Christian Heritage College (CHC) values the pursuit of quality and excellence in all its endeavours. As such, it recognises that a vital element in assuring quality is the identification of mechanisms by which to measure the effectiveness of its teaching and learning practice against that of the higher education sector generally. Consequently, CHC is committed to undertaking comparative analysis studies to promote continuous improvement and to inform curriculum development and review.
All Schools of CHC.
1. To identify quality learning and teaching practices.
2. To identify aspects of CHC’s academic operations in which opportunities for improvement exist.
3. To implement best practice models in all aspects of CHC’s academic operations and processes.
1.1. CHC seeks to secure relationships with benchmarking partners through formalised agreements.
1.2. CHC engages in four types of benchmarking:
1.2.3.discipline-specific benchmarking; and
1.3. The outcomes of benchmarking activities will be used to identify good institutional practice and quality teaching and learning practice, and for the purposes of undertaking curriculum development and review.
1.4. Academic Board will report to Council on benchmarking activities through the annual reporting process.
2. Types of Benchmarking
2.1. The type of benchmarking used will be determined by the objectives, expected outcomes and/or requirements of the benchmarking activity. The types of benchmarking used are:
2.1.1.sector benchmarking – a comparison with universities and private providers through publicly available performance data, or of processes and practices within the sector in selected areas to ensure comparability and to identify areas for improvement;
2.1.2.whole-of-institution benchmarking – a comparison of a range of activities, processes and practices with one or more partners, to identify areas for improvement and to facilitate an exchange of information regarding best practice;
2.1.3.discipline-specific benchmarking – a comparison of the performance of one discipline area in another university or provider to inform future planning and goals, normally undertaken in conjunction with course review processes and may include performance data such as:
184.108.40.206. attrition rates;
220.127.116.11. retention rates;
18.104.22.168. progression rates;
22.214.171.124. completion rates; and
126.96.36.199. graduate satisfaction rates.
2.2. standards-based benchmarking – a comparison and analysis of processes, practices and outcomes against an agreed set of standards, such as those set by professional bodies, national or international associations and the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).
|1. Partner Institutions
1.1. CHC will identify institutions with whom benchmarking partnerships may be agreed.
1.2. These partnerships may be at the institution, school, discipline or course level.
1.3. CHC may develop Memorandum of Understanding with specific partner institutions in the development of benchmarking communities.
2. Benchmarking Activities
2.1. Benchmarking of course outcomes may include the following mechanisms:
2.1.1.The rate of graduate employment, as determined by the Graduate Destination Survey in the Australian Graduate Survey and the comparison of CHC rates with the national mean, and, where possible, employer satisfaction rates;
2.1.2.Advice of external members on School Advisory Committees regarding professional and industry standards;
2.1.3.Approval of courses by professional bodies which leads to membership and/or registration with those bodies.
2.2. The outcomes of these benchmarking activities are used to inform curriculum development and review.
2.2.1.Graduate satisfaction is measured annually through the Course Experience Questionnaire in the Australian Graduate Survey and the comparison of CHC rates with the national mean. These data are used to promote continuous improvement and, where applicable, curriculum review.
2.2.2.Schools will measure, on an annual basis, retention rates, progression rates and completion rates. These are benchmarked against national data.
2.3. The Registrar’s Office will provide Schools and the Academic Board with data and preliminary analysis from the data sets submitted to DOE for use in annual reporting processes. Schools will identify areas of good practice and opportunities for improvement, propose strategies to promote best practice, and report on the implementation and outcomes of said strategies.
2.4. Where applicable, institutional matters may be referred to the Teaching and Learning Committee for advice on and analysis of issues raised as a result of benchmarking activities.
2.5. The Teaching and Learning Committee will conduct comparative studies of CHC’s teaching and learning practice against examples of sector best practice. Where possible, further comparative studies are made with partner institutions.
3.1. The Director of Quality and Standards will invite, through the inter-institutional agreements, relevant and qualified academics to act as external moderators.
3.2. The Director of Quality and Standards will provide:
3.2.1.A unit outline and/or assessment guide – which outlines the assessment task, learning outcomes and rubric
3.2.2.A selection of de-identified graded papers (across a range of grades)
3.2.3.A Moderators Report
3.3. The Moderators are required to:
3.3.1.Review the graded the assessments
3.3.2. Prepare the Moderators Report
3.4. Once the Moderators Report has been received it is forwarded to the relevant Dean for review and response to the Learning and Teaching Committee.
3.5. All Moderation activities are reported in the Academic Board Annual Report.
4. Annual Reporting
4.1. The Registrar’s Office will collate the outcomes of benchmarking activities for submission to the Academic Board.
4.2. The Academic Board will include this information in its Annual Report to Council.
WHO SHOULD KNOW THIS POLICY?
Teaching and Learning Committee
|Relevant Commonwealth/ State Legislation||Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF, 2015)|
|Monitoring and Evaluation:||Director of Quality and Standards|
|Development/Review:||Director of Quality and Standards|
|Approval Authority:||CHC CEO|
|Interpretation and Advice:||Director of Quality and Standards|
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS POLICY
|Performance Indicators:||· All aspects of benchmarking activities are reported each year.|
|Definitions and Acronyms:||CHC – Christian Heritage College
Dean – the head of the school administering a course, includes the Executive Director, Millis Institute.
DOE – Department of Education
School – the academic organisational units of CHC, includes the Millis Institute.
APPROVAL – section maintained by the Director of Quality and Standards
|Reference No.||Approved||Date||Committee/Board||Resolution No. / Minute Ref.|
REVISION HISTORY – section maintained by the Director of Quality and Standards
|Revision Reference No.||Approved/Rescinded||Date||Committee/Board||Resolution No. / Minute Ref.|
|1103||Approved||Nov 03||Academic Board||4.4|
|0209||Approved||Feb 09||Academic Board||4.4|
|0313||Approved||Mar 13||CHC CEO||NA|
|0318||Approved||March 18||CHC CEO||NA|