Get documents about "Charles Sturt University
Document Sample
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
ADVANCING QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
RESPONSE TO DISCUSSION PAPERS
CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY
17 February 2012
Contact: Professor Ross Chambers
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
Email: rchambers@csu.edu.au
Tel: (02) 6933 4335
Address: Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
Charles Sturt University
Locked Bag 588
Boorooma Street
WAGGA WAGGA NSW 2678
Charles Sturt University Page 1 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
Summary
(1) Principles
Charles Sturt University (CSU) supports the proposed principles but suggests two
further elements:
(a) Improvement: there should be a clear commitment to continuous
improvement as the primary focus of measurement;
(b) Diversity: measurement needs to recognise the diversity of missions and of
cohorts in the Australian university system.
CSU considers that current and proposed instruments do not adequately
recognise the learning and teaching experiences of mature aged students or
students who study off campus.
(2) UES and CEQ
(a) CSU strongly recommends discontinuation of use of the CEQ;
(b) CSU supports the use of the UES on the basis recommended in the recently
released final UES Report.
(3) GDS
CSU supports continued use of the GDS but recommends that employment
outcomes for mature aged domestic students are included;
(4) Generic Skills
CSU does not support the proposals to measure “generic skills” of graduates.
CSU considers that:
(a) It is not meaningful to consider generic skills outside disciplinary contexts;
(b) The proposed instruments will reproduce social disadvantage and privilege
and poorly represent the achievement of low SES and indigenous students;
(c) The proposed instruments will face significant difficulties in administration.
CSU considers that assurance of curriculum and assessment standards and related
benchmarking is more appropriately the role of TEQSA than of DEEWR.
(5) Retention/Progress
CSU recommends that Retention and Progress measures are adopted as key
elements in the AQHE framework.
Charles Sturt University Page 2 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
CSU notes that the objection that the integrity of such measures would be
compromised if they were linked to reward funding is no longer relevant.
CSU endorses the recommendation of the Base Funding Review regarding the
importance of Retention/Progress indicators.
CSU recommends that Retention/Progress measures be considered as improvement
measures and linked to cohort characteristics.
(6) Methodology
(a) CSU supports central administration of measures and the use of a survey
methodology.
(b) CSU supports a balance in performance measures between questionnaire
based measures and more concrete measures such as employment/further
study and progress/retention.
Charles Sturt University Page 3 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
(1) Principles for Development of Performance Measurement Instruments in HE
(i) CSU supports the proposed principles but suggests two further elements:
(a) Improvement: the primary focus of measurement should be improvement in
learning and teaching and the student experience.
In particular, instruments should provide information which is actionable. A
major problem with some current instruments, particularly the CEQ, is that
results are not readily actionable. This is partly because data is not timely
and partly because there is very poor linkage of responses to particular
elements in the student experience.
An emphasis on actionable and improvement instruments will also create
much better alignment between universities’ internal QA and feedback
processes and external processes. The former are usually focused on
improvement and timely and actionable information. Better alignment is likely
to improve staff engagement with external measures.
(b) Diversity: measurement needs to recognise the diversity of missions and
cohorts in the Australian university system.
Current and proposed instruments do not adequately recognise the learning
and teaching experiences of mature aged students or those who study off
campus or through flexible learning. They are based on a view of on campus,
face to face teaching of RSL’s as the norm.
This is most obvious in the case of the GDS where mature aged students are
excluded.
The CEQ and, to a lesser extent, the UES deal with teaching in ways which
privilege on campus, fulltime, face to face experiences. For instance, in its
internal feedback instruments CSU has found that responses from off campus
and flexible learning students differ between items which ask for responses
simply to “teaching” and items which specify that teaching includes off
campus and online pedagogies. In other words, many off campus students
respond to “teaching” by understanding it in traditional on campus terms.
Their responses indicate that they have not been taught.
In this context, the UES, with a focus on student engagement activities, is a
significant improvement on the CEQ.
As discussed below, the proposed Generic Skills instruments are likely to
significantly undervalue the achievements of students from disadvantaged
groups. The instruments place inappropriate weight on a student’s social
cultural and intellectual background prior to entry to university.
(ii) CSU supports a life cycle approach:
Charles Sturt University Page 4 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
In this context CSU considers that information on graduate employment some years
beyond graduation is very useful as is feedback from graduates at such a point in
time. The University devotes substantial resources to analysing long term retention
of its graduates in rural and regional Australia.
CSU would welcome a commitment of the system to such follow up of graduates but
acknowledges the practical challenges with this.
(2) UES and CEQ
(i) UES: CSU has strongly supported the development of the UES and endorses the
recommendations of the Final Report which were released on Friday, 10 February
2012. In CSU’s view the UES is much more substantially based on the research
literature on student success, particularly student engagement, and on effective
teaching and support, than the CEQ.
As mentioned above, CSU considers that some more work to make the UES equally
as applicable to mature aged and off campus students as to RSL and on campus
students would be appropriate.
(ii) CEQ: CSU has found the CEQ to have very little value or relevance to its QA and
feedback processes. The CEQ aligns poorly with the principles for measurement
instruments. The instrument is:
Not timely, but heavily lagged;
Poorly aligned with the experiences of mature aged and off campus students;
Not improvement oriented or actionable;
Susceptible to volatility and “gaming”/manipulation;
Overly “consumerist” in focus.
