Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project Proposal ...

of 37

Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project Proposal

Teaching Standards Framework

Standards: the criteria by which we measure the quality of learning and teaching performance and outcomes.

Overview

Effective learning and teaching depend on institutions adopting clearly articulated standards that enable best practice. Performance data supplied by course evaluation questionnaires, graduate destination studies, student experience surveys and employer feedback provide information about university performance. The role of a standards framework is to provide criteria that can be used to assess this information in a way that contributes to the continual improvement of learning and teaching. Standards must help evaluate university structures and practices in the light of student performance. The key aim of a standards framework is to identify the relationship between institutional structures and practices and improving learning outcomes.

Macquarie University has designed a teaching standards framework (see Appendix–Teaching Standards Framework). The framework provides a foundation for decision-making and can be used in policy development, appointments and promotions, and quality assessment at the institutional level, as well as personal and professional development, curriculum design and teaching planning at the level of the individual academic.

The aim of this project is to test whether the framework can be adopted across the university sector. A group of universities will be invited to test whether the framework can be used to evaluate their institutional policies and procedures, in relation to learning outcomes and student performance. The framework would then be validated as a tool which could be used by

of 37

government agencies such as TEQSA and for inter-institutional bench-marking.

Background

There is an increasing focus on academic standards from the government and the public and from within the higher education sector. At the school level, the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs is currently developing National Professional Standards for Teachers. At a tertiary level, Academic Standards, Assessment Practices and Reporting are Priority One for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). The development of teaching standards will complement the ALTC project bringing discipline communities together to define academic standards in line with the Australian Government’s new standards-based quality assurance framework. It will also provide higher education institutions with a structure and framework to measure the quality of their learning and teaching.

The focus has usually been on output measures. Research on current literature (Scott, 2008) and on student feedback (see DEEWR/DEST, 2006) helps to identify the relationship between quality educational outcomes and the policies and practices adopted by universities. Student and employer feedback, benchmarking of assessment strategies and criteria and data on quality of graduate performance can all be used to assess whether universities are meeting their aims. Different quantitative measures focus on specific things—student experience and satisfaction; assessment and exit performance and the skills of graduates as they enter the workplace. Each of these quantitative measures has pitfalls. Student experience and satisfaction is usually measured soon after graduation, before a long-term vocational trajectory is clear; employer surveys focus on specific types of graduate capabilities but overlook the “total experience” valued by students, and performance in assessment tasks, or graduate tests often overlook specific national or institutional contexts.

What also gets omitted from such data are the key principles of educational value (for example, life-long learning and social inclusion) recognised by government, academics and students alike as among the core missions of tertiary education. Such data is also less help in relation to liberal and creative education which is not focussed on narrowly defined vocational

of 37

paths or specific graduate capabilities. This is recognised to be of increasing importance. A 2008 Carnegie Foundation project on the future agenda of higher education (Sullivan and Rosin) identifies that professional, content-based or generic skills are being overtaken by an emphasis on the ability of graduates to negotiate complex work environments with their ever-changing technical, social, ethical and intellectual challenges.

Quantitative data is thus only one source of information about the value of strategies and policies adopted by universities. A system of standards also requires an acquaintance with innovative thinking in educational planning; a sensitivity to the changing contexts in which institutions operate, their different stages of development and different priorities and the developing environments in which graduates build their futures; and a commitment to clear and broad educational principles. In sum, standards must link educational principles (which value social inclusion, creativity and students’ relationship with learning), a commitment to the quality of the learning environments of students as part of a total and engaging experience (in terms of accessibility, flexibility, resources, student engagement and happiness) to quantitative and qualitative data about specific, often discipline-based learning outcomes. The primary function of a standards framework is to commit to change and improvement based on the evolving relationship between principle-based and evidence-based approaches to learning and teaching, and to provide the framework in which that change and improvement can continue to take place.

The aim of the standards framework is to provide a way in which the relationship between institutional teaching inputs and student learning outcomes can be made visible, and to make what is implicit in the evaluation of learning and teaching to be made explicit. The framework must link

• the goals universities set out to achieve as educational institutions, in creating a positive living and learning environment for students and in student learning outcomes;

• where and how universities set out to achieve these goals;

• and where and how their efforts can be measured.

A standards framework must thus be both input and outcome focussed, linking the principles and policies by which universities operate, the teaching

of 37

practices and facilities put in place and the outcomes in student education that result.

In broad terms, the framework drawn up at Macquarie University proposes that effective learning requires teaching built on:

• A university culture that is focussed on enhancing the quality of student learning in professional, intellectual, social and ethical terms;

• Universities that are socially dynamic and student-centred (in both administration and teaching), with policies and practices that enhance their social inclusiveness and enrich university study as a total human experience;

• Governance that is transparent, accountable and responsive to student, community and government priorities;

• Policies and practices which facilitate excellence in learning and teaching outcomes through clear academic planning, explicit appointment criteria and career development practices;

• Appropriate resourcing;

• Teachers who are familiar with the latest developments in their disciplines; establish clear learning and teaching strategies and outcomes; are familiar with innovative thinking on learning and teaching and are accessible and responsive to students, colleagues and the community.

