aap benchmarking resources booklet

Support for the production of this resource has been provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. The views expressed in this resource do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, all material presented in this document is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.

Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to:

Office for Learning and Teaching Department of Education GPO Box 9880, Location code N255EL10 Sydney NSW 2001 <[email protected]>

Welcome

The Office for Learning and Teaching Extension Grant, Advancing Academic Professionalisation: National Benchmarking of Graduate Certificates for Higher Education drew together six institutional partners, to create resources to:

1. Develop a benchmarking template and guide

2. Investigate current approaches to Graduate Certificates, and

3. Produce a core list of comment elements in Graduate Certificates.

Each of the partner institutions had a Graduate Certificate program which played a key role in advancing teaching quality within our institutional contexts. Through the course of the project, the team noted sector changes, including the creation or discontinuation of a number of Graduate Certificates and a move towards greater variety in the forms of formal professional development opportunities with a similar purpose to our original Graduate Certificates. Thus this resource came to focus more broadly on those offerings. This benchmarking resource is targeted at those who are responsible for managing, designing, delivering, assessing and evaluating formal professional development to assess the current state of their offering and to learn from a comparison with standards and with other institutional approaches, to enhance those offerings.

While we hope that the documented advice contained herein will provide a great starting point, as a team our learning from this grant has been enriched from the dialogue that it has engaged us in, both within the team and with those who provided feedback and critical advice. The quality of our programs has been enhanced as a result. We encourage you to ‘continue the conversation’ with us as we seek to advance the professionalisation of teaching in higher education.

Karen Whelan

Project Leader

1

Contents

Welcome 1

Guide to Benchmarking Formal Academic Professional Development Opportunities 4

Purpose and Introduction 4

What is Benchmarking? 4

Overview of the Process of Benchmarking Described in this Guide 4

The Benchmarking Template: Details and Benchmarks 5

Undertaking a Benchmarking Project 6

Benchmark Exemplars 9

Institutional Strategic Intent 9

Program/Course/Module Outcomes 11

Content and Learning and Teaching Approaches 11

Assessment, Feedback and Moderation 13

Evaluation 15

Glossary of Terms Used in this Benchmarking Resource 16

References 18

Appendix A: Benchmarking Template for Formal Academic Professional Development Opportunities 19

B E N C H M A R K I N G F O R M A L A C A D E M I C P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S4

Guide to Benchmarking Formal Academic Professional Development Opportunities

Purpose and IntroductionIncreasingly higher education institutions are offering formal academic professional development opportunities to their staff as one strategy to address teaching quality, through advancing academic professionalisation of teaching. This guide is designed to assist in the process of review and improvement of formal academic professional development. It supports those responsible for managing, designing, delivering, assessing and evaluating these opportunities to undertake a benchmarking project on all aspects of a program, course or module. A range of formal academic professional development opportunities are currently offered in higher education institutions including (but not limited to):

• Graduate Certificates in Higher Education, Tertiary Teaching or Academic Practice

• Foundations of University Teaching programs

• Other modularised forms of formal academic professional development that may be recognised via internal or external fellowships or recognition schemes.

Because of the variation in institutional naming conventions and to simplify this guide, these opportunities are referred to as program/course/module. Further, academic staff who support learning and teaching who are undertaking a program/course/module are referred to as a ‘participant’ in contrast to enrolled ‘students’ that the participants may teach.

What is Benchmarking?Benchmarking is a systematic process of comparison between current practice and external standards of performance or partners (or both). It focuses on:

• Assessing the current state as a means of quality assurance; and

• Learning from the comparison to inform quality enhancement.

Benchmarks can also be useful in informing the design of future practice. Benchmarking is a systematic process that must be planned and managed if it is to achieve the desired outcomes.

Overview of the Process of Benchmarking Described in this GuideThe benchmarks developed for this guide are designed to be used in one of two ways:

1. To undertake internal benchmarking against the standards outlined: in this case the guide provides templates for gathering data, conducting a self-review and identifying issues and good practices.

2. To undertake benchmarking with appropriate partners: in this case the guide provides advice on finding and forming partnerships, approaches to reviewing between partners and a process for comparing issues and good practices.

(Based on Wills et al, 2013)

Deciding to undertake an internal benchmarking process can be a means to open up conversation within an institution and draw together stakeholders across a range of areas. The decision to choose external partners will be informed by the desired outcomes. In some cases this will best be achieved through choosing a partner who is institutionally similar or with a similar program, course or module, but in others it may be more fruitful to look for a partner who differs in some way. It may also be that the choice is an opportunistic one, due to location or an existing relationship with a colleague within the partner institution.

B E N C H M A R K I N G F O R M A L A C A D E M I C P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S 5

The Benchmarking Template: Details and BenchmarksAt the back of this guide, you will find a Benchmarking Template (see Appendix A). There are two sections to the Benchmarking template. The first section collects together the details of the program/course/module being benchmarked and were developed alongside the benchmarks themselves, reflecting the important contextual elements that may impact on decisions about the management, design, delivery, assessment and evaluation of the program/course/module of formal professional development. These details provide a context for the second section which includes ten benchmarks, organised within a number of overall categories, as summarised below.

Institutional Strategic Intent

• Benchmark One Institutional plans reflect a commitment to the program/course/module as a means to improve teaching quality for academic staff.

• Benchmark Two The program/course/module is supported by university policies, systems and processes.

Program/Course/

Module Outcomes

• Benchmark Three The program/course/module learning outcomes are articulated, communicated to participants and potential participants, and connected to internal and external referents.

Content and Learning and Teaching Approaches

• Benchmark Four Content is updated in light of developments in the field of higher education/academic practice.

• Benchmark Five Content and learning and teaching approaches are constructively aligned.

• Benchmark Six Learning and teaching approaches model evidence-based scholarship and practice.

Assessment, Feedback and Moderation

• Benchmark Seven A suite of appropriate assessment opportunities are used to evidence learning.

• Benchmark Eight The program/course/module consistently applies internal and external moderation to assure quality of assessment practices.

• Benchmark Nine Formative assessment and meaningful feedback are used to actively support participant learning.

