7B -
Tracks
Track 2
| Thursday, July 11, 2024 |
| 12:05 PM - 1:00 PM |
| Gilbert Suite |
Speaker
Ms Mona Umapathy
Academic Director, SAIBT & CELUSA
South Australian Institute of Business & Technology
12.05pm - 12.30pm Reining in the over-zealous academic: The overlap between quality, risk and compliance, and academic practice in pathways
12:05 PM - 12:30 PMFinal abstract
Focus:
Framework for ‘Compliance by Design for ongoing continuous improvement’ in Pathways.
Background/Context:
Literature around quality assurance and curricula leads to the sentiment that accreditation is compliance driven, resulting in limiting program designs and initiatives. Alternatively, lack of quality assurance can also lead to disjointed designs resulting in poor quality (Wood, Auhl & McCarthy, 2019; Shah, Lewis, & Fitzgerald, 2011). Guided by the Manager, Quality, Risk, and Compliance at our institute, the academic parameters of the regulatory standards were used to develop a framework for a holistic approach, driven by the notion of ‘Compliance by Design for ongoing continuous improvement’ rather than ‘compliance-driven’, in what we refer to as ‘reigning in the over-zealous academic’ to ensure a quality assured, cohesive program design.
Description:
Preparing for re-accreditation and submission of a new program, we identified academic aspects of the regulatory standards to establish a review framework and approach. The first stage involved mapping the learning objectives of courses to program objectives. Assessments mapped identified variety in methodology.
An internal review by discipline experts followed, and simultaneous blind reviews of courses not within their expertise provided objective feedback from a ‘student’s’ perspective. Finally, external experts conducted a review. Gaps identified were mapped for continuous improvement using an action plan.
Method:
Qualitative data analysed from the reviews identified gaps between program design and the standards, leading to action plans incorporating feedback into the curricula and program design for improvement.
Evidence:
We received full re-accreditation (without conditions, at first submission) of programs at our institute, and Academic Governance approval in the first instance of establishing a new program.
Contribution:
Our approach is practical and adaptable in balancing quality assurance and curricula designs, especially where ownership of intellectual property is mixed.
Engagement:
Mentimeter poll seeking experience with program design, (re)accreditation, and quality assurance practices.
Framework for ‘Compliance by Design for ongoing continuous improvement’ in Pathways.
Background/Context:
Literature around quality assurance and curricula leads to the sentiment that accreditation is compliance driven, resulting in limiting program designs and initiatives. Alternatively, lack of quality assurance can also lead to disjointed designs resulting in poor quality (Wood, Auhl & McCarthy, 2019; Shah, Lewis, & Fitzgerald, 2011). Guided by the Manager, Quality, Risk, and Compliance at our institute, the academic parameters of the regulatory standards were used to develop a framework for a holistic approach, driven by the notion of ‘Compliance by Design for ongoing continuous improvement’ rather than ‘compliance-driven’, in what we refer to as ‘reigning in the over-zealous academic’ to ensure a quality assured, cohesive program design.
Description:
Preparing for re-accreditation and submission of a new program, we identified academic aspects of the regulatory standards to establish a review framework and approach. The first stage involved mapping the learning objectives of courses to program objectives. Assessments mapped identified variety in methodology.
An internal review by discipline experts followed, and simultaneous blind reviews of courses not within their expertise provided objective feedback from a ‘student’s’ perspective. Finally, external experts conducted a review. Gaps identified were mapped for continuous improvement using an action plan.
Method:
Qualitative data analysed from the reviews identified gaps between program design and the standards, leading to action plans incorporating feedback into the curricula and program design for improvement.
Evidence:
We received full re-accreditation (without conditions, at first submission) of programs at our institute, and Academic Governance approval in the first instance of establishing a new program.
Contribution:
Our approach is practical and adaptable in balancing quality assurance and curricula designs, especially where ownership of intellectual property is mixed.
Engagement:
Mentimeter poll seeking experience with program design, (re)accreditation, and quality assurance practices.
Biography
Mona Umapathy is the Academic Director for SAIBT and CELUSA, and has a demonstrated history of success in Higher Education and International Pathway Education both as an educator and as a leader. With experience in strategic management, leadership, curriculum development, management, and staff development and mentorship, Mona is also a Principal Fellow (Higher Education Academy) who has a major interest in continuous improvement to learning and experiences for international students studying in International Pathways.
Mrs Kylie Jonas
Manager, Quality, Risk & Compliance
SAIBT
Co-presenter
Biography
Kylie Jonas is the Quality, Risk and Compliance Manager at SAIBT. With more than a decade of experience in the International Pathways Higher Education Sector, Kylie brings a wealth of knowledge to SAIBT related to quality assurance. She is experienced in student needs, program requirements, compliance, risk management, and regulatory frameworks. Her key oversight also includes College governance and is a primary advisor in the Senior Executive Group at SAIBT.
