HE in FE in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand and the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers higher education programs that are offered by institutions that have historically and still predominantly offer vocational education programs. These arrangements are called higher education (HE) in further education (FE) in England. The paper compares HE in FE in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand and the US. The paper notes that what is considered 'further' and 'higher' education differs in each jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it is possible to compare bachelor degrees offered by Australia's vocational education and training institutions, Canada's community colleges, England's further education colleges, New Zealand's institutes of technology and polytechnics and the US' 2-year colleges. This paper reports progress with a project funded by the Australian National Centre for Vocational Education Research to examine higher education programs offered by public further education colleges, which in Australia are called Technical and Further Education (Tafe) institutes. This report concentrates on just 1 of the several issues that arose in the study: interviewees' accounts of the implications of higher education in further education for the identity of institutions, teachers and students. In the third part of the paper we invite reflection on 3 questions: why is higher education in further education expanding, how is higher education in further education being structured by the broader relations between the sectors, and what may be the future of higher education in further education?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".