Evaluation• Benchmark Ten There is a systematic approach to evaluation and

enhancement in place.

Figure 1: Summary of Categories and Benchmarks

Each benchmark is a statement of good practice for formal academic professional development activities. These benchmarks were developed by the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) Extension Project Team, informed by:

• Previous OLT grants, in particular the 2012 project: Measuring the Effectiveness of Academic Professional Development (Chalmers et al, 2012).

• The Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development (CADAD) Report: “Benchmarking Performance of Academic Development Units in Australian Universities” (CADAD, 2010).

• Feedback and consultation with CADAD members at two face-to-face meetings.

• A presentation at the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) Conference, Stockholm, 18 June 2014.

• Trialling and testing the benchmarks both within the project team and a survey of all Australian universities through their Directors of Academic Development Units (or equivalent).

For each benchmark, this guide also provides explanations of practice created by the project team that meet the required ‘Yes’ (Level 4) standard. While they were informed by the input of survey respondents, they were written with a fictitious ideal in mind.


Undertaking a Benchmarking ProjectThis section of the guide outlines the stages of undertaking a benchmarking project. Each stage is described for both internal and external benchmarking.

Broadly the stages of a benchmarking project are:

1. Determine purpose, scope, internal team and external partner/s

2. Engage internal stakeholders and develop and agree a project plan

3. Gather evidence for your program/course/module

4. Conduct a self-review

5. Conduct a comparative review (external benchmarking only)

6. Synthesise your findings and communicate as appropriate

1. Determine purpose, scope, internal team and external partner/s

Benchmarking may be undertaken for a range of purposes. For example:

• To demonstrate the quality of your program/course/module to an internal, institutional audience;

• To inform an internal review;

• As part of a cyclical moderation, evaluation or accreditation process;

• To check institutional readiness and/or plan for the management, design, delivery, assessment and evaluation of a new program/course/module;

• To learn from others about alternative ways to achieve quality in your program/course/module;

• To demonstrate the quality of your program/course/module as compared to others.

The first phase of an internal benchmarking project is to clarify the purpose and scope of undertaking the benchmarking activity. This may well depend on other drivers within your institution and where you sit within the organisation. Given that few programs/courses/modules are the responsibility of a single individual, it is best at this stage to identify an internal project team, who can work with you, as project leader, to complete the later stages. Depending on purpose you may want to confirm a project sponsor, who may be a member of the University Executive and can be a champion for the activity, or whose approval may be required before proceeding. Many universities also have internal benchmarking policies and guidelines, so ensure that you have checked on these and modified your approach to align with them.

For external benchmarking projects, it is at this stage that you will need to identify a potential partner or partners. The purpose of the project will guide your choice, and it may be that partners have different purposes, but at the very least you should agree on what role each will take and what outcomes you hope to achieve. Remember that partners will need to go through their own internal process described in stages 2, 3 and 4 as well so it may take some time to negotiate a shared focus and get the approval or support required at a number of institutions. The value in engaging with an external partner can be both in ‘seeing’ your program/course/module in a different light and learning about alternate ways to achieve quality. Involvement of project teams across partner institutions makes the management more complex (e.g. will you bring the whole teams together or just the project leaders?), so take this into account when thinking through the time-scale required and the location of potential partners.


2. Engage internal stakeholders and develop and agree on a plan

As well as an internal project sponsor, internal project team members and partner/s, there will be a range of internal stakeholders for any program/course/module across many levels of the university. Identifying and engaging stakeholders early will allow you to draw on them for evidence, and disseminate the outcomes in a timely and influential manner. Crookes et al, (2014) outlined a model for Stakeholder Engagement and Management for change processes, which is useful to consider in a benchmarking context (see Figure 2).

Thus you might:

• Involve those who are highly engaged in the program/course/module and who have considerable impact on its quality as internal project team members;

• Manage those who have a high impact on the program/course/module without much engagement in its day to day activity (Senior Staff for example) by being proactive in briefing them on the benchmarking project and outcomes, with a particular focus on quality assurance;

• Inform those who are highly engaged with the program/course/module but who may have little impact and keep them updated on how the project will focus on quality enhancement;

• Monitor others through a more general communication strategy.

to be managed to increase engagement

to be closely involved with the process

to be monitored to be kept informed

high

low

ENGAGEMENT

highlowIMPACT

Figure 2: Model for Stakeholder Engagement and Management Source: Crookes et al, (2014)

A project plan will be important for keeping the benchmarking process on track. Determining a timeline, milestones, responsibilities, management approach, communication and reporting are all part of the project plan. If you have an external partner, you may have an overarching plan for the project as well as an internal plan.


3. Gather evidence for your program/course/module

Self-review against the benchmarks relies on you being able to find evidence of program/course/module practices against each one. Both quantitative data and qualitative information are useful in thinking about your program/course/module. This stage of the process may take longer than expected, if the evidence is either dispersed across different areas or does not yet exist. This stage and the next may overlap.

4. Conduct a self-review

Once you have gathered together evidence, it is time to undertake a self-review against the benchmarks. Remember that they are statements of good practice. While an individual may be able to undertake the self-review, drawing together the internal project team at a face-to-face event, will provide rich dialogue and a stronger rationale for the rating. Again, this takes time (at least a whole day), and may be best split over a number of get-togethers. As you begin to rate your program/course/module against the benchmarks, you may find that you need to go back and draw in more evidence or create more (through focus groups or interviews, for example). The exemplar section in this guide includes explanations for each benchmark statement which will help you to determine a rating.

Even if you have an external partner, an internal self-review is an important first step before engaging in a comparative discussion.

Once you have gathered evidence, read the exemplar for each benchmark in the next section of this guide, and then rate according to the scale between Level 5 and Level 1, with Level 5 being the highest standard of outcomes and Level 1 being an absence of quality as defined in the benchmark (see Table 1).

Table 1: Explanation of Self-Rating Levels

Level 5 Yes, and… This practice or strategy is considered as an innovative exemplar.

Level 4 Yes Effective strategies are implemented successfully across the program/course/module.

Level 3 Yes, but… Good strategies in place, some limitations or further work needed.

