding and learning with peers,
the focus on a single unit, interactivity,
continuity between learning, application and
practice, and authenticity and hands-on
activities. Risks were identified as exhaustion,
failure of students to adequately prepare, and
lack of timely feedback.
In describing the dynamics of intensive
learning, Marques (2012) stresses the paradigm
shift that is necessary by teachers and
administrators of intensive courses. This
requires an intentional preparation and
consideration in the design of intensives,
including supporting high levels of pre-class
preparation by students, encouraging and
supporting student self-regulation, and timely
feedback cycles and monitoring to help those
students in need to extra assistance.
The Block Model
While intensive units (subjects) are generally
only available at certain points of a course, or to
certain sub-cohorts, usually postgraduate, a
more radical course delivery model is ‘the
block’. The block does away with units being
taught in parallel, and instead delivers courses
in sequential units. During VU’s extensive and
McCluskey, Weldon & Smallridge
heuristic exploration into contemporary
university reform, we were continually drawn
to a TedX Vancouver talk by Professor David
Helfand (2013) on Designing a University for the
New Millennium. Helfand spoke to the heart of
what we were seeking to achieve. Helfand
suggested that the traditional approach to
higher education was ineffective and that a
radical, student focused, whole of institution
reform, in this case in the shape of the Block
Model, was necessary to rectify this situation.
We tested the idea with a number of current VU
students and the response was overwhelmingly
positive.
This prompted us to explore the Block Model
further. A study trip was organised to Colorado
College in the United States and Quest
University in Canada, as both institutions offer
the Block Model. The study group was
impressed by the positive way students at both
institutions reflected on their learning
experience in the Block Model. What was also
striking was the way many academic and
professional staff understood that radical shifts
and changes to the traditional idea of university
operations had to be made and embraced in
order to make such a student-focused approach
work. The study group returned to Melbourne
knowing that if VU were to adopt the Block
Model then a similar, institution wide, change in
mindset would be required.
We wrangled with the decision on whether to
undertake it as a small pilot program or roll it
out to all of the first year cohort. The latter,
whilst risky, was simpler and meant that we
could maintain just two systems (first year and
others) rather than three systems (first year
block, first year traditional, and all others). VU
made a strategic decision to invest in the twosystem approach. Fung (2017a) argues that we
can only ascertain what good education looks
like by analysing all elements of the educational
ecosystem.
Figure 2. Traditional 12-week versus block mode in assessment and feedback
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 9
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report
We enlisted the support of operational leaders
from all university systems to do this and so the
journey began.
Design assessment to be completed within
the unit schedule and all feedback returned
before commencement of next block
The VU Block Model
The VU Block Model, compared with the
traditional semester-based predecessor, are
graphically presented in Figure 2 on the
previous page. These figures demonstrate the
changed temporal patterns in learning
progression and assessment.
Although a block model is new to mainstream
Australian higher education, similar models of
teaching and learning exist elsewhere, and have
proven to be successful, producing increased
levels of student satisfaction in educational
institutes in Canada, the United States and
Scandinavia. President and Vice Chancellor of
Quest University in Canada Dr George Iwama, a
pioneer of the block teaching format who
recently helped launch this innovative model at
VU, claims that, “The Block Model opens student
minds and honours learning passion … students
learn to construct knowledge rather than have
it transferred to them” (Victoria University,
2017b, para. 5).
The principles underpinning the VU Block
Model are described below.
Design principles
a.
Include clear assessment rubrics
b.
Provide opportunities
student success
for
early
Focus on knowledge exploration and
application
rather
than
content
transmission
Include opportunities for peer feedback
and collaboration
Use explicit and differentiated learning
opportunities (more than one way to
achieve the same learning outcome)
Optimise opportunities to learn in new
ways within the parameters of four-week
block
Delivery principles
The design and development principles will be
realised in delivery as each unit will:
1
Be student-centered, active and engaging
(you are the university, 'be fabulous’)
Outline the relevance of unit to course
and career
Provide early and ongoing feedback
Evaluate students’ interests
individual needs/expectations
and
Every block unit will be designed for a blended
learning environment. In addition to exceeding
VU’s minimum online standards every block
will:
Include
opportunities
for
selfassessment that leads to personalised
and adaptive learning
1 Have clear beginning and
(immersive & self-contained)
Incorporate the use of digital technology
Integrate active and authentic learning
practices in all units
endings
Ensure learning outcomes are achievable
in the four-week timeframe
Employ a variety of assessment tasks to
demonstrate learning outcomes
10 | Student Success, 10(1) March 2019
McCluskey, Weldon & Smallridge
Applicability to VU model
In designing the principles and design processes
that underpin the development and rollout of
the VU Block Model, the institution took an
evidence-based approach, drawing on the
research findings that had potential relevance.
