A university’s competitive edge: Developing graduate capabilities using 360QP quality enhancement

Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

A University’s Competitive Edge: Developing Graduate Capabilities Using 360QP Quality Enhancement 1 1 1 1 2 1 A. Bill , R. Nash , A-M. Williams , J-A. Kelder , L. Ellis , E. DeSilva 1Faculty 2Faculty

of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia of Science, Engineering & Technology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

Background: Universities operate in an increasingly competitive and regulatory driven environment in which cost-effective, sustainable delivery of quality courses is critical. Sector-wide efficiency requirements makes it imperative to share resources, expertise, and practices in quality enhancement (QE).

Aims: This paper presents a literature review developed to answer two research questions: 1) What resources, expertise and practices related to QE of teaching and learning are in the public domain? 2) What barriers and enablers exist that would help inform strategies to implement a QE system?

Results: The literature review uncovered five main themes and associated findings in regards to Quality in Higher Education (Table 1.). A CoP explored their own teaching contexts and through evidence based discussions, shared resources and the literature developed a common understanding of Quality in Higher Education (Figure 1.).

Theme

1. University Environment

Table 1. Literature review emergent themes and key findings Key finding Complex and dynamic regulatory environment Many stakeholders: TEQSA, professional accrediting bodies, employers, institution Institutional competition for prestige, students and funding

2. Education Quality Assurance

Range from formal regulatory approach to informal provision of resources and tools Quality systems fragmented Many elements of quality assurance exist, e.g. benchmarking 360QP based on UTAS oADRI and AACSB International

3. Barriers & Enablers

Barriers: limited time, resources and buy-in, cultural change, reluctance to share Enablers: collegial approach, top-down, bottom-up, effective and efficient processes

4. Cataloguing Tools

Vet resources through evidence-based processes and independent audit

5. Implementation Strategies

Broad definition of stakeholder and purposeful stakeholder management “Just-in time, just for me” Combined top-down bottom-up approach

Discussion: The literature review (Table 1.), in conjunction with discussion and reflection between the members of a CoP, informed Quality Pursuit’s (360QP) philosophical stance and the community’s evolution. At its heart, 360QP is a grass roots approach to Quality Enhancement (QE) aimed at improving learning and teaching at the critical intersection of learner and teacher. It originated out of a CoP of academic teachers and professional staff that had a shared domain of interest in improving their teaching practice through sharing QE tools and resources. Using social learning, community engagement and brokering, this CoP of UTAS subsequently expanded into a national team currently comprising some 22 members, five institutions, and two professional bodies. A collegial approach of dialogue and discussion, building leadership capacity and purposefully acting to support cultural change continues to be emphasised. 360QP is a practical evidenced-based systematic approach to enhancement that may be applied from unit to course level. The 360QP framework provides its CoP with a common understanding and language for discussing Quality in Higher Education and has been informed by existing Quality Frameworks (Table 2.)

Conclusion: A focus on improving graduate capabilities offered by 360QP will meet the needs of all stakeholders (students, academics, employers, regulators) and result in improvement in learning and teaching, providing a university’s competitive edge. Following the inclusive spirit of the 360QP CoP, a miniMOOC will be developed and trialled in 2016. It will share this common language and resources further, connect national peers to share best practice and enable continued development and support quality enhancement at every level of activity in the Higher Education sector. Register your interest by completing our online survey using the scan code to your right or here http://www.assuringlearning.com/quality-pursuit

Figure 1. Quality Pursuit ‘s 6 segments; a CoP’s understanding of Quality in Higher Education.

Table 2. Quality Frameworks (O)ADRI (UTAS, Alistair Broatch, 2013)

Four Step Quality Cycle (UoW Curriculum Transformation 2014)

Course Enhancement Ready, Aim, Fire (Fullan & Scott 2006) –key stages (Deakin Learning Futures 2013)

Objectives Approach

Plan

Scoping

Ready

Deployment

Act

Redesigning

Fire

Results

Review

Resourcing

Aim

Improvement CRICOS: 00586B

Improve

Evaluating

Hunters & Gatherers (Lawson et al. 2013) AACSB (2013) White paper 3.

1.Establish graduate attributes and measurable learning outcomes (ILOs) 2. Map ILOs to suitable units of study. 3.Align relevant assessment tasks to assure ILOs 4.Communicate ILOs to students 5. Collect data 6. Report student performance in the ILOs 7. Review reports to identify areas for program development.

Quality Pursuit Framework (UTAS CoP, 2015)

The CoP’s definition of Quality Enhancement is taken from Macquarie University’s Quality Enhancement Framework Policy, which states that QE is ‘a systematic, future directed, continuous cycle of goal setting, planning, managing and reviewing, within an appropriate governance framework [...] aimed at transformation…” (Macquarie University, 2012).

1. Purpose 2. Intended Learning Outcomes 3. Curriculum Mapping 4. Collecting Evidence

5. Benchmarking & Review

6. Closing the Loop

GIVE US YOUR VOICE ON QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION. SCAN CODE TO COMPLETE ONLINE SURVEY. Closes 31/7/2015

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.