• Clear evidence of learning outcomes

The Macquarie University Standards Framework attempts to embody these principles.

The Standards Framework

The standards framework defines a list of criteria which can be used to assess practice at an institutional level. Criteria are grouped under the following headings: Culture, Governance, Policies and Practices, and Resources. Each criterion is matched to sample Performance Indicators, and a

of 37

list of suggested Sources of Evidence is provided. Although separated under these headings for clarity, different factors should be seen to work together.

For each criterion, five different levels are defined in order to represent differing levels of achievement. In general terms, Level 1 indicates a failure to address the criterion; at Level 2, there is some manifest acknowledgment of the criterion and some intention of meeting it, but so far there has been no substantial progress towards that goal; at Level 3, there has been an active attempt to meet the criterion, but without significant innovation or initiative; at Level 4, institutions will be actively re-thinking what they do in the light of the criterion, and innovating accordingly. There is provision to exceed Level 4, where an institution will be pioneering new methods of learning and teaching that will contribute to a re-definition of the criterion. For this reason, performance at this level is not defined.

The standards aim to be comprehensive and to cover all aspects of university teaching. The different sections of the standards document aim to complement one another.

The standards document is based on three main concepts understood to be important in any quality assurance model that seeks to drive enhancement and improvement:

1. Qualitative process based indicators: the introductory statements are deliberately qualitative in nature. The research indicates that such qualitative process indicators are most powerful when used as a developmental tool (Chalmers, 2007) as part of a process of review.

2. Developmental: the institutional-level statements are designed to allow an institution to undertake a process of self-assessment, priority setting and review in order to better understand its processes and policies against a scaffold of best practice and then respond. This process of review is crucial for determining priorities for change (Weeks, 2000; Garlick & Pryor, 2004).

3. Evidence based: the methodology of the framework involves the collection of evidence against each criterion. This process of gathering quantifiable evidence alongside policy and process review ensures that using the framework will provide meaningful and constructive results.

of 37

Project Aims

The key aims in developing sector wide teaching standards are to establish:

• an evidentiary base for decisions and judgments on performance and outcomes

• a systemic process for self-assessment, priority setting and review against agreed standards

• a framework to assess both individual and institutional priorities and to determine strategies that enhance performance and outcomes

• increased accountability for individual and institutional actions and decisions

• a developmental tool that provides scaffolding to support and guide management and individual decisions and activities

• enhanced learning and teaching experiences. The aims of testing the standards across the sector are:

• to develop consensus sector-wide about strategies to ensure and measure positive learning outcomes;

• to judge which standards are most appropriate for ensuring targeted learning outcomes and graduate capabilities;

• to ensure that standards are transparent and workable; • to develop standards that are based in the institutions and in current

practice, which support and assist government planning, rather than that set government and the sector at odds with one another;

• to create a national dialogue about standards across all institutions to encourage research and innovation;

• to produce clearly articulated standards that allow benchmarking at both national and international levels;

• to make clear the connection between learning and teaching research, policy and practice;

• to help develop methods by which institutions can report their compliance with the standards framework to government.

The project is in support of Australian Learning and Teaching Council Priority 1: “to improve higher education assessment practices and student learning outcomes,” Topic A: Academic Standards. The ALTC specifies that, amongst other things, projects in this category should work towards “the development and description of a shared understanding of ‘standards’ within one or more disciplines or fields of study.” This project aims to guarantee the quality of standards that can be applied at the institutional level. Although disciplinary standards will always be important, there must be significant commonality between disciplines across a university in order to ensure alignment of planning, quality, resourcing and staff development processes

of 37

and the comparability of student learning outcomes. Institutional standards can frame disciplinary standards, allowing them to be compared with one another. Reporting: One of the key aims of the project is to design a method by which institutions can report their performance in light of the standards. Universities will be asked to provide data on what performance indicators they monitor, the sources of evidence available to them, how they are calibrated against standards criteria, and how this information can contribute to future planning. The project will develop a standardised method for reporting this data, that will allow for easy cross-institutional comparison. Project Plan Preliminary:

• The project team will call for Expressions of Interest from across the sector, and will draw up a list of institutions willing to be involved that is representative of all categories of university.

• An initial summit will be held at Macquarie University in order to explain the project and the role of individual institutions.

Phase 1 Each institution will be asked to produce a report on the standards framework in relation to the following issues:

o The quality, appropriateness and comprehensiveness of the standards framework;

Issues: 1. Are the criteria clear and consistent? 2. Are the standards clear and consistent? 3. What are the agreed measures of student learning outcomes? 4. Are the standard levels appropriate to the criteria? 5. Are criteria grouped and ordered appropriately? 6. Is there clear and appropriate correspondence between sources

of evidence, performance indicators and criteria, so that institutional inputs and measurable outcomes can be clearly related to one another?