CSU strongly recommends discontinuation of use of the CEQ.
(3) GDS
CSU finds current GDS information useful. CSU supports the extension of graduate
employment/further study instruments to include information on outcomes for mature
aged graduates (who were in the workforce whilst studying) and information on
longer term (eg 5 year post completion) outcomes.
With regard to the former, it is important to have information on the role universities
play in supporting a flexible and developing workforce through new or upgraded
qualifications. In smaller regional and in remote communities professional workforce
needs are likely to be met by upgrading the qualifications of members of the
community with paraprofessional or VET qualifications.
Charles Sturt University Page 5 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
The current GDS tends to privilege the experiences of those who are able to proceed
directly to Full Time Study at University from School. It does not give adequate
recognition to those who develop qualifications over a longer period after leaving
School.
With regard to the value of a focus on longer term outcomes, an important measure
of the success of the university system in meeting professional workforce needs and
supporting communities is long term retention of graduates in rural and regional
communities and other hard to fill locations.
Less than half of CSU’s domestic graduates are covered by the GDS. Thus the latter
gives an incomplete and inadequate picture of the role the University plays in
meeting workforce and community needs.
(4) Generic Skills
CSU does not support proposals for the introduction of some form of Generic Skills
Assessment as a Performance Measurement Instrument. CSU considers that the
introduction of such an instrument would likely have harmful effects on the learning
outcomes and experiences of students.
(i) CSU does not consider it useful or appropriate (or even meaningful) to attempt to
consider “generic skills” separate from the context of disciplines and fields of study.
Generic skills are always contextualised and must be developed and assessed in
context.
It is artificial and inappropriate to separate “generic skills” from the broader processes
of curriculum development and assessment standards.
(ii) As a result, performance monitoring should focus on the effectiveness of curriculum
and assessment processes, including the establishment and monitoring of exit
standards and consistency with AQF level descriptors. These processes will also
include professional accreditation where appropriate.
(iii) In CSU’s view performance with regard to curriculum and assessment and exit
standards is more properly a role for TEQSA than DEEWR. TEQSA has clear
responsibility for Qualification Standards.
(iv) The way in which “generic skills” is constructed in the consultation papers, if used as
the basis of a performance measure, is highly likely to lead to distortion of curriculum
processes and to manipulation, especially through “teaching to the test”.
(v) CSU considers that discourse around generic skills has been overly influenced by
private sector business employers. Indeed the term “employers” is often used,
unreflectingly, to mean this group of employers.
The majority of CSU graduates are employed in community and public sector fields:
health, community services, education, criminal justice. A significant minority are self
employed or in small practices: veterinary science; pharmacy; dentistry, etc.
Charles Sturt University Page 6 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
These graduates complete programs based on well established processes for
consultation with the professions and relevant employers.
These processes have been highly effective in identifying graduate expectations and
outcomes and in providing feedback on deficiencies in professional preparation.
It would be harmful and distorting to these processes to seek to overlay them with an
additional process driven externally.
(vi) It is well demonstrated that performance in uncontextualised “generic skills”
instruments is very heavily influenced by a student’s social, cultural and educational
background prior to university. The proposed generic skills instruments will merely
serve to reproduce social inequality and privilege.
The use of such instruments is at odds with a policy framework which seeks to make
university education more inclusive.
What is proposed will reintroduce ranking unrelated to achievement at university.
The student from a low SES or indigenous background who succeeds in meeting the
outcomes of a program of professional study will, on the basis of “generic skills”
assessment be identified as less successful than a student from a privileged
background.
(vii) The proposed “generic skills assessment” is highly likely to undervalue the
achievements at university of students from low SES, indigenous and other
disadvantaged communities.
(viii) “Generic Skills” assessment is likely to prove difficult to administer. There will be no
positive motivations for most students to be involved. Threats and sanctions will not
promote engagement.
(5) Retention and Progress
CSU uses measures of retention and progress as key indicators in its internal
monitoring of learning and teaching and the student experience.
CSU considers retention and progress, if applied within an “improvement” framework
which recognises cohort differences, to be very robust measures.
CSU recommends that retention and progress be adopted as performance measures
and that there be further consultation with the sector to agree on an improvement
framework and appropriate recognition of cohort differences.
In support of this recommendation CSU notes:
(a) the recommendation in the Base Funding Review for the adoption of progress
and retention measures;
(b) that the objection in earlier papers on the AQHE to use of progress/retention
was based on the view that the integrity of these measures might be
Charles Sturt University Page 7 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
Charles Sturt University
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
compromised if reward funding were attached to them. This objection may no
longer be relevant.
(6) Methodology
(a) CSU supports central administration of instruments and the use of survey (as
opposed to census) methods. These are most likely to provide high quality
data and ensure its integrity.
(b) As set out above, CSU considers that there should not be an over reliance on
questionnaire instruments. Monitoring of performance should balance
information from such instruments with more concrete measures such as
employment/further study and progress/retention.
Charles Sturt University Page 8 of 8
Advancing Quality in Higher Education
Response to Discussion Papers
16 February 2012
