Denise Chalmers HERDSA 2017, Sydney 28 June, 2017 Challenges to building capacity for curriculum transformation through standards and performance criteria   Denise Chalmers HERDSA 2017, Sydney 28 June, 2017 National Senior Teaching Fellowship (OLT)

Most relevant Higher Educational Standards (2015) for curriculum transformation Domain 1 Student participation and attainment 1.4 Learning outcomes and assessment Domain 3 Teaching 3.1 Course design 3.2 Staffing 3.3 Learning resources and educational support Domain 5 Institutional quality assurance 5.1 Course approval and accreditation 5.2 Academic and research integrity 5.3 Monitoring review and improvement All intertwined and dependent on each other but the danger is that they can (and do) become disaggregated eg, learning outcomes and assessment, course design, learning resources and course approval and accreditation become steps that are separated and treated as the domain of the teacher, or by administrative processes separated from the teachers and course coordinators. - often done with the best intentions.. EG the documentation and governance processes for course approval and accreditation can be very onerous, particularly when reaccreditation is being undertaken,

Who does the curriculum work? Academics (alone / team) Course / Program coordinator Associate Deans (T & L) Learning/educational designers Elearning/instructional designers Learning support /advisors Librarians Third party providers eg MOOCs, Khan institute, Apple U, Utube, publishing companies, courses under licence Sessional staff Student tutors Students Other ?

Who does the Quality Assurance work ? ? Who does the Quality Assurance work ? Program coordinators Associate deans (E) Administrators Planning / Information Office Committees (T & L / Curriculum) Faculty / Uni Academic Boards Senior administrators eg Deans, P/DVC, External / internal reviewers Other Academics (alone / team) Course / Program coordinator Associate Deans (T & L) Learning/educational designers Elearning/instructional designers Learning support /advisors Librarians Third party providers eg MOOCs, Sessional staff Student tutors Students Other So while there might be some interaction often the work is disaggregated at the curriculum design and teaching level of work, between people in the second column. But the work is also disaggregated at the quality assurance column, and then if we look between the two for overlap, there is very little. Part of this division of labour has been to try and reduce the workload of academics, and part of it has been in response to risk management So how is this being dealt with in institutions

Role clarification response ? Role clarification response ? ? Course coordinator role Program coordinator role Curriculum team management and review role Associate Deans – T & L, Curriculum, Students, Quality Academic role Teaching focused role Sessional/ casual/ student tutor role Professional staff roles Committee and governance roles and responsibilities etc Increasing Role Definition and Specification To what extent are these specified in role statements, expectations, criteria or are they just assumed to be taking place in your institution? To what extent to these have common or linked or referred reporting roles to supervisors? To what extent do these inform performance management and review processes

Academic B role eg AUTCAS Criterion 1:  Design and planning of learning activities Planning, development and preparation of learning activities, learning resources and materials for a unit, course or degree program; including coordination, involvement or leadership in curriculum design and development Indicative Standards Indicative Evidence Deep knowledge of discipline area Well planned learning activities designed to develop the students learning Scholarly/informed approach to learning design Thorough knowledge of the unit & its contribution in the course Effective and appropriate use of learning technologies Effective unit/ course coordination Peer review by Program coordinator Unit/course outline and materials Report from course coordinator Student surveys and feedback to students on response/outcomes Student /Tutor /teacher feedback Expert peer review on course materials External peer recognition on impact of curriculum, discipline or innovation Leadership roles & contribution Curriculum, book awards The Australian Teaching Criteria and Standards (AUTCAS) framework is an example of the increasing specification and clarity of expectations and standards for each role. There have been several OLT projects also looking at clarifying the role of the Course and program Co-ordinators, the roles of Associate Deans etc. wwww.uniteachingcriteria.edu.au

Policy, Procedure, Review response ? ? Policy, Procedure, Review response ? Policy Curriculum design, review, submission, iterative approval, procedures Policy Assessment, academic integrity, appeals, procedures Policy Services, support – procedures Review Submission, annual, 5 years (Who?) Review Attrition, progression, completion, other T & L indicators (Who?) Review External, TEQSA, Benchmarking, registration/ accreditation Resources IT, Space, Facilities Governance Committee, ToRs, relationships, integrity and flow of information, approvals Increasing Policy and Review Specification As part of the Compliance and Governance requirements to demonstrate to TEQSA and Accreditation and registration bodies - Policies and procedures, often requiring database submission (that don’t always talk to other enterprise systems To what extent to these have common or linked or referred reporting roles to supervisors? To what extent do these inform performance management and review processes as indicated in the role clarification response

? ? ? Where is the School/ Department response? Institution Individual Level of response ? Individual Role clarification and expectations Performance management Reward and recognition Institution Policy and procedures Review Resources Governance ? I would argue that these levels are at their effective limit on what can be achieved by these two levels alone in terms of Course Transformation and quality assurance for Curriculum An under-utilised but potentially more effective level is that of the School/Department (depending on where the resources and budget are located). Ii is not that Departments are not involved but I would argue that they are often take a more of a clearing house role than a proactive and lead player in Course transformation or in quality assurance. Where is the School/ Department response?

School / Department Level of response Leadership Resources Oversight, monitoring and review Supervision and workload allocation Recognition and reward ? ? Is this the level where both enhancement and assurance can achieve changes in culture and practice? Leadership – tends to be more stable, focused, longer-term and consistent – and without support and resources being allocated at the senior level then it is difficult for academics to engage, even if they want to. It is the responsibility of all of the School leadership – not just delegated to the Associate Dean T & L. Resources – funding is critical for the allocation to the work of curriculum team, admin support, workload allocation to teach and coordinate, allocation of resources for Sessional staff and training throughout the lifecycle of the course Oversight, Monitoring and Review - This requires monitoring – progress on the course transformation, monitoring and tracking student attrition, progression, satisfaction, engagement indicators and prompt intervention when it is warranted – taking a developmental approach – supporting and developing staff capacity, training and support for sessional staff Supervision and workload allocation – Critical that the supervisors are also part of the picture, Recognition and reward – for all aspects of the curriculum and engaged in different roles. - the academics of course, but also the learning designers and advisors, the administrators, the back and front room people involved in the teaching, design, delivery and support, Sessional Staff It largely flows form the top of the School leadership - it can be enacted even if the whole-of-institution does not promote this approach. Strong focused and committed school leadership can achieved this on it initiative. But if it was a supported strategy and commitment using the same sorts of response for the institutional leadership, it will go some way to achieving a robust and responsive curriculum that addresses the students learning needs, and achieves a committed and supported workforce.. Is this the level where both enhancement and assurance can achieve changes in culture and practice? And if so – why has this not been pursued stronger and with more coherence? ?

School / Department Level of response Individual / team School / department Institution ? ? I would argue that we need to make this the primary hub of action and responsibility, with the institutional layer providing oversight and monitoring and benchmarking indicators. And empowering staff but with clear expectations and support, recognition etc, but that the buck stops with the School, not the individual teacher or coordinator. Teaching (as for research) is a team game and Schools have to step up to the key role they have in course and curriculum transformation and the ongoing quality of its programs and teaching How can we avoid this becoming just another bureaucratic layer? ?

http://recognisinguniteaching.edu.au/ denise.chalmers@uwa.edu.au

Contact denise.chalmers@uwa.edu.au Thank you

http://peerreview.recognisinguniteaching.edu.au/

 http://uniteachingcriteria.edu.au/

http://aptts.recognisinguniteaching.edu.au/