7. Are there any gaps in the list of criteria?

o Its usability as a tool for assessing plans and sub-plans, policies, procedures and practices

One of the core aims of the standards framework is to provide the means by which university plans, policies and procedures can

of 37

facilitate positive student outcomes and enhanced student learning. The criteria identify which principles connect with which policies and practices, what performance indicators and what sources of evidence demonstrate success in putting this framework in place.

The standards framework is divided into the following sections: 1. Institutional Culture: the university culture should build and

measure the links between quality teaching and learning outcomes. It should adopt a student-centred approach, encourage global citizenship, work to enhance quality, foster staff qualification and professional development, link assessment with learning outcomes, value and encourage quality teaching and support the diversification of the student body. These principles should be evident in the university’s Strategic Plans and sub-plans, including Learning and Teaching Plans at a university, faculty and departmental level; in appointment, probation and promotion policies and procedures, in grants and awards to staff and students, and in student and staff demographics, and should be visible in measurable learning outcomes. Each institution will be asked to assess the criteria, standards, performance indicators and suggested sources of evidence to determine whether the standards:

• provide an accurate and comprehensive model of university culture;

• identify aspects of university culture that satisfactorily embody educational principles; that foster a positive student environment and facilitate the attainment of learning outcomes;

• assist in the evaluation and enhancement of the quality of university documents, policies and procedures;

• provide data that measures the links between quality teaching and learning outcomes.

2. Governance: the governance section of the standards framework

assesses whether and how university practices are clearly linked to performance. It monitors the status and effectiveness of the university’s quality enhancement framework; it ensures whether there are regular reviews of units and programs; whether the university accesses a range of resources for feedback on

of 37

performance and what structures are in place to monitor standards and outcomes.

Each institution will be asked to assess whether the standards framework:

• Allows an assessment of the effectiveness of the governance structure of the institution;

• Provides a complete map of the university’s quality monitoring and enhancement procedures;

• Shows how sources of evidence for performance enable appropriate judgements to be made about the effectiveness of procedures; and

• Encourages continual improvement of performance, transparency and accountability.

3. Policies and Practices: the policies and practices section of the

standards framework focuses on whether the institution incorporates the promotion of teaching excellence and student learning in its planning and procedures. It assesses the status of the university’s learning and teaching planning and how effectively it values and reviews the quality of its teaching.


• Encourages the development of learning and teaching planning that facilitates excellence in teaching;

• Encourages practices of monitoring and review of learning and teaching which facilitate quality enhancement; and

• Encourages an emphasis on measurement of quality learning outcomes.

4. Resources: this section assesses the relationship between

institutional resources and teaching standards. It assesses whether the institution allocates the appropriate resources to learning and teaching and whether these resources are effective in encouraging excellence in learning and teaching.


• Clearly represents the relationship between resource allocation and effectiveness in teaching; and

• Helps assess whether university resource allocation policies and procedures are reviewed effectively in order

of 37

to promote the continuing enhancement of learning and teaching outcomes.

One of the key aims of the standards framework is to allow institutions to assess how effectively policies, procedures and practices are linked to effective and measurable outcomes. In each of the assessments undertaken above, each institution will be asked to take into consideration a variety of sources of evidence: the university’s educational vision, mission and principles; student feedback on the quality of the learning and teaching experience and campus life more generally; and evidence of effective learning outcomes from university assessment monitoring practices, student experience questionnaires and feedback from interest groups, such as employers and government agencies. Reporting: Each institution will be asked to supply information on:

• How it will record and report their compliance with the standards framework, both for internal quality enhancement processes and to government. The project team will provide a recommendation regarding reporting.

• Case studies of their own current best practice in relation to the implementation and assessment of compliance with the standards framework. The project team will provide a report on best practice.

Phase 2 The project team will convene a summit and conference to receive feedback from all involved campuses. Phase 3 Teaching Standards Framework to be re-drafted based on feedback received from different campuses and submitted to the ALTC for review. Phase 4—Implementation Strategy. The project team will conduct a series of meetings with the ALTC to develop a co-operative implementation strategy for the standards. Deliverables

The main outcomes of the project will be: 1. the selection of five other universities(in addition to Macquarie) to take

part in the project, to include the main types of institution such as

of 37

regional universities, research intensive universities and universities of technology;

2. the testing of the teaching standards framework in these six individual universities, including a report from each institution identifying any areas in which they may have experienced difficulty with the Teaching Standards Framework or in which they consider that it needs improvement;

3. a revised and enhanced version of the Teaching Standards Framework; 4. collated information from each participating university on how it would

propose to report on compliance with the Teaching Standards Framework both internally and to government, and the development on this basis of a set of arrangements by which institutions could report on their performance against the Teaching Standards Framework to DEEWR or to TEQSA.

5. a draft implementation plan for consultation with the sector and potential adoption of the Teaching Standards Framework across the higher education sector.

Progress Report

A Progress Report will be provided to ALTC by 23 November 2010. Final Report

The Final Report will include: • the outcomes of the testing process • the redrafted Framework, with an explanation of how it has been

enhanced following the testing process • a report on the potential acceptability of the Teaching Standards

Framework to Australian universities • a recommendation regarding best use of the Framework in the

context of the new quality and standards framework including its potential for benchmarking

• a draft implementation plan for consultation with the sector and potential adoption of the Teaching Standards Framework across the higher education sector.