However, caution was exercised in generalising
most to the VU Block Model. Strictly speaking,
there were very few examples of models like
VU’s in the literature.
Organisational change needed to
introduce the new model
VU embraced the institutional systemic
challenges necessary to implement the Block
Model. Two 12-week semesters plus a fourweek exam period have now transformed into
eight four-week semesters. To-date this has
required significant changes to established
procedures and systems. A change of this scale
and complexity, delivered in such a short
timeframe, is unprecedented in Australian
higher education. The next section details some
of the change that was necessary, and how it
was achieved.
Organisational change project
An internal project steering group was formed
and each system/service head including
enrolments, student support, marketing, quality
and planning, people and culture, IT and
connected learning was represented on the
group. The project adopted an agile project
management methodology which focussed on
collaborative, iterative design and development
with rigorous communication protocols. This
group met twice weekly to report, seek support,
celebrate successes and highlight challenges.
Each system/service operational area also
implemented a similar program of work to
ensure project recommendations were tested
and implemented in a timely way. A connected
externally-focused project group worked on
issues relating to professional accreditation,
industry engagement, and regulatory issues.
The organisational change framework at VU
broadly acknowledges that education is the
product of a complex interplay of systems,
similar to the complexity in ecological
definitions of the university (Barnett & Peters,
2018).
The traditional institutional processes of
sending out offers, enrolment periods,
timetabling, reporting etc. have had to be recast.
To facilitate this, staff across the university have
had to collaborate, share intelligence and
synchronise their activity and planning. All
project activity has been tracked, curated and
reported using a SharePoint platform with strict
deliverables
and
risk
framework
considerations. Figure 3 graphically presents
the
complex
interplay
of
university
departments and functions that were central to
the change required in introducing the Block
Model.
Staffing and structure
The vision could not be achieved within the
confines of the existing college and
organisational structures so a new entity called
the First Year College (FYC) was established
with a brief to recruit ‘teaching-passionate’
academic staff, interested in supporting the
development and implementation of a new First
Year Student Experience at VU. This was
anticipated to be a daunting challenge, however,
the response was phenomenal and extremely
competitive. The FYC was intentionally
designed to promote connection, collaboration
and creativity across disciplinary boundaries.
Staff were co-located on one floor and office
space was randomly allocated with no
disciplinary groupings. This has enabled
positive interdisciplinary interactions and
sharing of ideas.
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 11
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report
Figure 3. An ecological approach to organisational change at VU
Curriculum design teams
Design process
Between the decision to proceed and the
formation of the FYC, VU’s Teaching and
Learning Connected Learning team was pivotal
in coordinating an innovative curriculum design
framework and cross-institutional teams
worked on unit design and development that
enshrined the student experience firmly and
positively as its central focus. An organisational
construct of six cross-organisational and crossdisciplinary clusters was formed with each
cluster consisting of staff from the Library,
Educational Development, Academic Skills
Development, Technology Enhanced Learning
Design and a range of academic content experts.
Academic staff signed up to cluster groups to
develop subjects where they had discipline
expertise and teaching experience.
The
expertise of their non-academic, cluster
colleagues became part of the fabric of the unit
as it was developed. A rigorous peer review of
the unit was completed prior to formal
completion of the redesign activities.
Redesigning traditional 12-week semesters into
four-week
blocks
required
VU
to
reconceptualise how curriculum was created.
Design teams employed a ‘Design Inquiry
Learning’ (DIL) approach which “combines an
inquiry-based learning approach with a designbased scientific paradigm” (Mor & Mogilevsky,
2013. p.2). This approach resulted in rich
integration of techno-pedagogical approaches
to optimise student learning opportunities. A
blended learning infrastructure incorporating
adaptive and interactive resources supported a
flipped and action-based learning paradigm.
Space was made available to accommodate
these activities but generally most teams met at
‘The HIVE’, VU’s learning and teaching centre,
which is an intentionally designed space to
promote connection and collaboration. The
details of this process will be described in
another publication.
12 | Student Success, 10(1) March 2019
The classroom has also been recast. Studying
one unit at a time means that there are no
competing timetable requirements. There is no
McCluskey, Weldon & Smallridge
need to be bound to classroom or the timetable
of other units. Teachers are able to base their
classes where they see fit: in an art gallery, a
court room, in a workplace, or in the bush.
Desired outcomes
The desired outcomes of the Block Model at VU
are systemic and involve different stakeholders.
These include students, academic and
professional staff, as well as VU as an
organisation, and the wider community.