Level 2 No, but… This area has not yet been effectively addressed, but some significant work is being done.

Level 1 No No effective strategies e.g. not addressed, addressed only in isolated parts, notionally addressed but major barriers to implementation.

5. Conduct a comparative review (external benchmarking only)

There are a number of ways to choose an external benchmarking partner such as those in close geographical proximity, established institutional relationships or partnerships or similarities in program/course/module design. Once an institutional partner/s is chosen decisions need to be made about how to approach the comparative benchmarking process, for example you may choose common areas of interest or look for areas where there is disparity in ratings.

The value in having an external benchmarking partner is best achieved through sitting down together, either physically or virtually, and comparing your self-review outcomes. This happens through a ‘face-to-face’ meeting over a focused time period (such as a whole day workshop). As for an internal self-review, it may be a good idea to break it up over time, so the new ideas you gain from seeing another institution’s approach can inform better evidence gathering and further sharing. The comparative review might happen with whole teams from each institution or it may be that only project leaders come together. At the conclusion of your comparative review, you may wish to write some form of report or feedback to the project leader of your partner institution/s to use within their internal reporting. Alternatively you may create a single representation of the partner practices which you can all include in your final report.


6. Synthesise your findings and communicate as appropriate

After the self-review and comparative process it is important to consolidate your findings, checking back on your original purpose to guide your final communication strategy (to whom and in what form?). One way you can present your outcomes is through identifying three areas which can be linked to rating levels:

1. Commendations for those areas where you are meeting or exceeding good practice (Levels 4-5)

2. Affirmations for those areas in which you have already begun to improve but are not yet meeting good practice (Levels 2–3)

3. Recommendations for those areas that are not meeting good practice and need action to address (Levels 1–2)

At this stage you may also wish to develop an action plan for future activity that is informed by the internal and/or external benchmarking.

For external benchmarking you may wish to create an internal report for each partner as well as an overarching communication about the process and outcomes.

Benchmark Exemplars

Further to the self-rating table in the previous section, this section provides example answers and further information to guide your thinking about your particular answers to both the rationale and evidence sections of the benchmarking template. Definitions of terms used in this resource can be found in the Glossary of Terms (see page 17). Each benchmark is outlined including a list of the guiding questions found in the template, then in the boxes below are generic answers written to the standard of a Level 4 ‘Yes’ response. To answer ‘Yes’ to each benchmark your institution should be able to address all the relevant questions in the list. The process you took to reach the level recorded would answer the ‘Rationale’ section for each benchmark. Also, you will find suggested sources of evidence to support your rationale in this section. It should be noted that the examples provided are not an exhaustive list and your institution may have other ways to evidence your answer.

Institutional Strategic Intent

Benchmark One

Institutional plans reflect a commitment to the program/course/module as a means to improve teaching quality for academic staff.

To answer ‘Yes’ to this benchmark the institution should be able to address all these dot points.

• Does the program/course/module appear in university plans?

• How is the program/course/module aligned to university plans for teaching quality?

• How do university plans reflect commitment e.g. workloads, recognition/reward, funding, employment requirements?

• Does the university provide funding for the program/course/module to relevant Learning and Teaching and/or Education Units?


Exemplar:

The importance of high quality learning and teaching is reflected in university strategic objectives. While the program/course/module is not explicitly mentioned at the highest level, a cascading articulation of this commitment flows from this level to lower level university plans and strategies. The program/course/module is aligned to these objectives and is an integral part of the Learning and Teaching unit’s strategic plans. This alignment is reviewed on a regular basis. Commitment to these objectives is demonstrated through activities such as professional development opportunities, supportive workload allocations, funding sponsorship for program/course/module participation, support for probationary teaching requirements and/or applications for teaching awards.

Sources of Evidence:

1. Publically available University Strategic Plan which references the importance of quality learning and teaching as a priority.

2. Learning and Teaching Plan references professional learning and the Grad Cert as a means for staff to engage in professional learning.

3. Evidence of commitment could include financial priorities and resource allocations.

Benchmark Two

The program/course/module is supported by university policies, systems and processes


• Is the program/course/module mandated for specific staff cohorts? If so, for whom?

• How is it recognised in university processes e.g. promotion, performance planning, teaching awards?

• Is program/course/module participation recognised in workload allocations? If so, how?

Exemplar:

Participation in the program/course/module is an integrated part of academic practice both for newly recruited academics as part of their probation requirements and for ongoing academics through professional development opportunities. The program/course is recognised strategically by the university as an important part of evidencing continual improvement of staff academic practice. As such completion of the Graduate Certificate is recognised in workload allocation and staff are sponsored to attend the program.


1. Promotion criteria that mentions completion of program/course/module

2. Workload allocation policies and approaches

3. Induction/probation requirements for new academics recruits

4. Institutional reporting on participation and completion.


Program/Course/Module Outcomes

Benchmark Three

The program/course/module learning outcomes are articulated, communicated to participants and potential participants, and connected to internal and external referents.


• Are the program/course/module outcomes written in a clear and concise way so all concerned can understand their meaning and application?

• How are the program/course/module learning outcomes communicated to participants e.g. induction, information sessions?

• How are the learning outcomes connected to internal referents e.g. university graduate capabilities, promotion standards?

• How are the learning outcomes connected to external referents e.g. AQF; Higher Education Standards Framework, HEA, other international referents?

Exemplar:

Each program/course/module learning outcome is clearly designed using a strategically chosen verb that leads a simple and succinct description. They are also explicitly aligned to internal referents, such as graduate capabilities or promotion standards and regularly reviewed as part of the institution’s internal curriculum processes. Similarly, the connection between the program/course/module learning outcomes and external referents e.g. AQF, HEA should be explicit so students know the wider context and connections of their intended learning outcomes. They are available both at the institutional and student levels giving a consistent understanding to all stakeholders. Every appropriate opportunity is taken to communicate the learning outcomes and their links with internal and external referents with current and potential participants in a timely fashion through avenues such as the handbook, website, induction, orientation.


