AAP Benchmarking Resources Booklet

Support for the production of this resource has been provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning
and Teaching. The views expressed in this resource do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian
Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, all material presented in this
document is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the
links provided) as is the full legal code for the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.
Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to:
Office for Learning and Teaching
Department of Education
GPO Box 9880,
Location code N255EL10
Sydney NSW 2001
<learningandteaching@education.gov.au>

Welcome
The Office for Learning and Teaching Extension Grant, Advancing Academic Professionalisation: National
Benchmarking of Graduate Certificates for Higher Education drew together six institutional partners, to create
resources to:
1. Develop a benchmarking template and guide
2. Investigate current approaches to Graduate Certificates, and
3. Produce a core list of comment elements in Graduate Certificates.
Each of the partner institutions had a Graduate Certificate program which played a key role in advancing teaching
quality within our institutional contexts. Through the course of the project, the team noted sector changes,
including the creation or discontinuation of a number of Graduate Certificates and a move towards greater variety
in the forms of formal professional development opportunities with a similar purpose to our original Graduate
Certificates. Thus this resource came to focus more broadly on those offerings. This benchmarking resource
is targeted at those who are responsible for managing, designing, delivering, assessing and evaluating formal
professional development to assess the current state of their offering and to learn from a comparison with
standards and with other institutional approaches, to enhance those offerings.
While we hope that the documented advice contained herein will provide a great starting point, as a team our
learning from this grant has been enriched from the dialogue that it has engaged us in, both within the team
and with those who provided feedback and critical advice. The quality of our programs has been enhanced as a
result. We encourage you to ‘continue the conversation’ with us as we seek to advance the professionalisation of
teaching in higher education.
Karen Whelan
Project Leader
1

Contents
Welcome 1
Guide to Benchmarking Formal Academic Professional Development Opportunities 4
Purpose and Introduction 4
What is Benchmarking? 4
Overview of the Process of Benchmarking Described in this Guide 4
The Benchmarking Template: Details and Benchmarks 5
Undertaking a Benchmarking Project 6
Benchmark Exemplars 9
Institutional Strategic Intent 9
Program/Course/Module Outcomes 11
Content and Learning and Teaching Approaches 11
Assessment, Feedback and Moderation 13
Evaluation 15
Glossary of Terms Used in this Benchmarking Resource 16
References 18
Appendix A: Benchmarking Template for Formal Academic Professional Development Opportunities 19

4
Guide to Benchmarking Formal Academic
Professional Development Opportunities
Purpose and Introduction
Increasingly higher education institutions are offering formal academic professional development opportunities to
their staff as one strategy to address teaching quality, through advancing academic professionalisation of teaching.
This guide is designed to assist in the process of review and improvement of formal academic professional
development. It supports those responsible for managing, designing, delivering, assessing and evaluating these
opportunities to undertake a benchmarking project on all aspects of a program, course or module. A range of
formal academic professional development opportunities are currently offered in higher education institutions
including (but not limited to):
• Graduate Certificates in Higher Education, Tertiary Teaching or Academic Practice
• Foundations of University Teaching programs
• Other modularised forms of formal academic professional development that may be recognised via internal or
external fellowships or recognition schemes.
Because of the variation in institutional naming conventions and to simplify this guide, these opportunities are
referred to as program/course/module. Further, academic staff who support learning and teaching who are
undertaking a program/course/module are referred to as a ‘participant’ in contrast to enrolled ‘students’ that the
participants may teach.
What is Benchmarking?
Benchmarking is a systematic process of comparison between current practice and external standards of
performance or partners (or both). It focuses on:
• Assessing the current state as a means of quality assurance; and
• Learning from the comparison to inform quality enhancement.
Benchmarks can also be useful in informing the design of future practice. Benchmarking is a systematic process
that must be planned and managed if it is to achieve the desired outcomes.
Overview of the Process of Benchmarking Described in this Guide
The benchmarks developed for this guide are designed to be used in one of two ways:
1. To undertake internal benchmarking against the standards outlined: in this case the guide provides templates
for gathering data, conducting a self-review and identifying issues and good practices.
2. To undertake benchmarking with appropriate partners: in this case the guide provides advice on finding and
forming partnerships, approaches to reviewing between partners and a process for comparing issues and
good practices.
(Based on Wills et al, 2013)
Deciding to undertake an internal benchmarking process can be a means to open up conversation within an
institution and draw together stakeholders across a range of areas. The decision to choose external partners will
be informed by the desired outcomes. In some cases this will best be achieved through choosing a partner who
is institutionally similar or with a similar program, course or module, but in others it may be more fruitful to look
for a partner who differs in some way. It may also be that the choice is an opportunistic one, due to location or an
existing relationship with a colleague within the partner institution.