Schedule July 2010 Expressions of Interest Called August 2010 Identification of Participating Institutions end August 2010 Initial Summit

of 37

November 2010 Institutional Report from each of the six participating institutions on the testing of the Framework

end November 2010 Summit December 2010 Redrafting of Framework 21 February 2011 Submission of final report (including redrafted Framework) Note: The timing of contract finalisation may result in a shift in this Schedule. Personnel 1. Advisory Board The project will be overseen by an Advisory Board comprising of:

• Chair of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Board or nominee (Chair)

• ALTC CEO or nominee • Representatives (two) from Department of Education, Employment and

Workplace Relations • Chair of the Universities of Australia Deputy Vice Chancellors

(Academic) Committee • Representative from one participating university

2. Macquarie University

Macquarie University will be the lead institution in the project. Oversight at Macquarie will be by the Teaching Quality Indicator Steering Committee, chaired by Professor Judyth Sachs (Provost and DVC).

3. Key Project Staff Project Leader: Professor Judyth Sachs Academic Sponsor: Professor Nick Mansfield Project Manager: Ms Bronwyn Kosman

of 37

Budget Budget Proposal 1: Four institutions (Macquarie University plus three others)

$AUS ALTC Other Total

PERSONNEL

Project Leader 25,000 25,000

Academic Sponsor (National)

35,000 35,000

Project Manager (National) 36,588 36,588

Project Officers 109,763 109,763

Academic Sponsors 42,232 42,232

Sub total 181,351 67,232 248,583

PROJECT SUPPORT

Advisory Board Meetings 1,575 1,575

Project Team Meetings 1,000 1,000

Accommodation (summits) 6,300 6,300

Travel (summits) 8,048 8,048

Sub total 15,923 1,000 16,923

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Dissemination 3,000 4,000 7,000

Sub total 3,000 4,000 7,000

ATTENDANCE AT ALTC EVENTS

Sub total 3,000 3,000

INSTITUTIONAL OVERHEAD LEVY (10%)

Sub Total 20,327 20,327

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET

223,601 72,232 295,833

of 37

Budget Proposal 2: Six institutions (Macquarie University plus five others)

$AUS ALTC Other Total

PERSONNEL

Project Leader 30,000 30,000

Academic Sponsor (National)

35,000 35,000

Project Manager (National) 36,588 36,588

Project Officers 164,645 164,645

Academic Sponsors 63,348 63,348

Sub total 236,233 93,348 329,581

PROJECT SUPPORT

Advisory Board Meetings 1,575 1,575

Project Team Meetings 1,200 1,200

Accommodation 10,500 10,500

Travel 15,424 15,424

Sub total 27,499 1,200 28,699

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Dissemination 3,000 4,000 7,000

Sub total 3000 4,000 7000

ATTENDANCE AT ALTC EVENTS

Sub total 3,000 3,000

INSTITUTIONAL OVERHEAD LEVY (10%)

10%

10%

Sub Total 26,973 26,973

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET

296,705 98,548 395,253

of 37

Justification of Budget

Overview

In preparing budget details for this proposal, notice was taken of the format and limits that apply to Priority Project grants. As a project of national significance, the budgets that have been developed also recognise and acknowledge that there are limits to the funding available. Accordingly, two separate budgets are included – one for the involvement of four institutions (three plus Macquarie University) and the other for six institutions (five plus Macquarie University). The importance of this project to the sector, and with the need for representative feedback and a statistically valid consultation demographic, it is hoped that the larger project will be supported. In both budget proposals, an inherent component of project funding is through direct support from each participating institution. This is considered vital to encourage ownership of, and commitment, to the project.

Assumptions

• the Project Leader [Professor Judyth Sachs, DVC (Provost), Macquarie University] will be funded directly by Macquarie University

• there will be Academic Sponsors at each of the participating institutions funded directly by each institution

• there will be an Academic Sponsor for the national project at 0.4FTE Level E, reduced to ALTC relief maximum of $35,000.

• each institution will be provided with an 0.4FTE HEW6 Project Officer • there will be a national Project Manager 0.4FTE HEW9 • salary costs are based on current salary rates at Macquarie University • 28% on costs have been included • travel (for summit attendance) has been costed on the basis of an

average of the lowest cost fare and a flexible fare • all salary costings are calculated on a pro rata basis to take account of

duration of the project.

Personnel

A project of national significance requires a Project Leader who can garner the support and commitment of colleagues across the sector. The involvement of Professor Judyth Sachs, DVC (Provost) at Macquarie University, will be critical to the success of this project. In recognition of the

of 37

importance of this project to the sector, and to indicate its support, Professor Sachs’ contribution will be funded directly by Macquarie University.

A project of this scope requires a national Academic Sponsor. The commitment and intellectual contribution necessary indicates an academic of significant standing who will need to be relieved of some of their normal duties. Whilst this contribution has been assessed at 0.4FTE of a Level E Professor, the budget request is set at the ALTC maximum for salary relief.