1. Orientation resources for participants

2. Copies of program/course/module learning outcomes

3. Marketing or promotional material

4. Curriculum mapping against appropriate referents


Content and Learning and Teaching Approaches

Benchmark Four

Content is updated in light of developments in the field of higher education/academic practice

To answer ‘Yes’ to this benchmark the institution should be able to address this dot point.

• How and when are decisions made about updating content?

Exemplar:

Content is regularly updated so that guiding principles and theoretical concepts are reflective of the scholarly higher education literature. While the program/course/module adheres to the Institution’s formal 5 year review cycle (which includes an external reviewer), minor changes and enhancements to content occur annually in response to feedback from students, peers and assessors. Though a number of resources (including textbooks) are recommended to students, the increasing number of relevant and readily available e-books and other online publications ensures that content remains current and accessible.


1. Prescribed textbooks and readings

2. Change log of updates, version control of curriculum documents

Benchmark Five

Content and learning and teaching approaches are constructively aligned

To answer ‘Yes’ to this benchmark the institution should be able to address these dot points.

• How is alignment to outcomes evidenced?

• How is the content and learning and teaching approaches aligned to the needs of participants?

Exemplar:

The program/course/module has been designed around the principles of constructive alignment, and is assured via the team development process at both program/course/module and unit/course level. This is evidenced through clear mapping of program/course/module learning outcomes to each unit, and the inclusion of constructive alignment as a theme/topic within units of work.


1. Course documentation

2. Assessment task specifications

3. Mapping of assessment tasks to learning outcomes

Benchmark Six

Learning and teaching approaches model evidence-based scholarship and practice


• How does the program/course/module incorporate learning technologies both in delivering content and as an area of program/course/module content?

• What model/s underpins the program/course/module’s teaching pedagogy?


• Does the content link to contemporary scholarship and practice around student experience and student success? If so, how?

• Do participants and teachers/educators work together to construct learning and assessment?

Exemplar:

The approach to learning and teaching is clearly articulated in course/unit/module outlines for the program/course/module. Sound curriculum design principles underpin the course with constructive alignment ensured through the team based approach to design and development, and evidenced in curriculum mapping. Key elements of the approach to teaching and learning include active, collaborative learning and reflective practice. Authentic assessment is designed to be adaptive to new demands in learning within particular discipline areas. Teaching and assessment include effective use of appropriate technologies and innovation. A blended learning approach is adopted combining a mix of face to face and online elements. Opportunity for collaboration and negotiation between educators and participants in developing learning activities and assessment is welcomed.


1. Session plans

2. Websites

3. Reading lists

4. Technologies used

Assessment, Feedback and Moderation

Benchmark Seven

A suite of appropriate assessment opportunities are used to evidence learning


• Does the assessment constructively align with the learning outcomes?

• Does the assessment adhere to the principles of assessment design including equity, validity, reliability, authenticity and balance between individual and group?

• How is assessment (formative and summative) used to engage participants in productive learning?

• What types of assessment are used?

• What use is made of peer and self-assessment?

Exemplar:

Scholarly learning and teaching principles underpin the assessment practices in the program. A variety of learning activities and assessment types are used (e.g. written or oral, individual or group). These tasks are designed to be relevant and situated in ‘real world’ contexts while only evaluating what is explicitly stated will be assessed. Students are clear on what is required of them in their assessment tasks. Use is made of formative assessment, peer feedback and assessment as well as encouraging the students’ development of self-assessment and reflective practice e.g. ePortfolios.


1. Example course/unit assessment descriptors

2. Course/unit review documentation

3. Website information – handbook details

4. Example resources used in practice


Benchmark Eight

The program/course/module consistently applies internal and external moderation to assure the quality of assessment practices.


• Do you have a process of internal moderation across the marking team?

• Is there a quality assured process for managing assessment?

• Is there a process for ensuring calibration of marking through preparing markers for their role?

• Do you have external moderation as part of a periodic review?

Exemplar:

A moderator is assigned to each program/course/module and is responsible for organising appropriate and timely moderation of assessment practices. This includes the development and implementation of tools to ensure consistency across marking and quality standards. The assigned moderator manages differences of opinion and judgement calls between markers and facilitates positive outcomes. Markers understand the purpose of moderation and are skilled in the use of moderation tools. Use is made of external moderation processes and benchmarking practices with other universities on a regular basis e.g. as part of a periodic review.


1. Moderation policies or guidelines

2. Reports on program/course/module moderation

Benchmark Nine

Formative assessment and meaningful feedback are used to actively support participant learning.


• How is feedback provided?

• How is feedback used to actively improve participant learning?

• Is formative assessment systematically embedded in the learning process? If so, how?

• How are rubrics used?

Exemplar:

Feedback is provided on all assessments (formative and summative) by staff members. Our program policies state that feedback will be provided within two weeks of the assessment due date and includes suggestions on how to improve. It is provided via a variety of means, depending on delivery mode, and includes: our electronic marking system, online collaborative sessions, email, quizzes and rubrics. Drafts of major assignments can be submitted for staff feedback. Self or peer assessment is frequently used, preceding staff feedback, to develop students’ understanding of required standards.


1. Feedback processes used

2. Samples of written feedback


Evaluation

Benchmark Ten

There is a systematic approach to evaluation and enhancement in place.


• What forms of evaluation are used? How often?

• What opportunities are there for students to provide feedback?

• How is evaluation used to enhance the program/course/module?

• In what ways is the impact of the program/course/module evaluated?

• How does the program/course/module incorporate new and innovative practices?

Exemplar:

There is a planned cycle of evaluation at the program/course/module level as well as within individual subjects/courses/units. Participants are invited to provide feedback through a range of mechanisms including anonymous survey, focus groups, a participant advisory group, or similar. Longer term impact of the program/course/module is determined by contacting successful participants after completion and monitoring other outcomes (including the student feedback from participant teaching, success rates in promotion, awards and grants, etc.). The loop is closed on evaluation data through demonstrated enhancements over time.


• Participant feedback data

• Evaluation reporting

• Enhancement reporting/changes

• Other impact data including student feedback, promotion success, awards and grants success


Glossary of Terms Used in this Benchmarking Resource

Term Definition

Academic Practice The description of academic work that emphasises the linkage and impact of all professional aspects: learning and teaching, research and service.

