Simon Bedford and Ruth Walker

Ensuring integrity, quality and sustainability in teaching and assessment policy development: a collaborative approach

What enables curriculum transformation?

• Policy refinement and/or development• Resources to implement policy • Stakeholder buy-in• Change management• Change agents

2

Chris rust

Chris Rust, HERDSA 2017

What ensures sustainability in curriculum transformation?

• Curriculum transformation or a transformative curriculum?– Don’t just tinker, truly transform the learning experience of

students (Fiona Wahr, HERDSA 2017)• Re-shift the conversation to ‘assessment transformation’

– curriculum transformation gives us an opportunity to do this (Graham Gibbs, quoted by Denise Chalmers HERDSA 2017)

3

Context: preparing for TEQSA

List of upcoming re-registrations. adapted from National Register of Higher Education Providers (TEQSA 2016)

Two case studies of curriculum transformation via policy development

UOW’s Academic Quality & Standards (AQS) cycle of regular policy reviews plus identified policy gaps

6

Case Study 1 Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite (TAPS)

External

Internal

Subject Delivery Policy

Assessment and Feedback

Policy

Code of Practice –Teaching

TAPS– Internal and external inputs

Assessment Quality CycleHigher Education Standards Framework (HESF 2016)“…credible evidence (such as moderation exercises, peer reviews, external referencing)

that will satisfy TEQSA in this respect.” (S.14.3)

UOW Policy - AQC“Provides a level of assurance that assessment practice across the University is appropriate, consistent and fair but also has a quality enhancement role as it contributes to the continuous improvement of assessment practices (closing the loop).”

Practice: embedding into the curriculum

9

In late 2016, undertook several faculty engagement projects to evaluate current alignment with the new policy requirements, and to support teaching staff to implement these. 1. Consultant, teaching academic, and policy experts (Change management)2. Scaffolded Peer Evaluation Tool with Yes, Yes but.., No but.. & No – pre

interview, 2hr interview, post consensus two-way report.3. With academic program directors, heads of school, subject coordinators,

and teaching academics (Change agents).4. UG Courses, and CW Masters, local, regional campuses and international.5. All faculties involved; EIS, BUS, SOC, SMAH and LHA.

Faculty Engagement & Feedback – 1/3 Projects

10

Main strengths were:• Good alignment of assessments with SLO’s, and in the main appropriate.• Internal quality checks of assessments standards.Main weaknesses were:• Link to CLO’s not always clear, nor external reference points.• Reliance on traditional final examinations with large assessment weight. • Closing the loop(s) – Assessment committee reports, subject and course,

but also showing the improvements from student feedback in the outline.• Lack of a standardised subject outline and access to data for QA.

Faculty Engagement & Feedback

11

Main Threats:• Assessment criteria often dispersed; some in the subject outline, some in

handbooks and increasingly on Moodle e.g assessment rubrics.• Some silos, and compartmentalisation within subjects, and lack of

curriculum maps so the benefit to the course was not always clear.Main Opportunities:• All relevant new policy requirements had been successfully addressed by

one of the courses, but no single course had covered them all. An opportunity for sharing good practice in a community of practice.

Faculty Engagement & Feedback

12

“The whole teaching team is involved in assessment design, rubrics, marking schemes, exemplars. At the end of each session the teaching team get together, including the offshore teaching coordinators, and discuss possible changes they would like to introduce. However, we would like more consistent and time ready data to help us make those decisions ” “The students have a workbook in Excel which has a rubric sheet- the tutor goes in and marks on the rubric their current performance, then gives them a mark and comments. They then give it to the student for feedback, before final submission. New tutors are taught about the rubrics and are shown exemplars, to calibrate them with more experienced ones. We want to do more of this online so that is an area we need help with.”