Kylie and Mona, are together, the key people in 'reigning in the over-zealous academic' at SAIBT.
Dr Judith Norris
Australian Catholic University
12.35pm - 1.00pm Triumphs and tribulations of higher education research with stakeholders, a model for co-designed research
12:35 PM - 1:00 PMFinal abstract
Focus
Presenting an industry driven co-designed model of research.
Background/context
Stakeholder engagement in higher education research (Abegglen, Burns & Sinfield, 2021), is a central responsibility and expectation of the sector, addressing socio-political and economic needs (Baturina, 2022). This reciprocal university-school study responded to the needs of a school system sector in a continuous reform agenda.
Description of the research
The aim was to measure the progress and effectiveness of pedagogical strategies and their impact on student learning. The RQ guiding the investigation: How have school wide adoptions of system pedagogies impacted the learning outcomes of students?
Methods:
Mixed methods were employed for data collection, with whole staff consultations through anonymous ‘Padlet’ responses, followed by a Qualtrics survey and interviews with staff.
Evidence of outcomes and effectiveness:
Whole staff consultations indicated scepticism, resistance, and disinterest in evaluating their pedagogies as a research study.
The Qualtrics survey secured a 12% response rate, reporting non-committal descriptions of their pedagogies. Of these 12%, one accepted an interview. The leadership team interviewed reported sporadic compliance in the pedagogical implementation. Insights for stakeholder theory and practices were the triumphs in this study.
Contribution to scholarship and/or practice
Co-designed research processes hold potential tribulations. The term “evaluation” may be interpreted by participants as a form of coercion, or judgments on their current practices (Kingston, et al., 2023). This finding highlights the need for participatory practices to ensure engagement in the early co-design stages. Stakeholder models of engagement in certain sectors need further development, as teacher participants needed more assurance that they were genuine partners in the project, rather than subjects of evaluation.
Engagement
Why did participants show reservations about the project?
What strategies would increase participant stakeholder engagement?
Identify the barriers to active stakeholder engagement in evaluation research.
How do researchers develop critical and reciprocal partnerships?
Presenting an industry driven co-designed model of research.
Background/context
Stakeholder engagement in higher education research (Abegglen, Burns & Sinfield, 2021), is a central responsibility and expectation of the sector, addressing socio-political and economic needs (Baturina, 2022). This reciprocal university-school study responded to the needs of a school system sector in a continuous reform agenda.
Description of the research
The aim was to measure the progress and effectiveness of pedagogical strategies and their impact on student learning. The RQ guiding the investigation: How have school wide adoptions of system pedagogies impacted the learning outcomes of students?
Methods:
Mixed methods were employed for data collection, with whole staff consultations through anonymous ‘Padlet’ responses, followed by a Qualtrics survey and interviews with staff.
Evidence of outcomes and effectiveness:
Whole staff consultations indicated scepticism, resistance, and disinterest in evaluating their pedagogies as a research study.
The Qualtrics survey secured a 12% response rate, reporting non-committal descriptions of their pedagogies. Of these 12%, one accepted an interview. The leadership team interviewed reported sporadic compliance in the pedagogical implementation. Insights for stakeholder theory and practices were the triumphs in this study.
Contribution to scholarship and/or practice
Co-designed research processes hold potential tribulations. The term “evaluation” may be interpreted by participants as a form of coercion, or judgments on their current practices (Kingston, et al., 2023). This finding highlights the need for participatory practices to ensure engagement in the early co-design stages. Stakeholder models of engagement in certain sectors need further development, as teacher participants needed more assurance that they were genuine partners in the project, rather than subjects of evaluation.
Engagement
Why did participants show reservations about the project?
What strategies would increase participant stakeholder engagement?
Identify the barriers to active stakeholder engagement in evaluation research.
How do researchers develop critical and reciprocal partnerships?
Biography
Judith Norris is a senior lecturer in educational leadership studies at Australian Catholic University. Her latest book School Leaders’ Sensemaking and Sensegiving (2022) presents a theoretical model that demonstrates a new approach to understanding how school leaders react to conflicting expectations and demands. Judith’s continued research interests are positioned with leaders in their psychosocial processes; their evolving identity, sensemaking and sensegiving, and the resultant leadership behaviours. In her current research, Judith adopts ontological reflexive methods to investigate these processes. Participants in these research efforts include academics, school leaders and aspirants.
Chair
Puspha Sinnayah
Victoria University