Consistent with the VU White Paper (2017a),
the Block Model aims to increase first year
student satisfaction, engagement, retention and
success. In terms of the institution’s teaching
and learning staff, the Block Model aims to
introduce a different and student-focussed
teaching approach, increased staff engagement,
and to harness more effective learning design.
Specifically, a sense of belonging from both staff
and students was critical, and would be
evidenced, in part, by increased participation in
professional development and collegial events.
Organisationally, the capability for dynamic
change, that is, the ability to plan, undertake and
successfully execute rapid change, was a key
outcome.
The ultimate result of the Block Model was to
increase student learning, especially for those
students at-risk of attrition. Preliminary
evidence of the success of the project is
promising and includes increases in pass rates
and average grades (see Figure 4), which has
also been detailed in news media (Dawkins &
Solomonides, 2018). Further evidence about
the efficacy of the Block Model is still emerging
and is not the focus of this paper. Future
publications will explore the evidence of
success of the block in more depth.
Figure 4. Average grade distribution in the block showing an increase in proportion of students
achieving higher assessment results.
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 13
Rebuilding the first year experience, one block at a time. A Practice Report
Conclusion
The VU First Year Model appears to have had a
positive impact on student engagement,
learning and outcomes as evidenced by the
2018 semester one results and student progress
into the second semester. The Block Model
recognises, respects and accommodates the
complexity of student lives and facilitates a
predictable, manageable and connected first
year experience. We hope the VU Block Model
will achieve Fung’s (2017b) expectation of
engaging students “not as passive recipients but
as agents; not as predominantly inward-looking
participants but as outward-looking critical
investigators” (para. 9). By skilfully scaffolding
Transition Pedagogy into the first year of
university study, the VU Block Model is
designed to provide students with the
connections, cultural capital, capabilities and
knowledge they require to become confident
and independent learners and to work with,
rather than ignore, the complexity of their lives.
It is also hoped that the establishment of a more
positive, connected and collaborative FYC staff
culture and environment will enhance the
appetite for sustainable techno-pedagogical
innovation that will ultimately enhance student
success. Perhaps Davies (2006) prediction that
“intensive modes of teaching seem to be an idea
whose time has come” will eventuate, albeit 12
years later (para. 6).
References
Austin, A.M., & Gustafson, L. (2006). Impact of course length
on student learning. Journal of Economics and Finance
Education 5(1).
26-37. Retrieved from
https://www.economics-finance.org/jefe/jefe.html
Baik, C., Naylor, R., & Arkoudis, S. (2015). The First Year
Experience in Australian universities: Findings from
two decades 1994-2014.
Retrieved from
https://melbournecshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1
513123/FYE-2014-FULL-report-FINAL-web.pdf.
Barnett, R., & Peters, M. A. (2018). The idea of the university.
Contemporary perspectives. New York: Peter Lang Inc.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008).
Review of Australian higher education: final report
14 | Student Success, 10(1) March 2019
DEEWR, Canberra. Retrieved from APO website
https://apo.org.au/node/15776
Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. (2013) Raising the stakes:
Gambling with the future of universities. St Lucia,
Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Daniel, E. L. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses
across disciplines. College Student Journal, 34(2), 298308.
Davies, W.M. (2006). Intensive teaching formats: A review.
Issues in Educational Research, 16(1), 1-20. Retrieved
from http://iier.org.au/iier.html
Dawkins, P., & Solomonides, I. (2018, May 30) Victoria Uni’s
big reform bet pays off. The Australian.
Department of Education and Training (2018). uCube –
Higher Education Data Cube. Retrieved from
Department of Education and Training website
https://www.education.gov.au/ucube-highereducation-data-cube
Department of Education and Training (2016). 2016
Appendix 2 - Equity Groups. Retrieved from
Department of Education and Training website
https://docs.education.gov.au/node/45206
Department of Education and Training (2017). 2016
Appendix 4 – Attrition, success and retention.
Retrieved from Department of Education and
Training
website
https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/2016appendix-4-attrition-success-and-retention
Department of Education and Training. Higher Education
Standards Panel (2018). Final report: Improving
retention, completion and success in higher education.
Retrieved from Department of Education and
Training
website
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/oth
er/final_report_for_publishing.pdf
Eames, M., S. Luttman & S. Parker. 92018). Accelerated vs.
traditional accounting education and CPA exam
performance. Journal of Accounting Education 44(C).
1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2018.04.004
Fung, D. (2017a). A connected curriculum for higher
education. London: UCL Press London
Fung, D. (2017b). Teaching excellence? Let’s hear it for good
education.
[Blog
post].
Retrieved
from
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/blog-entry/teachingexcellence-lets-hear-it-good-education
Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st
century skills: Methods and approach. Springer.