Academic Professionalisation A movement to recognise the teaching function of academic work as a professional endeavour that involves appropriate preparation through professional learning and the need for ongoing professional learning opportunities.

Articulated Expressed clearly in written form

Assessment Formal and informal evaluation of individuals or groups to grade learning at specific points in time, or foster progression in learning over time or build a learner’s capacity to self-monitor and self-evaluate.

Authentic Assessment Assessment that focuses on using and applying knowledge and skills in real world or simulated setting that model the real world.

Benchmark A good practice standard of performance against which local practice can be measured.

Benchmarking Template A form that can be used to describe practice, rate performance and undertake self-review and/or comparative against pre-defined benchmarks or other practices.

Constructively Aligned There is continuity and agreement between learning and teaching elements (teaching approaches, assessment and outcomes) and these elements allow learners to construct meaning and outcomes.

Evaluation A process of judging performance or outcome against some standard or value.

Evidence Objective support for your rating alongside the particular rationale or point of view e.g. policies, reports, web links, data

External Benchmarking Comparison of practice against the performance of a partner institution

External Referent A standard defined beyond the institutional context that is used as a point of reference for design or evaluation.

Formal Academic Professional Development Opportunities

Formal programs are ‘those which are accredited, mandated or required, and offered in either intensive (one to three days) or extended (usually from one semester to two year) mode’ (Chalmers, et al, 2012).

Formative Assessment Assessment focused on providing feedback to learners to foster progression in learning over time and to build a learner’s capacity to self-monitor and self-evaluate.

Good Practice A performance standard that has general recognition of superior outcomes and impacts.

Higher Education The purpose of universities and those organisations that offer degree level educational outcomes.

Internal Referents A standard defined within the institutional context that is used as a point of reference for design or evaluation.


Term Definition

Internal Benchmarking Comparison of practice against a pre-defined set of benchmarks

Learning Technologies The use of technology to support pedagogy and to enhance learning outcomes.

Moderation (internal and external) Moderation includes: feedback on the suitability of the designed assessment for allowing participants to demonstrate their learning; ensuring consistency in the application of standards; and checking the standards against external referents.

Participant Academic staff and staff who support learning and teaching who are undertaking the formal academic professional program/course/module.

Pedagogy The approach taken towards learning and teaching by educators

Practice Refers to actual application or the way of doing work, in contrast to abstract theoretical notions about work or activity

Program/Course/Module A coherently designed learning experience that leads to defined learning outcomes. In this project it refers to the formal academic professional development opportunities offered.

Quality Effectiveness of practices in achieving defined outcomes

Quality Assessment Tasks Assessment tasks that are designed according to principles of assessment design including equity, validity, reliability, authenticity and balance between individual and group.

Quality Assurance Processes that work to maintain the quality of practice at a pre-defined standard

Quality Enhancement Processes that seek to improve the quality of practices and outcomes

Rationale An explanation of why a certain argument or way of thinking was used and how this supports the ranking against the benchmark.

Rubrics A matrix used in criterion referenced assessment systems that define the criteria and relevant standards of achievement against those criteria. Used to communicate to learners and markers the expectations for assessment outcomes.

Scholarship A characteristic of academic work that emphasises the link between theory, research and practice.

Self-review A formalised and documented approach to assessment against each benchmark, conducted in a collaborative and collegial way.

Standard The level of attainment

Students Enrolled students who participants may teach

Student Experience and Success Recognition of the impact of the broad range

University Plans High level institutional strategic plan that guide the university’s learning and teaching practices

University Policies, Systems and Processes

The agreed upon documents, organisational structures and operating procedures that impact learning and teaching, academic work and attendant practices within an institution.

Workload Allocations Calculated number of hours required to complete as part of employment responsibilities


References

CADAD (2010) Benchmarking Performance of Academic Development Units in Australian Universities. Available from: http://cadad.edu.au/pluginfile.php/401/course/section/78/Benchmarking_Report.pdf

Chalmers, D., Stoney, S., Goody, A., Goerke, V. and Gardiner, D. (2012) Measuring the effectiveness of academic professional development: Identification and implementation of indicators and measures of effectiveness of teaching preparation programs for academics in higher education (Final Report). The University of Western Australia, Curtin University & Edith Cowan University.

Crookes, P., Booth, S., Outram, S. and Stainton, C. (2014) Transforming Practice Programme, 2013-2014: Promotion, Policy and Process. Presentation at the Office for Learning and Teaching, Transforming Practice Programme Start-up Day.

Wills, S., Brown, C., Cashmore, A., Cane, C., Sadler, D., Booth, S., McHanwell, S., Robson, S. (2013) Promoting teaching: making evidence count (Benchmarking Guide). The Higher Education Academy, UK.


Appendix A: Benchmarking Template for Formal1 Academic Professional Development Opportunities

This template and accompanying benchmarking guide were developed as part of the Advancing Academic Professionalisation: National Benchmarking of Graduate Certificates for Higher Education research project funded by the Australian Office for Learning and Teaching. This project was a collaborative partnerships between six participating universities (Queensland University of Technology, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Monash, Griffith, Macquarie and James Cook Universities) and had three deliverables: develop a benchmarking template and guide for use in formal academic professional development programs/courses/modules; summarise approaches to graduate certificates and alternatives in higher education; and produce a core list of common elements in graduate certificates to inform the future collaborative development of modules and resources that could be shared across the sector.

Benchmarking is a systematic process of comparison between current practice and external standards of performance or partners (or both). It focuses on:

• Assessing the current state as a means of quality assurance; and

• Learning from the comparison to inform quality enhancement.

Benchmarks can also be useful in informing the design of future practice. Benchmarking is a systematic process that must be planned and managed if it is to achieve the desired outcomes. The benchmarks developed for this guide are designed to be used as internal benchmarking against standards and/or benchmarking with external partners. Please refer to the Benchmarking Template Guide for further information on how to use the template.

This template is divided into two sections:

• SECTION ONE: Program/Course/Module Details – this section asks for contextual information about the program/course/module you will be benchmarking.

