![Page 1: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Developing teaching and learning standards in a new
regulatory environment
Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff ScottUniversity of Western Sydney, Australia
![Page 2: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The international context
Global focus on demonstrating benchmarked achievement of student learning outcomes:
AHELO; EU Tuning; Qualifications Frameworks; Exit testing; Moderation/External examination
Increasing accountability for quality and relevance of student learning experience:
Government oversight; regulation/registration and funding; Surveys
Counter drivers of research based rankings and global competiveness of Universities; Private providers
![Page 3: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Standards = ?
The language and complexity of standards:Contentious Defined by disciplineThe concept of “threshold”Teaching versus Learning Standards
Inputs: course design; learner support and resource provisions; teacher skills and qualityOutcomes: level of attainment of skills + knowledge +..
(assessment and grading)
![Page 4: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Qualifications Frameworks, Registration and Regulation
QFs: Defines learning expectations for level of award; move to international alignments (already exist in some professions); facilitate broad benchmarking
Registration and Regulation: Defines operating parameters; levels of investment , infrastructure and support; policy and process frameworks for educational quality. Substantial powers
![Page 5: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Australian context
New Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)Ten levels defined by Learning Outcomes and
Volume (=) Duration of Learning
Establishment of Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency “replaces” Australian Universities Quality Agency
Regulator versus Reviewer TEQSA regulates using:
a standards-based quality framework, and; under principles relating to regulatory
necessity, risk and proportionality
![Page 6: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Higher Education StandardsDeveloped by HE Standards Panel who advise Minister and TEQSAFrom former National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes and the
AQF
The Threshold Standards consist of:Provider Registration Standards Provider Category Standards Provider Course Accreditation Standards * (descriptors relate to T&L)Qualification Standards (AQF).
Plus ‘Non-Threshold’ Standards (still evolving):Teaching and Learning Standards Research Standards Information Standards.
![Page 7: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The project
Funded by the Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT);Eleven Australian Universities; Aligned with ambitions and ambiguities of Teaching and Learning Standards;Based on inter-institution, discipline based peer-review across twelve discipline areas, including creative arts; Contextualised in subject (s0metimes program) learning outcomes material, discipline expectations and assessment rubrics
![Page 8: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The process
• High commonality final year subjects identified• Materials from “home” uni collected and sent to
discipline reviewers in two partners • Materials included: – four de-identified and cleaned assessment artefacts in
each grade band; – Subject outlines, all assessment tasks, marking criteria
and if available program level outcome expectations• Responses required: – Remarked assessments; comments on suitability/validity
![Page 9: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The findings
• Broad agreement on grades• Analysis of subject materials and levels of
agreement on: – Appropriateness of curriculum content 89.4%– Relationship assessment to LO 76.5%– Assessment to program LOs 63.5%– Explanation of grade expectations to students 54.1%– Clarity grading guidelines 68.3%– Suitability of tasks 84.6%
![Page 10: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Participants perspectives
Feedback collected from reviewers regarding overall process; written comments during process and follow up focus groups
– Positive benefits in seeing what others are doing; getting to know discipline expectations and previously unknown peers;
– Professional development and validation;– Diversity is good!
![Page 11: Developing teaching and learning standards in a new regulatory environment Elizabeth Deane, Kerri-Lee Krause and Geoff Scott University of Western Sydney,](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022071807/56649e295503460f94b171db/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Implications
Peer review that works and has value add for participants is characterised by: – Targeted to final year agreed “common” subjects– Blinded of student and comment details– Sampled at grades– Contextualised in discipline and institutional
expectations of learning outcomes**
Could be managed as cyclical process to minimise academic burdenWould satisfy HE Standards expectations