Peer review of assessment network: supporting comparability of standards
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2015-0003 |
| Date | 04 April 2016 |
| Pages | 194-210 |
| Published date | 04 April 2016 |
| Author | Sara Booth,Jeff Beckett,Cassandra Saunders |
| Subject Matter | Education,Curriculum, instruction & assessment,Educational evaluation/assessment |
Peer review of assessment
network: supporting
comparability of standards
Sara Booth, Jeff Beckett and Cassandra Saunders
Student Evaluation, Review and Reporting Unit (SERRU),
University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to test the need in the Australian higher education (HE) sector for a
national network for the peer review of assessment in response to the proposed HE standards
framework and propose a sector-wide framework for calibrating and assuring achievement standards,
both within and across disciplines, through the establishment of a peer review of assessment network
(PRAN).
Design/methodology/approach – This study used a “proof of concept”approach to test the need for
a national network, using consultations (n⫽67) which included teleconference meetings [39],
face-to-face meetings [2], Skype [1], presentations [19], state-based workshops [6] and a national forum.
Quantitative data from evaluation surveys from state-based workshops and national forum were
computer-analysed to generate descriptive statistics. Qualitative data arising from open-ended
questionnaire responses were analysed through progressive categorisation and data coding designed to
identify and rene data themes.
Findings – In all, 63 per cent of participants to the state-based workshops were satised with the
workshop content. A further 29 per cent reported a high level of satisfaction. The interactive group
discussions fostered a collaborative approach and facilitated engagement with the workshop content. A
total of 58 per cent of participants to the national forum were satised with the forum, with a further 40
per cent reporting a high level of satisfaction. Participants indicated that presentation content was
informative and covered a diverse range of topics and viewpoints highly relevant to the current clime
across the HE sector.
Practical implications – Many participants strongly supported the establishment of a national
PRAN, with overwhelming support (88 per cent) for the forum to be made an annual event.
Originality/value – This study contributes to existing literature and provides further evidence for
the value of networks in the peer review of assessment to support academics in professional learning
and calibration exercises.
Keywords Standards, Networks, Assessment, Higher education, Calibration, Quality assurance,
Peer review of assessment
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Recent changes in quality assurance and standards have led to increased demands for
accountability across the Australian higher education (HE) sector. While a key driver is
The authors would like to acknowledge the Ofce for Learning and Teaching for providing
funding to support this research study and the Peer Review Network Team including Prof Ron
Oliver, Mark Thompson, Assoc. Prof Mark Freeman, Assoc. Prof Heather Alexander, Prof Jane
Fernandez and Royson Valore for their valuable contributions to the project.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
QAE
24,2
194
Received 11 January 2015
Revised 19 May 2015
Accepted 27 July 2015
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.24 No. 2, 2016
pp.194-210
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-01-2015-0003
the national Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF), a critical issue for
universities has been how to demonstrate compliance with the standards. There is now
a strong view by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) that
peer review should be undertaken by HE providers, with external input, to measure and
provide evidence that they are monitoring and assuring learning standards:
Peer review is the responsibility of the provider not the regulator. We can’t meet standards
without peer review. It is a very important part of the standards (Robson, 2014).
These words spoken by Emeritus Prof Alan Robson, Chair of the Australian Higher
Education Standards Panel (HESP), at a national information session on the proposed
HESF highlight the importance of peer review for the HE sector. The main measure of
assuring learning outcomes is through assessment. External referencing is crucial to
ensuring an institution can deliver quality, assure quality and manage risks, and it is an
important way of giving TEQSA greater condence that institutions are producing
quality and maintaining quality (Wells, 2014). The HESF has a number of standards
that relate to external referencing, including benchmarking and peer review (Standard
1.5.1, 1.5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3). A critical component of the HESF is Standard 5.3.3
which has been termed “a sleeper standard” (James, 2014) because it is very persuasive
and has major logistical and cost implications for the HE sector. It states:
Review and improvement activities include regular external referencing against
comparable courses of study, including by referencing:
• the progress of student cohorts through courses of study, attrition rates and
completion time and rates; and
• the grading of students’ achievement of learning outcomes for selected units of
study within courses of study (Higher Education Standards Framework, 2014).
This standard asks HE institutions to undertake regular external referencing against
comparable courses of study.
In the United Kingdom (UK), there have also been recent changes in quality
assurance and standards. The Higher Education Academy instigated the development
of a national Professional Standards Framework in 2006 to enable quality teaching for
all students. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), an
independent body entrusted with monitoring and advising on standards and quality in
UK HE, has developed the Quality Code for Higher Education to replace the set of
national reference points known as the Academic Infrastructure from mid-2012 (QAA,
2012a). The Quality Code provides institutions with a shared starting point for setting
and maintaining the academic standards of their programmes/courses and awards and,
similarly to the proposed HESF in Australia, sets out formal expectations that all UK HE
providers are required to meet, of which external examining is an integral component.
The Quality Code is also composed of indicators to assist HE providers to meet those
expectations, a number of which directly relate to the external review of assessment
processes:
Awarding institutions expect their external examiners to provide informative
comment and recommendations on:
• whether the assessment process measures student achievement rigorously and
fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme(s) (Indicator 2); and
195
Peer review of
assessment
network
To continue reading
Request your trial