The national Project Manager is crucial to the overall management, co-ordination and completion of this project. This person will manage the project, including communication, co-ordination, budget control and reporting. To continue their involvement in the development of the Teaching Standards Framework, the Project Manager will also be involved in the collation and analysis of responses. They will have a role in the redrafting of the framework and undertake final reporting. For these reasons, the Manager has been costed at a 0.4FTE HEW9.

Again, in recognition of the importance of this project for the sector, it has been assumed that each participating institution will fund the involvement of their academic sponsor directly. The expectation is that the sponsor will be at the level of DVC/PVC.

A Project Officer in each of the participating institutions will be required to co-ordinate, facilitate and report on the project activities within their institution. This is recognised as an additional workload and has been costed at 0.4FTE HEW6 for each institution.

Project Support

To continue Macquarie University’s commitment to this project, team meetings consisting of the Project Leader, national Academic Sponsor and national Project Manager will be funded directly by the University.

Governance: The advisory board for the project will need to meet at least twice during the project. As most members will be drawn from Sydney, it is anticipated that meetings will be held in Sydney. A minimal amount has been costed to allow Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) representatives to travel from Canberra.

of 37

Travel: To ensure feedback is provided from a range of different universities, and that both a geographical spread and a mix of aligned groupings is achieved, travel will be required. A summit will be convened of involved staff from participating institutions at Macquarie University to introduce and initiate the development of the project. A second summit conference for all institutions to report their findings will be held at Macquarie University in late November, 2010.

Project Activities

Dissemination: Throughout the project it is expected that detailed evidence and resources will be developed. We anticipate these being made available electronically to allow wide dissemination. Case study documentation will also be provided. A corresponding contribution from each institution has been assumed so that they can disseminate the findings locally and update their web resources. The cost of workshop and conference attendance and presentation is expected to be covered by each institution ($1,000 per institution). Funding is requested to collate and edit materials.

Institutional Support

In kind and direct contributions from each participating institution has been assumed throughout the development of this proposal. This recognises the importance of this initiative and its potential value to the sector.

of 37

Sources Chalmers, D. (2007). A review of Australian and international quality systems and indicators of learning and teaching, Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Retrieved February 26, 2009 from Australian Learning and Teaching Council website: http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/146827/T&L_Quality_Systems_and_Indicators.pdf DEEWR/DEST (2006) “Accessing the Student Voice: Using CEQuery to Identify What Retains Students and Promotes Engagement in Productive Learning in Australian Higher Education” http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/access_student_voice.htm Flowers J. & Kosman B. (2009). Beyond the Numbers: Achieving Best Practice in Learning and Teaching, AUQF Conference Paper, Retrieved August 13, 2009 from AUQF Conference website: http://www.auqa.edu.au/files/auqf/paper/paper_13_paper.pdf Garlick S. & Pryor G. (2004). Benchmarking the university: Learning about Improvement, A report for the Department of Education, Science and Training, Retrieved February 13, 2006 from DEEWR Publication and Resources website: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/benchmarking_the_university.htm Scott, Geoff (2008) “University Student Engagement and Satisfaction with Learning and Teaching,” http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/Scott.pdf Sullivan, W. & Rosin, M. (2008): A new agenda for higher education: Shaping a life of the mind for practice. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Teaching Australia (2009). Standards for accomplished teachers and principals: A foundation for public confidence and respect

Weeks P. (2000). Benchmarking in Higher Education: An Australian Case Study. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 59-67.

Macquarie University, 26 May 2010 of 37

APPENDIX: TEACHING STANDARDS FRAMEWORK

Standards: the criteria by which we measure the quality of learning and teaching performance and outcomes.

The aim of the Teaching Standards Framework is to correlate institutional practices (inputs and processes) with student learning outcomes in order to identify where and how university structures and operations lead to the improvement of student performance and the enhancement of graduate capabilities. It provides the lens through which student performance data can be read in a way that contributes directly to continuous quality enhancement. It is a tool which can be used to assess university operations in the light of performance, and to benchmark universities in relation to one another, both nationally and internationally.

Overview

Teaching in higher education is primarily concerned with encouraging learning and developing the capabilities of students. Teaching helps to foster a relationship between students and their subject, and students and their teachers. Teaching involves planning, priority setting, allocation of resources and shared responsibility. Teaching is context-related, uncertain and continuously improvable. Institutions provide the structure for students to learn and for teachers to teach. Institutions manage and allocate their resources, structure their governance systems and recognise the link between institutional strategies and priorities, excellence in teaching, student performance and graduate capability.

There are four areas of focus that are relevant to institutional teaching standards:

Culture Governance Policies and Practices Resources

Within each area there are different levels to represent differing standards of achievement in relation to the criteria. In general terms, Level 1 indicates a failure to address the criterion; at Level 2, there is some manifest acknowledgment of the criterion and some intention of meeting it, but so far there has been no substantial progress towards that goal; at Level 3, there has been an active attempt to meet the criterion, but without significant innovation or initiative; at Level 4, institutions will be actively re-thinking what they do in the light of the criterion, and innovating accordingly. There is provision to exceed Level 4, where an institution will be pioneering new methods of learning and teaching that will contribute to a re-definition of the criterion. For this reason, performance at this level is not specified. Example Performance Indicators (PIs) provide guidance on what elements to review in assessing the impact and effectiveness of the standards. The PIs provided are a mix of input, output, outcome and process indicators.