Staff and Student Voice - Dialogue

13

Support:1. Moodle AQC module addressing key policy into practice issues, with

UOW and external resources and case studies – A&F CoP2. Series of LTC staff development workshops addressing key issues:

1. Moderation and Calibration of Assessment (Large and dispersed)2. Writing learning outcomes (CLO/GLO/TLO to SLO and Tasks)3. Designing assessment and feedback (Design Principles)4. Designing Final Examinations (And do you need them?)5. Online Assessment (Including Rubrics)

Support & sustainability

14

Sustainability:1. Special Interest Group (Assessment Quality) set up with key stakeholders

looking at sharing good practice, linked to WATTLE Hot Topic group on Transforming Assessments.

2. Assessment, subject and course quality data and reporting.

Support & sustainability

15

Coming soon:1. Spring Session 2017- a minimum

specification subject outline for UOW.2. Academic Program Director Role

Description – implementation and support.

3. Curriculum Management System: Provide online subject outlines, assessment to CLO mapping, and curriculum maps.

Support & sustainability

16

17

Case study 2 Academic Integrity policy

Academic integrity: policy into practiceHigher education standards framework (HESF 2016)• “academic and research integrity”

• information (7.2.2.d); educative and preventative action to manage risk of misconduct (5.2.2); opportunity for students to develop good practices (5.2.3); management of academic misconduct and action to address underlying causes (6.2.1)

New UOW policy• A holistic approach to academic integrity education and academic misconduct management:

• academic integrity as foundational to learning, teaching and research• provision of support and resources for students and staff (teaching and research)• embedding education into the curriculum

Practice - workload implications for staff• clarified roles and responsibilities • clarified understandings of & reporting requirements for academic misconduct

Higher Education Standards FrameworkFour broad requirements:1. to have policies that promote and uphold academic and research integrity

and policies and procedures which address allegations of misconduct 2. to take action to mitigate foreseeable risks to academic and research

integrity 3. to provide students and staff with guidance and training on what

constitutes academic or research misconduct and the development of good practices in maintaining academic and research integrity

4. to ensure that academic and research integrity are maintained in arrangements with any other party involved in the provision of higher education.

(HESF 2016, Part A Section 5.2)

Document title20

UOW holistic cycle

21

institutional integrity

research integrity

academic integrity

Practice: embedding into the curriculum

23

Faculty feedback on policy implementation:

• Q1. How do you deal with academic integrity in your course?

• Q1. Does academic integrity inform your assessment design?

1. Policy from the top down vs ground up

2. Does this sound familiar?

3. Workload implications for staff

4. Listen, learn, reflect…then lead

5. Slow cooking approach…

Key findings from both case studies

24

“Not all change is change. A great deal of time, effort and physical and emotional resources are regularly committed to the introduction of ‘new’ programs; ‘change’ agendas; ‘better’ practice. In some instances these changes have a demonstrably positive impact on the work and lives of those involved. In many other cases the fundamental nature of the product or process or service under review remains unaltered.”

Leonie Rowan (2003) Back from the brink: Reclaiming 'quality’in the pursuit of a transformative education agenda, p19)

25

Australian Quality Framework (2013) 2nd Edition, viewed 6th Nov 2016, http://www.teqsa.gov.au/regulatory-approach/higher-education-standards-framework

Rowan, L 2003, 'Back from the brink: Reclaiming 'quality' in the pursuit of a transformative education agenda', Quality Learning Research Priority Area, Deakin University, Working Paper Number One. http://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/366448/back-from-brink.pdf

TEQSA (2015) Higher Education Standards Framework, www.teqsa.gov.au/regulatory-approach/higher-education-standards-framework

TEQSA (2016) National Register of Higher Education Providers, http://www.teqsa.gov.au/national-register

UOW (2016) Academic Integrity Policyhttp://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058648.html

UOW (2015) Academic Quality Frameworkhttp://www.uow.edu.au/quality/aqp/quality/index.html

UOW (2016) Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite, https://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/alphalisting/UOW222910.html

26

References

questions and feedback