Return to Policies page
Navigation
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents

    Quality Assurance and Benchmarking Policy

    Policy name Quality Assurance and Benchmarking Policy
    Policy number ACA012
    Date approved 5 June 2024
    Approving body Academic Board
    Responsible officer The Dean (Higher Education) and Provost (VET)
    Implementation officer Course Coordinators
    Next review date June 2029
    Related Policies
    • Assessment Policy and Procedures
    • Annual Course Review Policy
    • Major Course Review Policy
    Related forms and documents

    1. Purpose of this Policy

    This policy outlines the ways in which The Cairnmillar Institute (the Institute) engages in activities that ensures the ongoing quality of teaching activities. Part of this involves a comparison of practices both within the institute and across the tertiary education industry to ensure all activities are, at a minimum, equivalent to industry standards.

    2. Scope

    This policy applies to reviews of any academic activities undertaken at the Institute that fall within the scope of the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2021 the Higher Education Framework Standards.

    3. Quality Assurance System

    3.1. For Higher Education, the Faculty engages in a detailed review of up to two courses (Major Course Review) and an overall review for all other courses (Annual Course Review) on an annual basis. The annual course review provides an opportunity for the course team to reflect on and review the operation of the course across the year. The major course review is undertaken by each course once within the accreditation cycle providing an opportunity to reflect on and review in-depth across at least three years. The major course review is assessed by a panel which includes external members.

    3.2. The Centre of Short Courses and VET conducts annual course reviews in November each year and a Major Course Review every five years. The annual course review provides an opportunity for the course team to reflect on and review the operation of the course across the year. The major course review is undertaken to provide an opportunity to reflect and review in depth course decisions. The major course review is assessed by a panel which includes external members.

    4. Professional Accreditation

    4.1 Professional accreditation delivers external quality assurance for the Faculty’s programs as it certifies that the Institute graduates meet the purpose of a range of professions.

    4.2 Courses are accredited by their relevant accreditation bodies (e.g., ASQA, TEQSA, APAC, or PACFA, ACA).

    4.3 Courses comply with all reaccreditation requirements from relevant accreditation bodies.

    4.4 Courses remain up to date with changing requirements from relevant accreditation bodies.

    5. Planning, Evaluation and Review of Programs, Courses and Teaching

    5.1 Course Planning

    1. Course Coordinators convene an annual curriculum review planning meeting with all staff involved in the course, typically held in November each year.
    2. The meeting aims to better align course planning and strategic objectives, improve the management of new course proposals, and the quality of curriculum development within course proposals.
    3. This meeting must consider:
      1. Timeframes for course withdrawals
      2. Major changes to the course (in accordance with the Course and Unit Change Policy)
      3. The strategic priorities of the course
      4. Annual course monitoring data (regarding overall/major course reviews)
      5. Relevant recommendations from staff reviews
      6. Professional accreditation processes
      7. Campus profiles and student demand
      8. Flexible learning resources.

    5.2 Course development and approval 

    1. New courses approved for development are progressed in accordance with the regulatory and professional accreditation requirements and The Course Development Policy.

    5.3 Course evaluation and review

    1. Each Course Coordinator is required to present annual course monitoring reports in accordance with the Annual Course Review Policy.

    5.4 Course and teaching evaluations

    1. Each course and unit undertake student evaluations.
    2. Evaluations are valid if more than 10% of students complete the survey.
    3. Course and unit coordinators of valid evaluations that receive a score below 3.5 on any item must present to Academic Board a plan for addressing concerns.
    4. Course and unit coordinators of valid evaluations that receive a score below 3.9 on any item must present to AHoS L&T (Higher Education) or Provost (VET) a plan for addressing concerns.

    5.5 Stakeholder Surveying

    a. Regular internal and external surveys of students, staff and employers are conducted in order to measure satisfaction and to identify areas in need        of improvement.

    b. Internal surveys:

      1. Mid-semester student touchpoint survey (Higher Education)
      2. Student evaluation of courses and teaching conducted at the end of each semester (Higher Education) or unit (VET)

    c. Higher Education external surveys:

    Cairnmillar participates in the Quality indicators in Learning and Teaching (QILT) suite of national student and graduate surveys including:

      1. Graduate Outcome Surveys (GOS and GOS-L)
      2. Student Experience Surveys (SES)
      3. Employer Satisfaction Surveys

    5.6 Annual Performance Reviews of Academic Staff

    1. All academic staff undergo an annual professional development evaluation.
    2. This is encapsulated in a framework for the allocation of academic work, performance reviews, and promotion of academic staff. This framework ensures:
      1.  Greater flexibility in academic work allocations, allowing staff to concentrate in areas of strength and of strategic value to the Institute.
      2.  Specification of promotion criteria that reward staff for excellence and impact in their chosen areas of emphasis; and
      3. Annual performance reviews against agreed performance objectives that reflect negotiated career trajectories, past performance, and the strategic priorities of the Faculty.

    Where possible the Institute also uses nationally published records and data to benchmark performance and track sectoral trends e.g. uCube higher education data.