1. CULTURE

This area focuses on the development of a University culture that acknowledges the links between quality teaching and quality student learning outcomes. The University has a clearly articulated and effectively communicated vision for learning and teaching. It operates and supports an environment that actively encourages and rewards teaching excellence and seeks to promote quality teaching in the range of formal, informal, social and cultural contexts in which learning occurs. The University has an expectation that evidence is provided to show how standards have been met and that there are strong links between standards for teaching, their evaluation, professional development and student learning outcomes.

Criteria Performance

Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)

Suggested Sources of Evidence

(Levels 1-4)

1.1 The university practices student-centred learning.

Evidence of strategic plans

Evidence of learning and teaching plans

Evidence of a student-centred approach in learning and teaching.

A student-centred learning perspective is evident in the University’s plans and practices.

A student-centred learning perspective is evident in some but not all plans and practices.

A student-centred learning perspective is under development.

There is no evidence of a student-centred learning perspective.

• Strategic Plan • Sub-plans,

including the Learning and Teaching Plan

• Unit guides • University

results monitoring and reporting

• Unit reviews • Peer review of

teaching • Student

feedback



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

1.2 The university fosters ethical, moral and global citizenship.

Evidence of strategic plans

Existence of ethical framework as foundation for plans and activities

Evidence of ethical practice in learning and teaching

Ethical, moral and global citizenship is evident in the University’s plans, procedures and practices.

Ethical, moral and global citizenship is evident, but not across the entire institution.

Ethical, moral and global citizenship is under development.

There is no emphasis on ethical, moral or global citizenship.



• Public Relations Plan

• Active community volunteering and participation initiatives in place

• Unit guides indicating ethical practice and incorporating ethics issues

• Student feedback shows ethics is valued in the practice of the university



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

1.3 The university has an active quality enhancement and review framework

Evidence of active framework

Reforms enacted which show evidence of improvements in student performance

A quality enhancement and review framework is evident in the University’s plans and procedures.

A quality enhancement and review framework is evident but not in all plans and procedures.

A quality enhancement and review framework is currently being developed.

There is no quality enhancement and review framework.



• Quality review cycle in place

• Reports on quality monitoring and active reform

1.4 The university recognises and rewards teaching quality

High quality teaching is recognised and rewarded

Number of staff with teaching qualifications

Number of prizes, grants and awards received

Teaching quality is recognised and rewarded through appointment and promotion.

There is recognition and reward for teaching quality through appointment and promotion but not consistently across the institution.

A system to recognise and reward teaching quality is currently being developed.

There is no recognition or reward for teaching quality.

• Appointment criteria

• Teaching Index • Promotion

criteria • Learning and

Teaching Grants

• Learning and Teaching Awards

• Performance Development and Review



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

1.5 The university encourages ongoing professional development undertaken by staff to improve their teaching activities.

Number of staff attending professional development

Improvements in student performance linked to new initiatives in professional development

Ongoing professional development is undertaken by staff to improve their teaching activities and student performance.

Ongoing professional development is undertaken by staff to improve their teaching activities and student performance but not across all areas of the institution.

Professional development opportunities for staff to improve their teaching activities and student performance are currently under development.

There is no ongoing professional development for staff to improve their teaching activities and student performance.

• Professional development activities

• Evidence of new teaching initiatives leading to improvements in student performance

• Outside Studies Program / Sabbatical involving Learning and Teaching

• Learning and Teaching Symposia

• Learning and Teaching Seminars



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

1.6 The university requires that current research and scholarship inform teaching and curriculum.

Number of recent publications / research referenced in learning materials and used in the learning process

Current research and scholarship inform teaching and curriculum across the institution.

Current research and scholarship inform teaching and curriculum but not consistently across the entire institution.

Current research and scholarship are recognised as important in informing teaching and curriculum but are not evidenced in teaching practices.

Current research and scholarship is not used to inform its teaching and curriculum.

• Performance development and review

• New unit proposals

• Revised unit offerings

• Unit assessment

• Grants • High retention

rates • Graduate

employment in research careers



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

1.7 The university ensures there is a link between student learning outcomes and assessment practice.

Quality feedback to students

Quality reporting and monitoring of results

Number of unit outlines demonstrating links between student learning and assessment

The link between student learning outcomes and assessment practice is emphasised throughout teaching practice.

The link between student learning outcomes and assessment practice is acknowledged, but not across the entire institution.

The link between student learning outcomes and assessment practice is recognised but not acted upon.

There is no recognition of the link between student learning outcomes and assessment practice.