B E N C H M A R K I N G F O R M A L A C A D E M I C P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S 5
The Benchmarking Template: Details and Benchmarks
At the back of this guide, you will find a Benchmarking Template (see Appendix A). There are two sections to
the Benchmarking template. The first section collects together the details of the program/course/module being
benchmarked and were developed alongside the benchmarks themselves, reflecting the important contextual
elements that may impact on decisions about the management, design, delivery, assessment and evaluation of
the program/course/module of formal professional development. These details provide a context for the second
section which includes ten benchmarks, organised within a number of overall categories, as summarised below.
Institutional Strategic Intent
• Benchmark One Institutional plans reflect a commitment to the program/
course/module as a means to improve teaching quality for academic staff.
• Benchmark Two The program/course/module is supported by university
policies, systems and processes.
Program/Course/
Module Outcomes
• Benchmark Three The program/course/module learning outcomes are
articulated, communicated to participants and potential participants, and
connected to internal and external referents.
Content and Learning and
Teaching Approaches
• Benchmark Four Content is updated in light of developments in the field of
higher education/academic practice.
• Benchmark Five Content and learning and teaching approaches are
constructively aligned.
• Benchmark Six Learning and teaching approaches model evidence-based
scholarship and practice.
Assessment, Feedback and
Moderation
• Benchmark Seven A suite of appropriate assessment opportunities are
used to evidence learning.
• Benchmark Eight The program/course/module consistently applies internal
and external moderation to assure quality of assessment practices.
• Benchmark Nine Formative assessment and meaningful feedback are used
to actively support participant learning.
Evaluation
• Benchmark Ten There is a systematic approach to evaluation and
enhancement in place.
Figure 1: Summary of Categories and Benchmarks
Each benchmark is a statement of good practice for formal academic professional development activities. These
benchmarks were developed by the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) Extension Project Team, informed by:
• Previous OLT grants, in particular the 2012 project: Measuring the Effectiveness of Academic Professional
Development (Chalmers et al, 2012).
• The Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development (CADAD) Report: “Benchmarking
Performance of Academic Development Units in Australian Universities” (CADAD, 2010).
• Feedback and consultation with CADAD members at two face-to-face meetings.
• A presentation at the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) Conference,
Stockholm, 18 June 2014.
• Trialling and testing the benchmarks both within the project team and a survey of all Australian universities
through their Directors of Academic Development Units (or equivalent).
For each benchmark, this guide also provides explanations of practice created by the project team that meet the
required ‘Yes’ (Level 4) standard. While they were informed by the input of survey respondents, they were written
with a fictitious ideal in mind.

6
Undertaking a Benchmarking Project
This section of the guide outlines the stages of undertaking a benchmarking project. Each stage is described for
both internal and external benchmarking.
Broadly the stages of a benchmarking project are:
1. Determine purpose, scope, internal team and external partner/s
2. Engage internal stakeholders and develop and agree a project plan
3. Gather evidence for your program/course/module
4. Conduct a self-review
5. Conduct a comparative review (external benchmarking only)
6. Synthesise your findings and communicate as appropriate
1. Determine purpose, scope, internal team and external partner/s
Benchmarking may be undertaken for a range of purposes. For example:
• To demonstrate the quality of your program/course/module to an internal, institutional audience;
• To inform an internal review;
• As part of a cyclical moderation, evaluation or accreditation process;
• To check institutional readiness and/or plan for the management, design, delivery, assessment and evaluation
of a new program/course/module;
• To learn from others about alternative ways to achieve quality in your program/course/module;
• To demonstrate the quality of your program/course/module as compared to others.
The first phase of an internal benchmarking project is to clarify the purpose and scope of undertaking the
benchmarking activity. This may well depend on other drivers within your institution and where you sit within the
organisation. Given that few programs/courses/modules are the responsibility of a single individual, it is best at this
stage to identify an internal project team, who can work with you, as project leader, to complete the later stages.
Depending on purpose you may want to confirm a project sponsor, who may be a member of the University
Executive and can be a champion for the activity, or whose approval may be required before proceeding. Many
universities also have internal benchmarking policies and guidelines, so ensure that you have checked on these
and modified your approach to align with them.
For external benchmarking projects, it is at this stage that you will need to identify a potential partner or partners.
The purpose of the project will guide your choice, and it may be that partners have different purposes, but at the
very least you should agree on what role each will take and what outcomes you hope to achieve. Remember that
partners will need to go through their own internal process described in stages 2, 3 and 4 as well so it may take
some time to negotiate a shared focus and get the approval or support required at a number of institutions. The
value in engaging with an external partner can be both in ‘seeing’ your program/course/module in a different light
and learning about alternate ways to achieve quality. Involvement of project teams across partner institutions
makes the management more complex (e.g. will you bring the whole teams together or just the project leaders?),
so take this into account when thinking through the time-scale required and the location of potential partners.

