Establishing a College of Peers process to support the comparability of standards. Dr Sara Booth

Transcription

1 Establishing a College of Peers process to support the comparability of standards Dr Sara Booth

2 01 College of Peers: A broad framework of support SESSION AIMS 1. Provide overview of Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) 2. Discuss findings from Peer Review of Assessment Project 3. Purpose of a College of Peers process 4. Trial a College of Peers process 2

3 See Higher Education Standards Framework Standards 1.5.1; 5.3.2; 5.3.3; and Other measures of learning outcomes Student Progression/ Retention Data Peer Review of Assessment Course design & approval Selected Units Admission/ pathways Course Delivery Assessment Student Grades Assessment Design Learning outcomes Assessment is the main measure of learning outcomes Adapted from Michael Wells, former TEQSA Commissioner, Universities Australia Satellite Event, Feb, 2014

4 Higher Education Standards Framework The expected learning outcomes for each course of study are specified, consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded and informed by national and/or international comparators The specified learning outcomes for each course of study encompass discipline-related and generic outcomes, including : Reference points AQF (2 nd ed) Discipline learning outcomes statements Professional requirements 4

5 Higher Education Standards Framework Review and improvement activities include regular external referencing against comparable courses of study, including by referencing: a) the progress of student cohorts through courses of study, attrition rates and completion times and rates, and b) the grading of students achievement of learning outcomes for selected units of study within courses of study 5

6 National Peer Review of Assessment Network The aims of this national Peer Review Network (PRN) are to: Provide a forum for sharing and disseminating good practice in external peer review of assessment across different Identify key academics experienced in external peer review of assessment Provide professional learning opportunities for academics and benchmarking partners External Reference Group Professor Richard James, Melbourne University Professor Kerri-Lee Krause, UWS Professor Emeritus Royce Sadler, UQ Professor Chris Rust Di Weddell, OLT Dr Michael Evans, Kaplan Core Peer Review Network Team Dr Sara Booth, Project Leader, University of Tasmania Assoc Prof Mark Freeman, The University of Sydney Assoc Prof Heather Alexander, Griffith University Prof Ron Oliver, Edith Cowan University Mr Mark Thompson, Edith Cowan University Prof Jane Fernandez, Avondale College Project Officer Dr Jeff Beckett, University of Tasmania

7 HE Institution Dimension Findings Sector Dimension An overall framework for effective use of peer review of assessment Discipline Dimension The proposed objectives of the Framework are: 1) enhancement of the quality of assessment of student achievement through a shared national objective to improve assessment of achievement standards and; 2) assist HE institutions, particularly those not aligned to university networks to identify the key checkpoints to ensure the quality and relevance of assessment. Individual Dimension

8 Findings Dimensions Sector Points of Tension Collaboration vs competition Compliance vs quality enhancement/best practice HE Institution Light touch, consistent process vs workload and scalability Discipline Individual Resourcing vs significant budget cuts Enhancement and value of disciplinary communities vs aligning discipline to institutional priorities Professional development vs cost implications Recognition and support for course/program and/or discipline coordinator vs workload and performance management

9 Findings Sector Dimension Support Networks University Networks e.g. Go8, IRU, RUN, ATN Peer Review of Assessment Network e.g. Option for non-aligned HE institutions and Deans Councils for professional learning and networking Leadership Support Strong, deft leadership and coordination and of the network Clear complementary roles for different players, e.g. Institutional coordinators Policy Support Good Practice Principles in the Peer Review of Assessment Framework for Effective Use of Peer Review of Assessment Peer Review of Assessment Steering Group Effective Support Resources National, searchable clearinghouse of good practice in assessment National, online benchmarking tool

10 HE Institution Dimension Support Networks University networks and/or other support networks, e.g. QUT s Higher Education Research Network (HERN) Leadership Support Strong, deft leadership and coordination of the network Senior Executive leadership of academic governance processes in external peer review of assessment Clear complementary roles for different players, e.g. institutional and/or disciplinary coordinators Policy Support Good Practice Principles in the Peer Review of Assessment Alignment to academic governance processes and committees Alignment to assessment, course review and accreditation policies and processes Alignment to workload, probation, performance management and reward and recognition policies and processes Effective Support Resources Professional learning opportunities, e.g. workshops for sessional staff Institutional register of trained assessment support peers and reviewers Online benchmarking tool Integrate with other forms of peer review Internal grant process Consideration of paying an honorarium

11 Discipline Dimension Support Networks Colleges of Peers, e.g. Associate Deans L&T Network Direct links with University and institutional networks Leadership Support Strong, deft leadership and coordination of the network Clear complementary roles for different players, e.g. Discipline coordinators/ Associate Deans (L&T), Chairs and Executives of Australian Deans Councils and other Academic Committees and societies Policy Support Good Practice Principles in the Peer Review of Assessment Alignment to accreditation and industry requirements Effective Support Resources Key role in building capability for peer reviewers, such as professional learning opportunities, e.g. Annual Forum on calibration Alignment to Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLO) projects