• SECTION TWO: Benchmarking – this section describes categories that you can use to either do an internal benchmark of your graduate certificate (by comparing with the standards described), or gather data and evidence that you might use to do a cross institutional benchmarking activity (by comparing your responses with one or more partner institutions).

1Formal programs are defined as ‘those which are accredited, mandated or required, and offered in either intensive (one to three days) or extended (usually from one semester to two years) mode’. Source: Chalmers, D, Stoney, S, Goody, A, Goerke, V & Gardiner, D (2012: 17) Identification and implementation of indicators and measures of effectiveness of teaching preparation programs for academics in higher education, Final Report to Office for Learning & Teaching, Sydney.


SEC

TIO

N O

NE

: PR

OG

RA

M/C

OU

RSE

/MO

DU

LE

DE

TAIL

S

Nam

e of

Inst

itutio

n:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Nam

e an

d R

ole

of P

erso

n C

omp

letin

g th

e B

ench

mar

king

Tem

pla

te:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Con

tact

Det

ails

: __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Pro

gram

Web

site

Lin

k: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

(Fill

in t

he fo

llow

ing

tab

le)

Ele

men

tD

etai

ls

Nam

e o

f P

rog

ram

/Co

urse

/Mo

dul

e

Is t

his

an a

ccre

dit

ed/a

pp

rove

d p

rog

ram

/co

urse

/m

od

ule

with

in t

he u

nive

rsity

’s s

truc

ture

?

Ext

erna

l ref

eren

ts t

hat

info

rm t

he p

rogr

am/c

ours

e/m

odul

e?

Wha

t w

as t

he r

atio

nale

for

taki

ng t

his

pat

hway

?

How

doe

s yo

ur e

xter

nal c

onne

ctio

n/s

mee

t yo

ur

exp

ecta

tions

and

nee

ds?

Wha

t ar

eas,

if a

ny, d

oes

it no

t m

eet

thos

e ex

pec

tatio

ns

and

nee

ds?

AQ

F

HE

A U

K P

FS

HE

RD

SA

Fel

low

ship

Sch

eme

Cha

lmer

s’s

TPP

Fra

mew

ork

Aca

dem

ic P

rofe

ssio

nal D

evel

opm

ent

Fram

ewor

k

Aus

tral

ian

Uni

vers

ity T

each

ing

Crit

eria

and

Sta

ndar

ds

Fram

ewor

k

OLT

Pro

fess

iona

lisat

ion

Pro

ject

Oth

er P

leas

e p

rovi

de

det

ails

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

21 B E N C H M A R K I N G F O R M A L A C A D E M I C P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S

Ele

men

tD

etai

ls

Leng

th o

f P

rog

ram

/Co

urse

/Mo

dul

e

Co

hort

Siz

e

Co

hort

Div

ersi

ty (e

.g. i

nter

natio

nal/d

omes

tic,

acad

emic

/pro

fess

iona

l, in

sid

e/ou

tsid

e un

iver

sity

, ap

poi

ntm

ent

typ

e an

d le

vel,

PhD

stu

den

ts, I

ndig

enou

s,

dis

abili

ty, g

end

er)

Att

end

ance

(e.g

. man

dat

ory,

op

tiona

l)

Pre

-req

uisi

tes

for

Ent

ranc

e to

Pro

gra

m/C

our

se/

Mo

dul

e

Ap

pro

ach

to R

eco

gni

tio

n o

f P

rio

r Le

arni

ng

(e.g

. cre

den

tialin

g of

prio

r fo

rmal

and

info

rmal

lear

ning

an

d w

ork-

bas

ed e

xper

ienc

e)

Who

ow

ns t

he P

rog

ram

/Co

urse

/Mo

dul

e?

(e.g

. Tan

dL

unit,

facu

lty)

Who

tea

ches

into

Pro

gra

m/C

our

se/M

od

ule?

Par

tici

pan

t Fu

ndin

g

(e.g

. sel

f-fu

nded

, ful

ly s

upp

orte

d, b

ursa

ry)

Par

tici

pan

t S

upp

ort

(e

.g. e

xpec

ted

wor

kloa

d o

r tim

e re

lief f

or c

omp

letio

n)

22

Ele

men

tD

etai

ls

Wha

t ar

e th

e P

rog

ram

/Co

urse

/Mo

dul

e O

utco

mes

?

Bri

ef D

etai

ls o

f C

our

ses/

Uni

ts in

Pro

gra

m/C

our

se/

Mo

dul

e (in

clud

ing

del

iver

y m

ode)

Num

ber

and

Wei

ght

ing

of

Ass

essm

ent

Task

s in

eac

h C

our

se/U

nit

Op

tio

nal:

Oth

er D

etai

ls

23

SEC

TIO

N T

WO

: BE

NC

HM

AR

KIN

G

Are

yo

u b

ench

mar

king

a C

urre

nt P

rog

ram

/Co

urse

/Mo

dul

e

OR

Futu

re P

rog

ram

/Co

urse

/Mo

dul

e

Ben

chm

arki

ng C

ateg

ori

es f

or

Form

al A

cad

emic

Pro

fess

iona

l Dev

elo

pm

ent

Op

po

rtun

itie

s

This

ben

chm

arki

ng t

emp

late

(bel

ow) i

s d

ivid

ed in

to fi

ve c

ateg

orie

s: in

stitu

tiona

l str

ateg

ic in

tent

; pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

outc

omes

; con

tent

and

ap

pro

ache

s; a

sses

smen

t, fe

edb

ack

and

m

oder

atio

n; a

nd e

valu

atio

n an

d in

nova

tion.

Ten

ben

chm

arks

are

incl

uded

with

in t

hese

dim

ensi

ons.

You

are

ask

ed t

o m

ake

a cu

rren

t st

atus

rat

ing

agai

nst

each

ben

chm

ark

mea

sure

d o

n a

scal

e b

etw

een

Leve

l 5 a

nd L

evel

1, w

ith L

evel

5 b

eing

the

mos

t ev

iden

t of

qua

lity

outc

omes

and

Lev

el 1

sho

win

g th

e le

ast

amou

nt o

f evi

den

ce in

qua

lity,

as

exp

lain

ed in

the

follo

win

g ta

ble

.

