Abstract:

Education is at the heart of global development goals, catalysing advancement towards decreased poverty and inequality. This objective draws on the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights which calls for accessible higher education (HE), stating that it is necessary for the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity (United Nations (UN), 1976). Within the resulting heightened demand for HE, universities are expected to contribute to these goals through the development of human capital (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (OECD), 2018).

These outcomes must be achieved within a context of declining HE government funding with, for example, Australia’s public investment in tertiary institutions as a share of GDP amongst the lowest in the OECD (Universities Australia, 2020). Australian universities also reduced their staff levels by more than 17,000 positions in 2020 (Universities Australia, 2021). These policy decisions have created significant, resourcing/staffing tensions for academics who must prepare students for real-world employment including working in cross-cultural teams.

In addition to this HE expectation, ‘financing’ gap, the pressure on HE academics to prepare students for real world employment ignores the reality that global research trends indicate an indifference to diversity. This indifference has intensified to hostility for credentialed-focused graduating, domestic students (Taylor et. al., 2021) given the impact of economic crisis on HE. For example, Global Financial Crisis (1987) impacts, resulted in the Australian full-time under-graduate (UG) employment rate falling from 85.2 per cent in 2008 to 68.1 per cent in 2014 (Australian Government, 2018). For post Coronavirus Disease (2019) graduating students in Australia, UG, full-time employment fell in line with the overall decline in the labour market in Australia in 2020 (Australian Government, 2020). Graduating, UG, domestic students have therefore refused to form teams with cross-cultural students through a fear of lower, team-based, assessment results and lower, then, Grade Point Averages used by employers. Thus, while student diversity exists, genuine inclusion does not.

Adopting a methodology based on innovative curriculum designs and assessment practices including enhanced technology, a three-stage targeted intervention was prepared and actioned (2008–2020). With research suggesting that high level and complex learning is best developed when assessment involves students as partners, the intervention included an iterative process of peer review.

Utilising anonymous and voluntary survey responses and formal, university reported grading statistics, the intervention outcomes included: a significant reduction in hostility levels between diverse group members; student satisfaction ratings averaging 87% to 100% across the 13 years of the intervention process; a minimum cohort average one-grade increase in pre versus post peer review process assessment outcomes; and consistently low, unit-based, failure rates (PG: 2-3%; UG: 4-8%).

With 6000 participating Business students, the intervention, which is transferrable across disciplines/Faculties/universities, provided outcomes which indicate that scaffolded reflective processes, within a face-to-face and online context, have a powerful effect on students’ understanding of assessment tasks and their willingness to work in diverse teams.

Keywords:

Accessible assessment, internationalisation, community of practice, peer review, reflection in higher education, transformative learning.