• Unit Guides • Teaching

Practice • Professional

Development • Assessment

practice • Student

feedback • University

results reporting



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

1.8 The university values and supports student and staff diversity.

Policies, procedures and practices which promote social inclusion

Number of different characteristics (gender, age, culture, ethnicity) identified across students and staff

University plans and practices demonstrate ways of actively valuing and supporting student and staff diversity.

University plans and practices recognise the value of student and staff diversity, but not across the entire institution.

There is awareness of the need to value student and staff diversity, but it is not enacted.

There is no recognition or acknowledgement of the value of student or staff diversity.

• Strategic Plans • Equal

employment statistics

• Diversity in committee memberships

• Diversity in student body

• Student experience data


2. GOVERNANCE

This area is concerned with the means by which the University makes decisions that manage, enhance or verify performance. Effective governance involves delegated management to guide activities that impact on learning and teaching. The University has a governance structure that provides a supportive framework that actively promotes excellence in learning and teaching. The University also responds to local, national and international developments and statutes that require changes to the practice of teaching. The responsibility for high quality learning lies in appropriate structures and processes to support and improve teaching and is the responsibility of teachers and the University.


Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

2.1 The quality enhancement framework informs and supports all university activities.

Evidence of active framework

Measurable improvements in student performance as a result of quality enhancement initiatives

A quality enhancement framework that informs and supports all activities is implemented.

There is a quality enhancement framework that informs and supports activities but not consistently across the institution.

A quality enhancement framework that informs and supports all activities is under development.

There is no quality enhancement framework that informs and supports all activities.

• Quality Enhancement Framework

• Quality enhancement embedded within processes and practices

• Scheduled quality enhancement reporting and review cycle

• Documented examples of best practice

• Measurable improvements in student performance against national discipline standards



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

2.2 The university regularly reviews units and programs in order to improve teaching practices and student performance

Number of units and programs reviewed as scheduled

Incorporation of review findings in future offerings

Regular unit and program reviews are undertaken and recommendations implemented.

Reviews of units and programs are implemented but not on a regular basis.

Awareness of the policy for regular reviews of units and programs is evident but it is not enacted.

There are no regular reviews of units or programs.

• Scheduled review cycle

• Regular reports on enhancements made to programs and units and their contribution to student performance

• Sharing of best practice



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

2.3 The university seeks and uses evidence from multiple stakeholders in unit and program reviews.

Stakeholders involved in unit and program reviews

Evidence of stakeholder feedback being actively considered

Evidence of student performance and graduate capability used in reviews

Input from stakeholders is sought as a fundamental part of the review process.

Input from stakeholders is an integral part of the review process.

Input from stakeholders is acknowledged but not incorporated.

There is no stakeholder involvement in unit or program reviews.

• Stakeholder advisory panels/groups

• Student feedback system

• Unit guide describes changes made following feedback from students

• Input by community and stakeholders referenced through unit and program reviews

• Use of data on changes in student performance and graduate capability in review process



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

2.4 The university has an active academic governing body responsible for ensuring academic standards and quality are maintained.

Terms of reference include responsibility for academic standards and quality

The academic governing body fulfils its responsibilities in ensuring academic standards and quality are maintained across the entire institution.

The academic governing body acknowledges responsibility for ensuring academic standards and quality are maintained across the University but implementation is not consistent across the institution.

The academic governing body recognises the importance of ensuring academic standards and quality but needs to develop processes to enact this responsibility.

There is no recognition by the academic governing body as to the importance of ensuring academic standards and quality.

• Terms of Reference

• Membership • Terms of

Reference for sub-committees include accountability for specific standards and quality

• External benchmarking

• Academic governing body activity and strategies

• University reports demonstrate active monitoring of teaching practice and student performance



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

2.5 The university is structured to promote and support the achievement of excellence in learning and teaching.

A University structure with clear learning and teaching reporting lines

Processes of review, reform and improvement are in place

Evidence of reforms monitored against changes in student performance

The University structure facilitates the achievement of excellence in learning and teaching.

There is a University structure in place but it does not consistently facilitate the achievement of excellence in learning and teaching across the institution.

The importance of a University structure that promotes and supports the achievement of excellence in learning and teaching is acknowledged, but the structure is not in place.

There is no recognition of the importance of the University structure in promoting and supporting the achievement of excellence in teaching.

• University reports

• Support structures are in place

• Processes provide teaching and development support

• Organisational Chart

• Office Holders • Governance

Map


3. POLICIES AND PRACTICES

This area is concerned with embedding knowledge about learning and teaching in policy and practice. Policy allows the University to demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability. The University develops, implements and reviews its policies and procedures to ensure they actively promote fairness and equity for students together with quality in teaching and learning.


Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

3.1 The university implements a Learning and Teaching Plan that develops teaching excellence in terms of positive student outcomes.

Learning and Teaching Plan exists and measures reported against account-abilities and performance.

A Learning and Teaching Plan that develops teaching excellence is implemented across the institution.

A Learning and Teaching Plan that develops teaching excellence is in place but is not applied consistently across the institution.

A Learning and Teaching Plan that develops teaching excellence is under development.

There is no Learning and Teaching Plan under development or recognition of its importance.