Leve

l 5Ye

s, a

nd…

This

pra

ctic

e or

str

ateg

y is

con

sid

ered

as

an in

nova

tive

exem

pla

r.

Leve

l 4Ye

sE

ffect

ive

stra

tegi

es a

re im

ple

men

ted

suc

cess

fully

acr

oss

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule.

Leve

l 3Ye

s, b

ut…

Goo

d s

trat

egie

s in

pla

ce, s

ome

limita

tions

or

furt

her

wor

k ne

eded

.

Leve

l 2N

o, b

ut…

This

are

a ha

s no

t ye

t b

een

effe

ctiv

ely

add

ress

ed, b

ut s

ome

sign

ifica

nt w

ork

is b

eing

don

e.

Leve

l 1N

oN

o ef

fect

ive

stra

tegi

es e

.g. n

ot a

dd

ress

ed, a

dd

ress

ed o

nly

in is

olat

ed p

arts

, not

iona

lly a

dd

ress

ed b

ut m

ajor

bar

riers

to

imp

lem

enta

tion.

No

te: T

he w

ord

‘par

ticip

ant’

is u

sed

to

mea

n ac

adem

ic s

taff

and

sta

ff w

ho s

upp

ort

lear

ning

and

tea

chin

g w

ho a

re s

tud

ents

of t

he d

evel

opm

ent

pro

gram

(as

dis

tinct

from

the

enr

olle

d

stud

ents

tha

t th

e p

artic

ipan

ts m

ay t

each

).

24

Inst

itut

iona

l Str

ateg

ic In

tent

R

atin

g

(Fiv

e p

oin

t sc

ale)

Rat

iona

le

(Why

did

yo

u g

ive

your

self

this

rat

ing

?)E

vid

ence

(P

rovi

de

nam

e an

d w

eb r

efer

ence

if

pub

lical

ly a

vaila

ble

, ref

eren

ce, d

ata

sour

ces,

etc

.)

Ben

chm

ark

1: In

stit

utio

nal p

lans

refl

ect

a co

mm

itm

ent

to t

he

pro

gra

m/c

our

se/m

od

ule

as a

mea

ns t

o im

pro

ve t

each

ing

q

ualit

y fo

r ac

adem

ic s

taff

.

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• D

oes

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

app

ear

in u

nive

rsity

pla

ns?

• H

ow is

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

alig

ned

to

univ

ersi

ty p

lans

fo

r te

achi

ng q

ualit

y?

• H

ow d

o un

iver

sity

pla

ns r

eflec

t co

mm

itmen

t e.

g. w

orkl

oad

s,

reco

gniti

on/r

ewar

d, f

und

ing,

em

plo

ymen

t re

qui

rem

ents

?

• D

oes

the

univ

ersi

ty p

rovi

de

fund

ing

for

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

to t

he r

elev

ant

Lear

ning

and

Tea

chin

g an

d/o

r E

duc

atio

n U

nits

?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

Ben

chm

ark

2: T

he p

rog

ram

/co

urse

/mo

dul

e is

sup

po

rted

by

univ

ersi

ty p

olic

ies,

sys

tem

s an

d p

roce

sses

.

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• Is

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

man

dat

ed fo

r sp

ecifi

c st

aff

coho

rts?

If s

o, fo

r w

hom

?

• H

ow is

it r

ecog

nise

d in

uni

vers

ity p

roce

sses

e.g

. pro

mot

ion,

p

erfo

rman

ce p

lann

ing,

tea

chin

g aw

ard

s?

• Is

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

par

ticip

atio

n re

cogn

ised

in

wor

kloa

d a

lloca

tions

? If

so, h

ow?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

25

Pro

gra

m/C

our

se/M

od

ule

Out

com

es

Rat

ing

(F

ive

po

int

scal

e)R

atio

nale

(W

hy d

id y

ou

giv

e yo

urse

lf th

is r

atin

g?)

Evi

den

ce

(Pro

vid

e na

me

and

web

ref

eren

ce if

p

ublic

ally

ava

ilab

le, r

efer

ence

, dat

a so

urce

s, e

tc.)

Ben

chm

ark

3: T

he p

rog

ram

/co

urse

/mo

dul

e le

arni

ng

out

com

es a

re a

rtic

ulat

ed, c

om

mun

icat

ed t

o p

arti

cip

ants

and

p

ote

ntia

l par

tici

pan

ts, a

nd c

onn

ecte

d t

o in

tern

al a

nd e

xter

nal

refe

rent

s.

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• A

re t

he p

rogr

am/c

ours

e/m

odul

e ou

tcom

es w

ritte

n in

a c

lear

an

d c

onci

se w

ay s

o al

l con

cern

ed c

an u

nder

stan

d t

heir

mea

ning

and

ap

plic

atio

n?

• H

ow a

re t

he p

rogr

am/c

ours

e/m

odul

e le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

co

mm

unic

ated

to

par

ticip

ants

e.g

. ind

uctio

n, in

form

atio

n se

ssio

ns?

• H

ow a

re t

he le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

con

nect

ed t

o in

tern

al

refe

rent

s e.

g. u

nive

rsity

gra

dua

te c

apab

ilitie

s, p

rom

otio

n st

and

ard

s?

• H

ow a

re t

he le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

con

nect

ed t

o ex

tern

al

refe

rent

s e.

g. A

QF;

Hig

her

Ed

ucat

ion

Sta

ndar

ds

Fram

ewor

k,

HE

A, o

ther

inte

rnat

iona

l ref

eren

ts?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

26

Co

nten

t an

d L

earn

ing

and

Tea

chin

g A

pp

roac

hes

Rat

ing

(F

ive

po

int

scal

e)R

atio

nale

(W

hy d

id y

ou

giv

e yo

urse

lf th

is r

atin

g?)

Evi

den

ce

(Pro

vid

e na

me

and

web

ref

eren

ce if

p

ublic

ally

ava

ilab

le, r

efer

ence

, dat

a so

urce

s, e

tc.)