    6. Benchmarking

    Benchmarking aims to i) identify areas of improvement and areas of good practice, ii) analyse reasons for variation or commonality, iii) formulate strategies for improvement, iv) implement the strategies, and v) evaluate the implementation.

    6.1 Higher Education

    For more information on the different stages of benchmarking, see Appendix B of the TEQSA benchmarking guidelines. The Institute engages in five types of benchmarking:

    6.1.1 Informal external benchmarking

    1. A comparison with other NSAIs and Universities using publicly available data with an intention to improve academic activity
    2. Comparisons can be made at the unit or course level
    3. Compares any activity related to teaching (e.g., course/unit outcomes, assessments, course/unit descriptions, workload, admission criteria, study and employment pathways)
    4. Public information is also used to ensure parity across course offering and facilities and services offered to students and staff
    5. Staff acting as external thesis examiners also constitutes information external benchmarking
    6. As of 2019, TEQSA does not require benchmarking partners to be explicitly in the tertiary education industry and recommend considering other industries that engage in similar activities

    6.1.4 Internal benchmarking

    1. Course Advisory Committees
      1. Provide input into Course Reviews (including Annual and Major course reviews), including discussion of results and student evaluations where appropriate.
      2. Input from employers, industry and other stakeholders to program planning and review processes help ensure the relevance of the curriculum and appropriateness of graduate competencies by Course Advisory Committees.
      3. These inputs are enshrined in the planning processes set out in the Faculty’s teaching and learning policies to ensure external and internal expert scrutiny of structure, content, teaching and assessment strategies and outcomes.
    2. The Faculty regularly submits data to the Academic Board for Review and feedback.
    3. Horizontal benchmarking
      1. Internal comparison of one unit of a course to other units within the Institute of the same level.
    4. Vertical benchmarking
      1. Internal comparison of one unit of a course to units that come prior or after that unit to assess appropriateness of content progression.

    6. VET

    For guidance on benchmarking see the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015.

    The Institute engages in five types of benchmarking:

    6.2.1 Informal external benchmarking

    1. A comparison with other RTO’s using publicly available data with an intention to improve academic activity
    2. Comparisons can be made at the unit or course level
    3. Compares any activity related to teaching (e.g., course/unit outcomes, assessments, course/unit descriptions, workload, admission criteria, study and employment pathways)
    4. Public information is also used to ensure parity across course offering and facilities and services offered to students and staff

    6.2.2 Formal external benchmarking

    1. Comparison of a course or unit with one or more formal benchmarking partners (e.g., another RTO or placement supervisors)
    2. Evaluates the course or unit delivery and informs future planning and goal setting.

    6.2.3 Standards-based benchmarking

    1. Analysing processes, practices, and outcomes against a generally agreed set of standards, such as those set by professional bodies, national associations, or international bodies.

    6.2.4 Internal benchmarking

    1. Course Advisory Committees
      1. These committee consider the distribution of results, individual student progress (including relevant outcomes of the Academic Integrity and Progress Committee) and student evaluations.
      2. The findings are reported to the Academic Board and discussed at staff meetings to inform improvements to teaching and learning processes.
      3. Input from employers, industry and other stakeholders to program planning and review processes help ensure the relevance of the curriculum and appropriateness of graduate competencies by Course Advisory Committees.
      4. These inputs are enshrined in the planning processes set out in the Faculty’s teaching and learning policies to ensure external and internal expert scrutiny of structure, content, teaching and assessment strategies and outcomes. The Faculty and VET Registrar regularly submits data to the Academic Board for review and feedback.
    2. The Faculty and VET Registrar regularly submits data to the Academic Board for review and feedback.
    3. Horizontal benchmarking
    4. Internal comparison of one unit of a course to other units within the Institute of the same level
    5. Vertical benchmarking
    6. Internal comparison of one unit of a course to units that come prior or after that unit to assess appropriateness of content progression.

    7. Resources and References

    Academic Governance Quality Assurance: Good Practice for NSAIs (Sept, 2010). Australian Universities Quality Agency.

    The Office for Learning and Teaching’s Resource Library. www.olt.gov.au/resources/good-practice.

    The Quality Code for providers of UK higher education. www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx

    Academic Quality Agency (New Zealand) www.aqa.ac.nz/enhancing-quality/thematic-resources.

    COPHE – Australian Higher Education Teaching and Learning Standards: Checklists of inputs and outputs www.cophe.edu.au/policy/discussion-papers/teaching-learning-inputs-andoutputs-tony-shannon/index_html.

    TEQSA guidelines for academic quality assurance (2017) https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/guidance-note-academic-quality-assurance

    TEQSA guidelines for benchmarking (2019) https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/guidance-note-external-referencing-including-benchmarking

    Australian Government Higher Education Standards Framework (2015) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01639/Html/Text#_Toc428368872

    University websites: Deakin University, Griffith University, University of Wollongong, Victoria University, and University of South Australia

    Users’ guide to the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (asqa.gov.au)

     

    Print a copy