• University Learning and Teaching Plan

• Faculty Learning and Teaching Plan that is aligned with the University Plan

• Department / Program / Unit level learning and teaching plans

• Regular assessment against stated Learning and Teaching goals

• Review of goals for their contribution to positive learning outcomes

3.2 The importance of teaching excellence and improved student outcomes is recognised in the

Evidence of active plans leading to improved student

Strategic and operational plans are in place and enacted at all

Strategic and operational plans are developed but are not enacted

Strategic and operational plans are under development.

There is no recognition of the importance of teaching excellence in the University’s

• University Strategic Plan, Faculty and Department Learning and Teaching Plans, Learning and



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

university’s strategic and operational plans.

outcomes. levels of the institution.

consistently across the institution.

strategic and operational plans.

Teaching policies, procedures and guidelines measured against reported changes in student performance

3.3 The university reviews policies to facilitate excellence in learning and teaching and performance outcomes.

Reporting cycles

Review cycles

Number of policies reviewed as scheduled

Regular and effective policy reviews are undertaken across the institution to facilitate excellence in learning and teaching and performance outcomes.

Policy reviews are undertaken to facilitate excellence in learning and teaching and performance outcomes but not consistently across the institution.

The importance of regular policy reviews to facilitate teaching excellence and performance outcomes is under development.

There is no acknowledgement of the importance of regular policy reviews in facilitating excellence in learning and teaching and performance outcomes.

• Policy framework with transparent policy development process

• Regular review cycle reported through University and Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees

• Reports to academic governing body on compliance


4. RESOURCES This area acknowledges the relationship between institutional resources, teaching standards and learning outcomes. Resources include time, human, physical, technological and fiscal support and cover all aspects of learning and teaching. Resources enable the appropriate recruitment, preparation, credentialing, induction and ongoing professional development of teachers across their whole career. Resources are finite and the challenge for universities is to balance the competing pressures of providing an accessible and quality educational experience with needing to source sufficient income to fulfil their strategic and operational imperatives.


Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

4.1 The university dedicates resources to learning and teaching that produce improved learning outcomes.

Proportion of budget allocated to learning and teaching

Improved student learning outcomes

Dedicated and appropriate resources are provided to support learning and teaching.

Resources are provided to ensure the University meets minimum standards in learning and teaching but these are not provided consistently across the institution.

There is recognition as to the importance of providing resources for learning and teaching but only limited resources are provided due to competing priorities.

There are no dedicated resources for learning and teaching.

• Member of the executive responsible for learning and teaching

• Budget allocation specifically to support learning and teaching

• Position descriptions specify learning and teaching outcomes

• Current, appropriate and available technologies in place

• Review of budgetary allocations in



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

the light of data on student performance

• Library plans and practices demonstrate learning and teaching priorities

• Learning and teaching spaces are designed and managed to support learning and teaching

• Professional development priorities, programs and activities

4.2 The university commits appropriate resources to support student-centred learning.

Investment per student (or similarly identified funding model)

Effective Staff

The University commits resources to support student-centred learning to achieve its strategic

The University commits resources to support student-centred learning but not consistently across the

The University recognises the importance of committing resources to support student-centred learning, but other

No resources are committed to support student-centred learning.

• System for collecting feedback from students on their experience of the unit and teaching

• CEQ – Course



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

: Student ratios

Funding provided to seek student feedback

objectives. institution. priorities prevent significant commitment.

Experience Questionnaire

• PREQ – PG Research Experience Questionnaire

• GDS – Graduate Destination Survey

• Good Universities Guide

• Student feedback actively sought and used

4.3 University funding models recognise and reward teaching excellence and improved student outcomes.

Existence of a funding model that rewards teaching excellence

Proportion of learning and teaching budget that supports awards and

The University funding model allocates appropriate resources to support teaching excellence across the institution.

The University allocates resources to support teaching excellence through its funding models, but they are targeted narrowly due to competing

Funding models recognise the importance of teaching excellence but do not provide adequate funding due to competing priorities.

Funding models do not recognise teaching excellence.

• Teaching Index • PDR supported

and funded • Academic

promotion policies and practices support learning and teaching

• Learning and Teaching Awards

• Learning and



Indicator Examples

Yes, and

Level 4 (Yes)

Level 3 (Yes, But)

Level 2 (No, But)

Level 1 (No)


(Levels 1-4)

grants priorities. Teaching Grants

4.4 The university supports continuing professional development for learning and teaching.

Proportion of budget allocated to support professional development

Number of staff who undertake professional development

Number of learning and teaching seminars

Continuing professional development for learning and teaching is valued by the institution and resourced appropriately.

Continuing professional development for learning and teaching is valued but not adequately resourced.

Continuing professional development for learning and teaching is not consistently valued or resourced due to competing priorities.

Continuing professional development for learning and teaching is not valued or resourced appropriately.

• Regular performance development and review cycle

• Professional development available, funded and supported

• Learning and teaching seminars and forums

• Award bearing programs

Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project Proposal ...

Documents

Transcript of Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project Proposal ...