External Referencing – Procedures

1. Purpose

1.1 Consistent with the University’s Quality and Standards Framework, the University undertakes external referencing to evidence the quality of the University’s programs and courses and to inform continuous improvement. This is undertaken as part of its commitment to quality assurance and quality improvement, contributing to its alignment and compliance with the Higher Education Standards Framework.

1.2 The purpose of the program benchmarking activity is to assess the standard and performance of a program, by comparing the program against internal, national, international, and/or sectoral data, discipline standards, industry feedback or equivalent programs at other universities, and to use this information to guide improvements where appropriate.

1.3 These procedures must be read in conjunction with the linked External Referencing – Academic Policy.

2. Scope and application

2.1 These procedures apply to all coursework programs, courses and microcredentials, with a particular focus on program and course design, assessment methods, analysis of student performance data and professional accreditation standards where relevant.

2.2 These procedures do not apply to national and/or whole-of-institution benchmarking activity undertaken by the Insights and Analytics Unit, or process benchmarking that may be undertaken by various work units from time to time.

3. Definitions

3.1 Refer to the University’s Glossary of Terms for definitions as they specifically relate to policy documents.

External Referencing is a method of monitoring the University’s program and course quality through comparison with external indicators to inform corporate awareness, decision making and improvements. It encompasses benchmarking (of student performance data and program design), external peer review of assessment, course moderation, analysis of industry feedback and professional accreditation.

Benchmarking is a broad term for a process measuring performance or practices against accepted standards or reference points to identify good practice and inform improvements. Benchmarking can be undertaken as a desktop exercise using publicly available information, against external standards, or collaboratively with another department or institution.

Peer Review of Assessment is an improvement-focused process conducted to review assessment practices and grade outcomes, in selected courses, by academics delivering similar programs. The activity can be singular or reciprocal.

Professional Accreditation is the assessment and validation by a professional body that a program includes required knowledge and skills for graduates of the program to be eligible to be admitted/seek registration to practice and/or seek admission to membership of the professional body.

4. Scheduling and coordination

4.1 Program and course benchmarking must be undertaken in the year prior to the program review and may also occur at other times to support curriculum quality priorities such as professional accreditation. Program reviews are conducted on a five-year cyclical basis, as set out in the University Reviews – Academic Policy.

4.2 The Quality Office has overall responsibility for the coordination of program and course benchmarking and associated activities, including:

(a) appointing a Quality Office staff member who will liaise with relevant staff to develop a common understanding of the benchmarking processes and coordinate these activities; and

(b) providing advice and information on the organisation, timing and conduct of benchmarking.

4.3 The scheduling and timing of professional accreditation activities will typically be determined by the relevant accrediting body, and/or in consultation with the relevant School Dean.

5. Procedures

5.1 The University undertakes external referencing through a hierarchy of evaluative processes and activities, using a variety of reference points, both internal and external, as depicted in Table 1:

Table 1: External and internal referencing – Levels, activities and reference points

5.2 The processes and activities included in this document outline minimum requirements and expectations and do not preclude other forms of external referencing activities that may be undertaken from time to time.

6. Program Benchmarking

6.1 Program benchmarking typically only occurs at the Bachelor and Master (coursework) program level, with benchmarking of sub-bachelor and nested postgraduate programs only required where they do not form part of a higher award program.

6.2 Schools must undertake desktop benchmarking for programs including:

(a) an analysis of student performance data, including cohort analysis, and comparison against national and/or sectoral data;

(b) a comparison of program design and expected program learning outcomes; and

(c) a review of industry or stakeholder feedback.

6.3 To avoid duplication, a comparison of program design and expected program learning outcomes is not required for professionally accredited programs which already undertake such benchmarking as part of their professional accreditation. The Senior Manager, Quality Assurance and Academic Governance will consult with relevant staff and advise where this is appropriate.

6.4 The Program Coordinator and/or Discipline Lead must interpret, apply, and act on benchmarking data to complete a Program Benchmarking Summary Report, including recommendations for improvement, for consideration and endorsement by the Dean of School for inclusion in the Review Portfolio as part of the subsequent program review.

6.5 Schools can elect to undertake collaborative benchmarking, in lieu of 6.2(c). Further information on the process for collaborative benchmarking can be found in the program benchmarking guidelines.