2. Engage internal stakeholders and develop and agree on a plan
As well as an internal project sponsor, internal project team members and partner/s, there will be a range of
internal stakeholders for any program/course/module across many levels of the university. Identifying and engaging
stakeholders early will allow you to draw on them for evidence, and disseminate the outcomes in a timely and
influential manner. Crookes et al, (2014) outlined a model for Stakeholder Engagement and Management for
change processes, which is useful to consider in a benchmarking context (see Figure 2).
Thus you might:
• Involve those who are highly engaged in the program/course/module and who have considerable impact on its
quality as internal project team members;
• Manage those who have a high impact on the program/course/module without much engagement in its day
to day activity (Senior Staff for example) by being proactive in briefing them on the benchmarking project and
outcomes, with a particular focus on quality assurance;
• Inform those who are highly engaged with the program/course/module but who may have little impact and
keep them updated on how the project will focus on quality enhancement;
• Monitor others through a more general communication strategy.
to be managed to
increase engagement
to be closely involved
with the process
to be monitored to be kept informed
high
low
ENGAGEMENT
highlowIMPACT
Figure 2: Model for Stakeholder Engagement and Management Source: Crookes et al, (2014)
A project plan will be important for keeping the benchmarking process on track. Determining a timeline,
milestones, responsibilities, management approach, communication and reporting are all part of the project plan. If
you have an external partner, you may have an overarching plan for the project as well as an internal plan.

8
3. Gather evidence for your program/course/module
Self-review against the benchmarks relies on you being able to find evidence of program/course/module practices
against each one. Both quantitative data and qualitative information are useful in thinking about your program/
course/module. This stage of the process may take longer than expected, if the evidence is either dispersed across
different areas or does not yet exist. This stage and the next may overlap.
4. Conduct a self-review
Once you have gathered together evidence, it is time to undertake a self-review against the benchmarks.
Remember that they are statements of good practice. While an individual may be able to undertake the self-
review, drawing together the internal project team at a face-to-face event, will provide rich dialogue and a stronger
rationale for the rating. Again, this takes time (at least a whole day), and may be best split over a number of
get-togethers. As you begin to rate your program/course/module against the benchmarks, you may find that you
need to go back and draw in more evidence or create more (through focus groups or interviews, for example).
The exemplar section in this guide includes explanations for each benchmark statement which will help you to
determine a rating.
Even if you have an external partner, an internal self-review is an important first step before engaging in a
comparative discussion.
Once you have gathered evidence, read the exemplar for each benchmark in the next section of this guide, and
then rate according to the scale between Level 5 and Level 1, with Level 5 being the highest standard of outcomes
and Level 1 being an absence of quality as defined in the benchmark (see Table 1).
Table 1: Explanation of Self-Rating Levels
Level 5 Yes, and… This practice or strategy is considered as an innovative exemplar.
Level 4 Yes Effective strategies are implemented successfully across the
program/course/module.
Level 3 Yes, but… Good strategies in place, some limitations or further work needed.
Level 2 No, but… This area has not yet been effectively addressed, but some
significant work is being done.
Level 1 No No effective strategies e.g. not addressed, addressed only
in isolated parts, notionally addressed but major barriers to
implementation.
5. Conduct a comparative review (external benchmarking only)
There are a number of ways to choose an external benchmarking partner such as those in close geographical
proximity, established institutional relationships or partnerships or similarities in program/course/module design.
Once an institutional partner/s is chosen decisions need to be made about how to approach the comparative
benchmarking process, for example you may choose common areas of interest or look for areas where there is
disparity in ratings.
The value in having an external benchmarking partner is best achieved through sitting down together, either
physically or virtually, and comparing your self-review outcomes. This happens through a ‘face-to-face’ meeting
over a focused time period (such as a whole day workshop). As for an internal self-review, it may be a good idea
to break it up over time, so the new ideas you gain from seeing another institution’s approach can inform better
evidence gathering and further sharing. The comparative review might happen with whole teams from each
institution or it may be that only project leaders come together. At the conclusion of your comparative review, you
may wish to write some form of report or feedback to the project leader of your partner institution/s to use within
their internal reporting. Alternatively you may create a single representation of the partner practices which you can
all include in your final report.