12 Individual Dimension Support Networks University networks and/or other support networks Leadership Support Clear complementary roles for different players, e.g. course/program and/or discipline coordinators Policy Support Good Practice Principles in the Peer Review of Assessment Alignment to course outcomes, mapping, assessment, grading, calibration and learning designs Recognition in workload, probation, performance management and reward and recognition processes Effective Support Resources Feedback from other disciplinary or cross-disciplinary peers Feedback from and to students on changes made to the unit as part of the peer review process

13 Recommendations 1. Establish a national support network in peer review : a. Provide a forum for sharing and disseminating good practice in external peer review of assessment and associated resources across different HE contexts. b. Identify key academics experienced in external peer review of assessment. c. Provide professional learning opportunities for academics and benchmarking partners. d. For the network to be sustainable, it is proposed that annual subscriptions be put in place (for e.g. the UK Economics Network) to fund professional learning opportunities for members of the network. 2. Establish a College of Peers process, in association with the Australian Council of Deans and other HE disciplinary networks, to play a key role in identifying processes and resources to support the peer review of assessment.

14 Trial a College of Peers Process The College of Peers process is about supporting different disciplines and HE academic networks to establish peer review processes but also support them in a coordinated approach through professional development opportunities in peer review [assessment and teaching] to come to a common understanding of learning and teaching standards at various levels and for different purposes such as validation, accreditation, calibration and promotion (Higher Education Quality Council, 1997; Ramsden, 2009).

15 The purpose of setting up a College of Peers is to provide: National and international support network and website in peer review; Face-to-face workshops and forums on different models of peer review; Access to online benchmarking tool, including clearinghouse of good practice and peer review register; and Training package for peer review; international journal of peer review and other online resources.

16 OLT Extension Grant 26 Letters of Support HE organisations: Ako Aotearoa, Academic Quality Agency, TEQSA, ESA 14 Universities: CQU, ECU, FU, Griffith, JCU, Macquarie, QUT, RMIT, SCU, Swinburne, UniSA, UNE, UWS, VU Private Providers: ACPET, Avondale, COPHE 7 Deans Council: ACDE, ACDICT, CALD, CDNM, CADAD, AASA, ACUADS References: [

17 For the College of Peers to be sustainable, it must deftly led; include just-in-time and just-for-me constructive feedback and resources; and have access to guides written by successful travellers (Scott, 2014

18 Next Steps: Activity 1 Stakeholder Groups involved in testing Group 1: RMIT University, Queensland University of Technology, Curtin University, University of Wollongong Group 2: Edith Cowan University,University of New England, Central Queensland University, Western Sydney University, Swinburne University of Technology Group 3: Council of Deans in Nursing and Midwifery (CDNM): Southern Cross University, The University of Newcastle, Edith Cowan University, Griffith University, RMIT University, University of Tasmania, Federation University Australia, University of South Australia, The University of Notre Dame Australia and Monash University Group 4: Australasian Council of Deans of Information and Computing Technology (ADICT): under discussion Group 5: Council of Deans of Engineering: under discussion Group 6:AIPE and Top Education: under discussion Group 7: Eastern College of Australia, Tabor Adelaide, Harvest Bible College, Avondale College Group 8: Avondale College and Charles Sturt University Disciplines Fashion Design Engineering Range of disciplines Research unit in nursing Groups of subdisciplines in ICT To be confirmed To be confirmed Theology, education Education

19 Activity 2: (2016) UTAS lead the coordination of support for the College of Peers process [Bristol University leads the Economics Network] by providing updates and expansion of PRAN website, s and communications, web resources, and forums. Activity 3: (2016) To ensure sustainability of the College of Peers, UTAS and ESA set up an organisational support structure, business plan and registration process for future subscribing HE institutions and Deans Councils to use benchmarking tool and resources including benefits and services in peer review [for e.g. ].

20 Activity 4: (Sep-Nov, 2015) Test a sector wide online benchmarking tool in peer review with 8 stakeholder groups outlined in Activity 1[ESA will do this]. Activity 5: (2016) Develop online support resources in peer review [assessment and teaching], including international journal in peer review and training package on how to give peer review [work with HERDSA, OLT Fellows, CADAD/ACODE]

21 Activity 6: ( ) Set up forums and workshops for professional development in peer review. Liaise with national and international HE organisations such as QAA, AQA, Ako Aotearoa, HEA, Higher Education Services, Universities Australia and TEQSA to set up national and international linkages in peer review.