Helfand, D. (2013, June). Designing a university for the new
millennium: David Helfand at TEDxWestVancouverED
[Video
file].
Retrieved
from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQe73IXZtU
Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold
and to enhance the first year student learning
McCluskey, Weldon & Smallridge
experience in Australian higher education: Final report
for ALTC senior fellowship program: Australian
Learning and Teaching Council Sydney, Australia.
Retrieved from http://transitionpedagogy.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/Kift-Sally-ALTC-SeniorFellowship-Report-Sep-09.pdf
Krause, K-L. (2005 November). New perspectives on
engaging first year students in learning. Keynote
presentation at the Victoria University Annual
Learning Matters Symposium. Victoria University
Kucsera, J. V., & Zimmaro, D. M. (2010). Comparing the
effectiveness
of
intensive
and
traditional
courses. College Teaching, 58(2), 62-68.
Kuiper, A., Solomonides, I., & Hardy, L. (2015). Time on task
in intensive modes of delivery. Distance Education,
36(2).
231-245.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1055058
Lutes, L., & Davies, R. (2013) Comparing the rigor of
compressed format courses to their regular semester
counterparts. Innovative Higher Education 38(1), 19–
29.
Retrieved
from
https://link.springer.com/journal/10755
Lutes, L., & Davies, R. (2018). Comparison of workload for
university core courses taught in regular semester
and time-compressed term formats.
Education
Sciences
8(1),
34.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010034
Male, S., Baillie, C., Hancock, P., Leggoe, J., MacNish, C., &
Crispin, S., Alam, F. (2016). Intensive mode teaching
guide. Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved
from
http://www.ecm.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file
/0005/2886008/Intensive-Mode-Teaching-GuideDec_21_2016.pdf
Marginson, S. (2016). Higher education and the common
good. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University
Publishing.
Marques, J. (2012). The dynamics of accelerated learning.
Business Education & Accreditation, 4(1), 101-112
Mor, Y., & Mogilevsky, O. (2013) The learning design studio:
Collaborative design inquiry as teachers' professional
development, Research in Learning Technology, 21.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.22054
Naylor, R., Baik, C., & Arkoudis, S. (2018). Identifying
attrition risk based on the first year experience.
Higher Education Research and Development 37(2).
328-342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1370438.
Nelson, K., Creagh, T., Kift, S., & Clarke, J. (2014). Transition
Pedagogy handbook: A good practice guide for policy
and practice in the first year experience at QUT (2nd
ed.). Retrieved from http://fyhe.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/Transition-PedagogyHandbook-2014.pdf
Quality Indicators of Teaching and Learning [QILT] (2017).
2017 Student Experience Survey National Report.
Retrieved
from
the
QILT
website
https://www.qilt.edu.au/about-this-site/studentexperience.
Scott, P. (2003). Attributes of high-quality accelerated
courses. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education,
97,
29–38.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.86
Smith, J., Compston, P., Male, S, Baillie, C., & Turner, J. (2016).
Intensive mode teaching of a humanitarian
engineering course to enhance service-learning.
International Journal for Service Learning in
Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social
Entrepreneurship. 11(2), 38-54.
Tapscott, D. (2016, May 10). Universities must enter the
digital age or risk facing irrelevance. The Star
Retrieved
from
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/1
0/universities-must-enter-the-digital-age-or-riskfacing-irrelevance.html
Tatum, B. C. (2010). Accelerated education: Learning on the
fast track. Journal of Research in Innovative
Teaching, 3(1), 35-51.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review.
The Higher Education Academy Retrieved from
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/studen
tengagementliteraturereview_1.pdf
Victoria University (2016). Victoria University: The
University of Opportunity and Success. Strategic Plan
2016-2020.
Retrieved
from:
https://www.vu.edu.au/sites/default/files/aboutus/pdfs/vu-strategic-plan-2016-2020.pdf
Victoria University (2017a). Victoria University’s
Transformational Agenda: A White Paper on the
Future of Victoria University.
Retrieved from
https://www.vu.edu.au/sites/default/files/whitepaper-vu.pdf
Victoria University (2017b). News. VU leaders & education
experts launch the First Year Model. Retrieved from
https://www.vu.edu.au/about-vu/newsevents/news/vu-leaders-education-experts-launchthe-first-year-model
Victoria University (2018). 2017 Annual Report. Retrieved
from https://www.vu.edu.au/sites/default/files/vu2017-annual-report.pdf
Victoria Auditor-General’s Office (2018). Results of 2017
Audits:
Universities.
Retrieved
from
https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20
18-05/20180523-Universities-Audits.pdf
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2003). Accelerated learning in colleges
and universities. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing
Education,
97.
5-15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.84
Student Success, 10(1) March 2019 | 15