6. Synthesise your findings and communicate as appropriate
After the self-review and comparative process it is important to consolidate your findings, checking back on
your original purpose to guide your final communication strategy (to whom and in what form?). One way you can
present your outcomes is through identifying three areas which can be linked to rating levels:
1. Commendations for those areas where you are meeting or exceeding good practice (Levels 4-5)
2. Affirmations for those areas in which you have already begun to improve but are not yet meeting good
practice (Levels 2–3)
3. Recommendations for those areas that are not meeting good practice and need action to address
(Levels 1–2)
At this stage you may also wish to develop an action plan for future activity that is informed by the internal and/or
external benchmarking.
For external benchmarking you may wish to create an internal report for each partner as well as an overarching
communication about the process and outcomes.
Benchmark Exemplars
Further to the self-rating table in the previous section, this section provides example answers and further
information to guide your thinking about your particular answers to both the rationale and evidence sections of
the benchmarking template. Definitions of terms used in this resource can be found in the Glossary of Terms (see
page 17). Each benchmark is outlined including a list of the guiding questions found in the template, then in the
boxes below are generic answers written to the standard of a Level 4 ‘Yes’ response. To answer ‘Yes’ to each
benchmark your institution should be able to address all the relevant questions in the list. The process you took to
reach the level recorded would answer the ‘Rationale’ section for each benchmark. Also, you will find suggested
sources of evidence to support your rationale in this section. It should be noted that the examples provided are not
an exhaustive list and your institution may have other ways to evidence your answer.
Institutional Strategic Intent
Benchmark One
Institutional plans reflect a commitment to the program/course/module as a means to improve teaching
quality for academic staff.
To answer ‘Yes’ to this benchmark the institution should be able to address all these dot points.
• Does the program/course/module appear in university plans?
• How is the program/course/module aligned to university plans for teaching quality?
• How do university plans reflect commitment e.g. workloads, recognition/reward, funding, employment
requirements?
• Does the university provide funding for the program/course/module to relevant Learning and Teaching and/or
Education Units?

10
Exemplar:
The importance of high quality learning and teaching is reflected in university strategic objectives. While
the program/course/module is not explicitly mentioned at the highest level, a cascading articulation of this
commitment flows from this level to lower level university plans and strategies. The program/course/module
is aligned to these objectives and is an integral part of the Learning and Teaching unit’s strategic plans. This
alignment is reviewed on a regular basis. Commitment to these objectives is demonstrated through activities
such as professional development opportunities, supportive workload allocations, funding sponsorship for
program/course/module participation, support for probationary teaching requirements and/or applications for
teaching awards.
Sources of Evidence:
1. Publically available University Strategic Plan which references the importance of quality learning and teaching
as a priority.
2. Learning and Teaching Plan references professional learning and the Grad Cert as a means for staff to
engage in professional learning.
3. Evidence of commitment could include financial priorities and resource allocations.
Benchmark Two
The program/course/module is supported by university policies, systems and processes
• Is the program/course/module mandated for specific staff cohorts? If so, for whom?
• How is it recognised in university processes e.g. promotion, performance planning, teaching awards?
• Is program/course/module participation recognised in workload allocations? If so, how?
Exemplar:
Participation in the program/course/module is an integrated part of academic practice both for newly
recruited academics as part of their probation requirements and for ongoing academics through professional
development opportunities. The program/course is recognised strategically by the university as an important
part of evidencing continual improvement of staff academic practice. As such completion of the Graduate
Certificate is recognised in workload allocation and staff are sponsored to attend the program.
1. Promotion criteria that mentions completion of program/course/module
2. Workload allocation policies and approaches
3. Induction/probation requirements for new academics recruits
4. Institutional reporting on participation and completion.

