Quality enhancement and assurance for teaching in a research university.

1

• Quality enhancement and assurance for teaching in
  a research university.
• Professor Michael Jackson, PhD, Acting Director

2
After
3
(No Transcript)
4
The University of Sydney

• Founded in 1851, now 45,000 students, distributed
  campus in all degrees
• Polyglot student body, International and
  Non-English Speaking Background
• An international university
• Research intensive
• A regulated environment

5
The most important point

• Myth of selection, tenure, and promotion on
  research alone.
• Reality is that selection, tenure, and promotion
  on teaching occurs.

6
Means to promote teaching

• Rhetoric to legislators and parents
• Awards for teaching excellence
• http//www.usyd.edu.au/learning/quality/awards.sht
  ml
• The Institute devoted to teaching development
• Most universities go this far.

7
Other means to promote teaching?

• Teaching advocate in the chancellery
• Integration of Institute in planning and
  committees
• Academic Board cycles of reviews of quality
  enhancement and assurance.

8
The Institute manage about six strategic
projects related to teaching. Through these
Working Parties Faculties make commitments to
enhancement and assurance measures. These are
worked out over time and in collaboration with
others. http//www.itl.usyd.edu.au/ These
commitments are audited in Academic Board
reviews.
9
Still other means
Required orientation to teaching for all new
hires Principles and Practice. It articulates
in to a Graduate Certificate Active committee on
Teaching and Learning in the Academic
Board Associate Deans teaching and learning in
faculties A public commitment to principles of
good teaching on web site http//www.usyd.edu.au/l
earning/about/
10
Teaching improvement fund
Aimed at areas for improvement or innovation,
linked to university and faulty strategic
plans Competitive, less and more than
10,000 Funds from top-slice of grant on basis
of student load and fee-paying students 1.5
million in total http//www.usyd.edu.au/learning/q
uality/ties.shtml
11
Scholarship in Teaching Index

• Financial benefit to department whose staff
  contribute to teaching quality through the
  Scholarship of teaching.
• Faculties submit claims for points.
• Criteria include credentials in teaching like the
  Graduate Certificate offered by the Institute,
  teaching awards, publication, and the like.
• http//www.usyd.edu.au/learning/quality/si.shtmlc
  riteria

12
Scholarship in Teaching Index

• Consists of 0.5 grant and 0.5 of College
  budgets, about 841,000
• Distributed at discretion of faculty
• An individual might get as much 10,000 in a
  consultancy account

13
Teaching Performance Indicators

• A teaching dividend allocated to faculties
• Allocated on relative scores on teaching quality
  of a series of quantitative indicators
• Indicators are mix of in-house survey and
  national questionnaires

14
Teaching Performance Indicators

• Indicators include scales on good teaching,
  overall satisfaction from national graduation
  survey
• Also graduate placement
• Retention and progression
• Sydney Course Experience Questionnaire
• http//www.usyd.edu.au/learning/quality/td.shtml

15
Does it make any difference?

• There is more activity related to quality
  teaching
• Scores on national surveys are improving
• Some gains in retention and progression
• Enthusiastic embrace by some faculties
• Changes in open-ended remarks
• http//www.itl.usyd.edu.au/synergy/article.cfm?pri
  nt1articleID281
• Benchmarking suggests we are doing well
• Australian University Quality Agency said we are
• Newsweek listed us at 50
• http//www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid12
  38

16
http//www.geert-hofstede.com/\
17
Purpose of Benchmarking

• Benchmarking is, first and foremost, a learning
  process to identify comparative strengths and
  weaknesses as a basis for self improvement.

18
Guidelines for Benchmarking

• University policy which bases our benchmarking
  MOUs in
• http//www.usyd.edu.au/learning/quality/benchmarki
  ng.shtml
• The process of identifying and learning from
  good practices in other organisations
• (European Benchmarking Code of Conduct)

19
Sharing SCEQ data as a basis for benchmarking

• What sorts of conversations would this allow us
  to start?
• What sorts of limitations / forms will this
  impose on the conversation?
• Who else can join in the same conversation?
• How might we efficiently extend the data to allow
  more meaningful conversations?

20
An ongoing cycle

1. Purpose of engaging in benchmarking
2. Priorities Scope Focus of benchmarking
3. Indicators prompts for self assessment,
   comparison and learning
4. Process for implementation
5. Commitment to actions arising communication

21
Before
22
The end.