7. Course Benchmarking (including external peer review of assessment)

7.1 Course benchmarking comprises:

(a) Internal referencing, with a comparison of student satisfaction and grade distributions against internal averages, to be undertaken as part of the School Assessment Moderation and Results Committee (SAMRC), Annual Program Monitoring (APM) and Program Review processes;

(b) Evidence of achievement of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) through CIR mapping, student success rates, and grade distribution; as outlined in the Coursework Curriculum - Academic Policy

and Coursework Curriculum - Procedures and

(c) external referencing, with an analysis of assessment methods, and calibration of assessment grading undertaken by an external peer reviewer.

7.2 Informed by the School Assessment Moderation and Results Committee (SAMRC) proceedings and other relevant data, and in consultation with the Program Coordinator and/or Discipline Lead, the Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) must identify courses for which peer review of assessment will be undertaken. Once identified the Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) will advise the Quality Office of the courses identified. External peer review of assessment must be undertaken in the year prior to the program review, consistent with section 4, and will typically focus on:

(a) one course selected from each of the introductory, developing and graduate level courses for undergraduate programs, or across a cognate or related group of programs; or

(b) one course from the advanced and specialised levels for postgraduate programs, or across a cognate or related group of programs.

7.3 External peer review of assessment provides evidence of whether assessment methods and grading of assessment are appropriate, aligned to the CLOs, and are broadly comparable with those of similar courses offered by other institutions.

7.4 To avoid duplication, external peer review of assessment will not be required for courses that form part of a professionally accredited program that includes a review of assessment as part of that professional accreditation. The Senior Manager, Quality Assurance and Academic Governance will consult with relevant staff and advise where this is appropriate.

7.5 The external peer review of assessment report, including any summary findings, planned actions or recommendations for improvement, must be included in the program review portfolio for provision to the Review Panel.

7.6 Further information on the peer review of assessment process, including support materials and templates can be found in the peer review of assessment guide.

8. Professional Accreditation

8.1 Portfolios and evidence files prepared for professional accrediting bodies must be approved by the University prior to submission.

8.2 The Centre for Learning and Teaching (CLT) will maintain and publish a forward plan of Professional Accreditation activities, with Schools responsible for providing timely advice to CLT of any changes to the Professional Accreditation schedule.

9. Reporting on outcomes

9.1 Program and Course Benchmarking

9.1.1 External referencing summary reports, and associated documents, will be included as part of the subsequent program review, with any recommendations and implementation of planned actions monitored through the review reporting processes, as outlined in the University Reviews – Procedures.

9.1.2 The Quality Office is responsible for the monitoring and reporting of program and course benchmarking activities, including outcomes and the implementation of planned actions, and will provide an annual report to the Academic Board and its relevant standing committee for noting on these activities. Additional reporting to school committees will be initiated by the school as deemed appropriate by the School Dean.

9.2 Professional Accreditation

9.2.1 Following receipt of the Professional Accreditation Report, the Program Coordinator/Discipline Lead will develop a draft Response and Action Plan addressing any recommendations or conditions, including a summary of actions required, for endorsement by the School Dean and approval by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). The Professional Accreditation report and the Response and Action Plan will then be provided to Academic Board and its relevant standing committee for endorsement. Periodic post-accreditation reporting will also be required until conditions are met and/or recommendations implemented.

9.2.2 The Quality Office is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of planned actions arising from Professional Accreditation activities.

9.2.3 Progress updates against planned actions will be collected from the Program Coordinator bi-annually until such time as all matters in the plan have been addressed appropriately.

9.2.4 Following approval of updates by the relevant School Dean and Program Coordinator, a bi-annual summary report will be prepared by the Quality Office and submitted to the Academic Board and its relevant standing committee. Additional reporting to school committees will be initiated by the school as deemed appropriate by the School Dean.

9.2.5 Implementation of all actions would normally occur within two years following approval of the Response and Action Plan or in alignment with the curriculum plan.

9.2.6 Schools are to provide notification of outcomes of professional accreditation submissions to key stakeholders, including:

(a) Centre for Learning and Teaching (CLT) for maintenance of the professional accreditation register in the Curriculum Information Repository (CIR);

(b) Quality Office for monitoring and reporting on implementation of planned actions; and

(c) Student Services for any required updates to program webpages.

10. Records and Information Management

10.1 Records and reports associated with External Referencing are captured in the University’s records management system, in accordance with the Records Management – Procedures, supported by:

(a) the Quality Office for program and course benchmarking; and

(b) the Centre for Learning and Teaching for professional accreditation submissions and associated correspondence.

11. Support Materials

11.1 The Quality Office will develop and make available external referencing support materials such as guidelines, templates and flowcharts to assist personnel involved with external referencing activities.

12. Roles and Responsibilities

END