Program/Course/Module Outcomes
Benchmark Three
The program/course/module learning outcomes are articulated, communicated to participants and
potential participants, and connected to internal and external referents.
• Are the program/course/module outcomes written in a clear and concise way so all concerned can understand
their meaning and application?
• How are the program/course/module learning outcomes communicated to participants e.g. induction,
information sessions?
• How are the learning outcomes connected to internal referents e.g. university graduate capabilities, promotion
standards?
• How are the learning outcomes connected to external referents e.g. AQF; Higher Education Standards
Framework, HEA, other international referents?
Exemplar:
Each program/course/module learning outcome is clearly designed using a strategically chosen verb that
leads a simple and succinct description. They are also explicitly aligned to internal referents, such as graduate
capabilities or promotion standards and regularly reviewed as part of the institution’s internal curriculum
processes. Similarly, the connection between the program/course/module learning outcomes and external
referents e.g. AQF, HEA should be explicit so students know the wider context and connections of their
intended learning outcomes. They are available both at the institutional and student levels giving a consistent
understanding to all stakeholders. Every appropriate opportunity is taken to communicate the learning
outcomes and their links with internal and external referents with current and potential participants in a timely
fashion through avenues such as the handbook, website, induction, orientation.
1. Orientation resources for participants
2. Copies of program/course/module learning outcomes
3. Marketing or promotional material
4. Curriculum mapping against appropriate referents

12
Content and Learning and Teaching Approaches
Benchmark Four
Content is updated in light of developments in the field of higher education/academic practice
To answer ‘Yes’ to this benchmark the institution should be able to address this dot point.
• How and when are decisions made about updating content?
Exemplar:
Content is regularly updated so that guiding principles and theoretical concepts are reflective of the scholarly
higher education literature. While the program/course/module adheres to the Institution’s formal 5 year review
cycle (which includes an external reviewer), minor changes and enhancements to content occur annually in
response to feedback from students, peers and assessors. Though a number of resources (including textbooks)
are recommended to students, the increasing number of relevant and readily available e-books and other online
publications ensures that content remains current and accessible.
1. Prescribed textbooks and readings
2. Change log of updates, version control of curriculum documents
Benchmark Five
Content and learning and teaching approaches are constructively aligned
To answer ‘Yes’ to this benchmark the institution should be able to address these dot points.
• How is alignment to outcomes evidenced?
• How is the content and learning and teaching approaches aligned to the needs of participants?
Exemplar:
The program/course/module has been designed around the principles of constructive alignment, and is assured
via the team development process at both program/course/module and unit/course level. This is evidenced
through clear mapping of program/course/module learning outcomes to each unit, and the inclusion of
constructive alignment as a theme/topic within units of work.
1. Course documentation
2. Assessment task specifications
3. Mapping of assessment tasks to learning outcomes
Benchmark Six
Learning and teaching approaches model evidence-based scholarship and practice
• How does the program/course/module incorporate learning technologies both in delivering content and as an
area of program/course/module content?
• What model/s underpins the program/course/module’s teaching pedagogy?

• Does the content link to contemporary scholarship and practice around student experience and student
success? If so, how?
• Do participants and teachers/educators work together to construct learning and assessment?
Exemplar:
The approach to learning and teaching is clearly articulated in course/unit/module outlines for the program/
course/module. Sound curriculum design principles underpin the course with constructive alignment ensured
through the team based approach to design and development, and evidenced in curriculum mapping. Key
elements of the approach to teaching and learning include active, collaborative learning and reflective practice.
Authentic assessment is designed to be adaptive to new demands in learning within particular discipline areas.
Teaching and assessment include effective use of appropriate technologies and innovation. A blended learning
approach is adopted combining a mix of face to face and online elements. Opportunity for collaboration and
negotiation between educators and participants in developing learning activities and assessment is welcomed.
1. Session plans
2. Websites
3. Reading lists
4. Technologies used
Assessment, Feedback and Moderation
Benchmark Seven
A suite of appropriate assessment opportunities are used to evidence learning
• Does the assessment constructively align with the learning outcomes?
• Does the assessment adhere to the principles of assessment design including equity, validity, reliability,
authenticity and balance between individual and group?
• How is assessment (formative and summative) used to engage participants in productive learning?
• What types of assessment are used?
• What use is made of peer and self-assessment?
Exemplar:
Scholarly learning and teaching principles underpin the assessment practices in the program. A variety of
learning activities and assessment types are used (e.g. written or oral, individual or group). These tasks are
designed to be relevant and situated in ‘real world’ contexts while only evaluating what is explicitly stated
will be assessed. Students are clear on what is required of them in their assessment tasks. Use is made of
formative assessment, peer feedback and assessment as well as encouraging the students’ development of
self-assessment and reflective practice e.g. ePortfolios.
1. Example course/unit assessment descriptors
2. Course/unit review documentation
3. Website information – handbook details
4. Example resources used in practice

