1. Discipline standards: opportunities and risks Panel on discipline standards “Critical times? Changing journalism in a changing world” : The JEAA Melbourne conference 2012 Dr Clair Hughes clair.hughes@uq.edu.au

2. Sources The AAGLO project (Barrie, Hughes and Crisp 2010-12) – including investigation of assessment and assurance practices related to graduate learning outcomes across seven disciplines in Australian universities – http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/aaglo/ http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/aaglo/ Case study (Hughes 2012) of UQ implementation of Archaeology benchmark statements (Beck and Clarke 2008) National GAP project (Barrie, Hughes and Smith 2009) SOURCES

3. Overview OPPORTUNITIES RISKS OVERVIEW

4. Common language – enhanced communication among stakeholders within a discipline – academics, students, industry, professional bodies Common frameworks – whole-of-program curriculum renewal – conceptual consistency, program coherence, systematic development, assessment and representation of learning outcomes Increased capacity to generate evidence of comprehensive range of learning outcomes Promotion of intra-and inter-institutional exchanges – – professional conversations – confirmation of quality of existing practices and standards, – sharing of ideas and resources that boost disciplinary expertise, effectiveness and efficiency of practice Increased student engagement and independence – basis for reflection and goal setting – coherence of experience – mobility OPPORTUNITIES

5. Loss of institutional or program distinctiveness Unintended consequences of accountability and assurance measures – inappropriate use of standardised testing - narrowing of the curriculum, invalid information dissemination and unhelpful comparisons Little or no meaningful impact on curriculum and teaching renewal – ‘cosmetic’ implementation - retrospective curriculum mapping and perfunctory course documentation ‘Brand’ erosion RISKS

6. A focus on enhancement rather than accountability Whole-of-program approach to curriculum planning and renewal Rigorous and consequential approval and evaluation processes - courses, teaching, assessment Development of professional expertise in course planning and the design of assessment that generates credible evidence of specified learning outcomes Evidence-based, collegial conversations about standards – calibration and moderation - within and across institutions Inclusive processes – resourcing implications for sessional staff ‘Systems’ approach – attention to policy, role descriptions, resourcing, workload allocation, reward and recognition, infrastructure (committee membership, processes for data collection and reporting etc) – embedded rather than ‘event’ approaches Active roles for students – encouragement of metacognitive development, independence and foundations of life-long learning. Effective strategies

7. Conclusions Confluence of conditions (international standards agenda, TEQSA, AQF, HE Standards panel, ALTC/OLT initiatives) with capacity to influence how we go about the business of higher education – need for discipline communities to take an active role in working together to steer teaching, learning and assessment along a judicious pathway that maximises learning while avoiding the risks of missed opportunities and reduced standards. Conclusions