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

Sources The AAGLO project (Barrie, Hughes and Crisp ) – including investigation of assessment and assurance practices related to graduate learning outcomes across seven disciplines in Australian universities – Case study (Hughes 2012) of UQ implementation of Archaeology benchmark statements (Beck and Clarke 2008) National GAP project (Barrie, Hughes and Smith 2009) SOURCES

Overview OPPORTUNITIES RISKS OVERVIEW

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

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

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

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