Simon Bedford and Ruth Walker Ensuring integrity, quality and sustainability in teaching and assessment policy development: a collaborative approach Simon Bedford and Ruth Walker This presentation will use the Higher Education Standards Framework (TEQSA 2015) as a lens to examine the curriculum transformation activities at a regional NSW university. The Framework came into full force in January 2017 and was the impetus for a range of policy changes and practice initiatives. Over the past 18 months, a number of key internal policy changes have shaped our future approaches to teaching and learning as the institution prepares for TEQSA re-registration in 2017-2018. These changes are incorporated into a range of new policies, including the new Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite (TAPS), which deal with a strengthened approach to academic integrity, course leadership and peer review of assessment standards. The policy changes then led to a number of university-wide initiatives which are altering our approach to curricula creation, development, implementation and evaluation. However, as we move into the implementation phase, we have found it a challenge to balance the external requirements of the new Framework with internal policy changes, the contextual dynamics of curriculum renewal, and a concern of workload implications for academic staff. In this presentation we will focus on some key assessment reforms where we have strengthened our alignment to the new standards in order to enhance the quality of the student learning experience: assessment quality, academic integrity, course leadership and peer review of assessment standards. These insights and the resultant discussion will be of interest to delegates interested in the tension between higher education requirements, implementation of teaching and learning policies, and the engagement academic staff in curriculum transformation.

What enables curriculum transformation? Policy refinement and/or development Resources to implement policy Stakeholder buy-in Change management Change agents 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)

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 Over the past 3 years, as part of our regular cycle of policy reviews, we have made changes to policies to bring them into line with the new standards We’ve developed new policy where we’ve identified a gap – e.g. Agent Management And we brought our own Standards Framework up-to-date to align with the new national standards Hand over to Simon to talk about what’s been happening in Teaching and Assessment

Case Study 1 Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite (TAPS)

TAPS– Internal and external inputs Subject Delivery Policy Assessment and Feedback Policy Code of Practice – Teaching Internal HESF in terms of methods of assessments are appropriate, allow students to demonstrate the CLO, early course feedback, moved the focus from subjects to course. Scaffolded or sequenced assessment throughout the course. Co developed a set of assessment and feedback principles – alignment, balanced, effective feedback, transparent, QA APD role, external peer review of assessment standards.

Assessment Quality Cycle Higher 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).” Core of the Assessment and feedback policy is the AQC.

Practice: embedding into the curriculum

Faculty Engagement & Feedback – 1/3 Projects 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. Consultant, teaching academic, and policy experts (Change management) Scaffolded Peer Evaluation Tool with Yes, Yes but.., No but.. & No – pre interview, 2hr interview, post consensus two-way report. With academic program directors, heads of school, subject coordinators, and teaching academics (Change agents). UG Courses, and CW Masters, local, regional campuses and international. All faculties involved; EIS, BUS, SOC, SMAH and LHA.

Faculty Engagement & Feedback 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 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.

Staff and Student Voice - Dialogue “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.”

Support & sustainability Moodle AQC module addressing key policy into practice issues, with UOW and external resources and case studies – A&F CoP Series of LTC staff development workshops addressing key issues: Moderation and Calibration of Assessment (Large and dispersed) Writing learning outcomes (CLO/GLO/TLO to SLO and Tasks) Designing assessment and feedback (Design Principles) Designing Final Examinations (And do you need them?) Online Assessment (Including Rubrics)

Support & sustainability Special Interest Group (Assessment Quality) set up with key stakeholders looking at sharing good practice, linked to WATTLE Hot Topic group on Transforming Assessments. Assessment, subject and course quality data and reporting.

Support & sustainability Coming soon: Spring Session 2017- a minimum specification subject outline for UOW. Academic Program Director Role Description – implementation and support. Curriculum Management System: Provide online subject outlines, assessment to CLO mapping, and curriculum maps.

Case study 2 Academic Integrity policy

Academic integrity: policy into practice Higher 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 Framework Four broad requirements: to have policies that promote and uphold academic and research integrity and policies and procedures which address allegations of misconduct  to take action to mitigate foreseeable risks to academic and research integrity  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  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)

UOW holistic cycle Document title

institutional integrity research integrity academic integrity

Practice: embedding into the curriculum Faculty feedback on policy implementation: Q1. How do you deal with academic integrity in your course? Q1. Does academic integrity inform your assessment design?

Key findings from both case studies Policy from the top down vs ground up Does this sound familiar? Workload implications for staff Listen, learn, reflect…then lead Slow cooking approach…

“Not all change is change “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)

References 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 Policy http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058648.html UOW (2015) Academic Quality Framework http://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

questions and feedback