Ben

chm

ark

4: C

ont

ent

is u

pd

ated

in li

ght

of

dev

elo

pm

ents

in

the

fiel

d o

f hi

ghe

r ed

ucat

ion/

acad

emic

pra

ctic

e

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• H

ow a

nd w

hen

are

dec

isio

ns m

ade

abou

t up

dat

ing

cont

ent?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

Ben

chm

ark

5: C

ont

ent

and

lear

ning

and

tea

chin

g a

pp

roac

hes

are

cons

truc

tive

ly a

ligne

d

• H

ow is

alig

nmen

t to

out

com

es e

vid

ence

d?

• H

ow is

the

con

tent

and

lear

ning

and

tea

chin

g ap

pro

ache

s al

igne

d t

o th

e ne

eds

of p

artic

ipan

ts?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

1. N

o

Ben

chm

ark

6: L

earn

ing

and

tea

chin

g a

pp

roac

hes

mo

del

ev

iden

ce-b

ased

sch

ola

rshi

p a

nd p

ract

ice.

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• H

ow d

oes

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

inco

rpor

ate

lear

ning

te

chno

logi

es b

oth

in d

eliv

erin

g co

nten

t an

d a

s an

are

a of

p

rogr

am/c

ours

e co

nten

t?

• W

hat

mod

el/s

und

erp

ins

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule’

s te

achi

ng/p

edag

ogy?

• D

oes

the

cont

ent

link

to c

onte

mp

orar

y sc

hola

rshi

p a

nd

pra

ctic

e ar

ound

stu

den

t ex

per

ienc

e an

d s

tud

ent

succ

ess?

If

so, h

ow?

• H

ow d

o p

artic

ipan

ts a

nd t

each

ers/

educ

ator

s w

ork

toge

ther

to

cons

truc

t le

arni

ng a

nd a

sses

smen

t?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

27

Ass

essm

ent,

Fee

db

ack

and

Mo

der

atio

nR

atin

g

(Fiv

e p

oin

t sc

ale)

Rat

iona

le

(Why

did

yo

u g

ive

your

self

this

rat

ing

?)E

vid

ence

(P

rovi

de

nam

e an

d w

eb r

efer

ence

if

pub

lical

ly a

vaila

ble

, ref

eren

ce, d

ata

sour

ces,

etc

.)

Ben

chm

ark

7: A

sui

te o

f ap

pro

pri

ate

asse

ssm

ent

op

po

rtun

itie

s ar

e us

ed t

o e

vid

ence

lear

ning

,

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• D

oes

the

asse

ssm

ent

cons

truc

tivel

y al

ign

with

the

lear

ning

ou

tcom

es?

• D

oes

the

asse

ssm

ent

adhe

re t

o th

e p

rinci

ple

s of

ass

essm

ent

des

ign

incl

udin

g eq

uity

, val

idity

, rel

iab

ility

, aut

hent

icity

and

b

alan

ce b

etw

een

ind

ivid

ual a

nd g

roup

?

• H

ow is

ass

essm

ent

(form

ativ

e an

d s

umm

ativ

e) u

sed

to

enga

ge p

artic

ipan

ts in

pro

duc

tive

lear

ning

?

• W

hat

typ

es o

f ass

essm

ent

are

used

?

• W

hat

use

is m

ade

of p

eer

and

sel

f-as

sess

men

t?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

Ben

chm

ark

8: T

he p

rog

ram

co

nsis

tent

ly a

pp

lies

inte

rnal

and

ex

tern

al m

od

erat

ion

to a

ssur

e th

e q

ualit

y o

f as

sess

men

t p

ract

ices

.

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• D

o yo

u ha

ve a

pro

cess

of i

nter

nal m

oder

atio

n ac

ross

the

m

arki

ng t

eam

?

• Is

the

re a

qua

lity

assu

red

pro

cess

for

man

agin

g as

sess

men

t?

• Is

the

re a

pro

cess

for

ensu

ring

calib

ratio

n of

mar

king

thr

ough

p

rep

arin

g m

arke

rs fo

r th

eir

role

?

• D

o yo

u ha

ve e

xter

nal m

oder

atio

n as

par

t of

a p

erio

dic

rev

iew

?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

Ben

chm

ark

9: F

orm

ativ

e as

sess

men

t an

d m

eani

ngfu

l fe

edb

ack

is u

sed

to

act

ivel

y su

pp

ort

par

tici

pan

t le

arni

ng.

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• H

ow is

feed

bac

k p

rovi

ded

?

• H

ow is

feed

bac

k us

ed t

o ac

tivel

y im

pro

ve p

artic

ipan

t le

arni

ng?

• Is

form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t sy

stem

atic

ally

em

bed

ded

in t

he

lear

ning

pro

cess

? If

so, h

ow?

• H

ow a

re r

ubric

s us

ed?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

28

Eva

luat

ion

Rat

ing

(F

ive

po

int

scal

e)R

atio

nale

(W

hy d

id y

ou

giv

e yo

urse

lf th

is r

atin

g?)

Evi

den

ce

(Pro

vid

e na

me

and

web

ref

eren

ce if

p

ublic

ally

ava

ilab

le, r

efer

ence

, dat

a so

urce

s, e

tc.)

Ben

chm

ark

10: T

here

is a

sys

tem

atic

ap

pro

ach

to e

valu

atio

n an

d e

nhan

cem

ent

in p

lace

.

Que

stio

ns t

o in

form

you

r re

spon

se m

ay in

clud

e:

• W

hat

form

s of

eva

luat

ion

are

used

? H

ow o

ften

?

• W

hat

opp

ortu

nitie

s ar

e th

ere

for

stud

ents

to

pro

vid

e fe

edb

ack?

• H

ow is

eva

luat

ion

used

to

enha

nce

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule?

• In

wha

t w

ays

is t

he im

pac

t of

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

eval

uate

d?

• H

ow d

oes

the

pro

gram

/cou

rse/

mod

ule

inco

rpor

ate

new

and

in

nova

tive

pra

ctic

es?

5. Y

es, a

nd…

4. Y

es

3. Y

es, b

ut…

2. N

o, b

ut…

.

1. N

o

aap benchmarking resources booklet

Documents