14
Benchmark Eight
The program/course/module consistently applies internal and external moderation to assure the quality of
assessment practices.
• Do you have a process of internal moderation across the marking team?
• Is there a quality assured process for managing assessment?
• Is there a process for ensuring calibration of marking through preparing markers for their role?
• Do you have external moderation as part of a periodic review?
Exemplar:
A moderator is assigned to each program/course/module and is responsible for organising appropriate and
timely moderation of assessment practices. This includes the development and implementation of tools to
ensure consistency across marking and quality standards. The assigned moderator manages differences of
opinion and judgement calls between markers and facilitates positive outcomes. Markers understand the
purpose of moderation and are skilled in the use of moderation tools. Use is made of external moderation
processes and benchmarking practices with other universities on a regular basis e.g. as part of a periodic
review.
1. Moderation policies or guidelines
2. Reports on program/course/module moderation
Benchmark Nine
Formative assessment and meaningful feedback are used to actively support participant learning.
• How is feedback provided?
• How is feedback used to actively improve participant learning?
• Is formative assessment systematically embedded in the learning process? If so, how?
• How are rubrics used?
Exemplar:
Feedback is provided on all assessments (formative and summative) by staff members. Our program policies
state that feedback will be provided within two weeks of the assessment due date and includes suggestions on
how to improve. It is provided via a variety of means, depending on delivery mode, and includes: our electronic
marking system, online collaborative sessions, email, quizzes and rubrics. Drafts of major assignments can be
submitted for staff feedback. Self or peer assessment is frequently used, preceding staff feedback, to develop
students’ understanding of required standards.
1. Feedback processes used
2. Samples of written feedback

Evaluation
Benchmark Ten
There is a systematic approach to evaluation and enhancement in place.
• What forms of evaluation are used? How often?
• What opportunities are there for students to provide feedback?
• How is evaluation used to enhance the program/course/module?
• In what ways is the impact of the program/course/module evaluated?
• How does the program/course/module incorporate new and innovative practices?
Exemplar:
There is a planned cycle of evaluation at the program/course/module level as well as within individual
subjects/courses/units. Participants are invited to provide feedback through a range of mechanisms including
anonymous survey, focus groups, a participant advisory group, or similar. Longer term impact of the program/
course/module is determined by contacting successful participants after completion and monitoring other
outcomes (including the student feedback from participant teaching, success rates in promotion, awards and
grants, etc.). The loop is closed on evaluation data through demonstrated enhancements over time.
• Participant feedback data
• Evaluation reporting
• Enhancement reporting/changes
• Other impact data including student feedback, promotion success, awards and grants success

16
Glossary of Terms Used in this Benchmarking
Resource
Term Definition
Academic Practice The description of academic work that emphasises the linkage and
impact of all professional aspects: learning and teaching, research
and service.
Academic Professionalisation A movement to recognise the teaching function of academic work as a
professional endeavour that involves appropriate preparation through
professional learning and the need for ongoing professional learning
opportunities.
Articulated Expressed clearly in written form
Assessment Formal and informal evaluation of individuals or groups to grade learning
at specific points in time, or foster progression in learning over time or
build a learner’s capacity to self-monitor and self-evaluate.
Authentic Assessment Assessment that focuses on using and applying knowledge and skills in
real world or simulated setting that model the real world.
Benchmark A good practice standard of performance against which local practice can
be measured.
Benchmarking Template A form that can be used to describe practice, rate performance
and undertake self-review and/or comparative against pre-defined
benchmarks or other practices.
Constructively Aligned There is continuity and agreement between learning and teaching
elements (teaching approaches, assessment and outcomes) and these
elements allow learners to construct meaning and outcomes.
Evaluation A process of judging performance or outcome against some standard
or value.
Evidence Objective support for your rating alongside the particular rationale or point
of view e.g. policies, reports, web links, data
External Benchmarking Comparison of practice against the performance of a partner institution
External Referent A standard defined beyond the institutional context that is used as a point
of reference for design or evaluation.
Formal Academic Professional
Development Opportunities
Formal programs are ‘those which are accredited, mandated or required,
and offered in either intensive (one to three days) or extended (usually
from one semester to two year) mode’ (Chalmers, et al, 2012).
Formative Assessment Assessment focused on providing feedback to learners to foster
progression in learning over time and to build a learner’s capacity to
self-monitor and self-evaluate.
Good Practice A performance standard that has general recognition of superior
outcomes and impacts.
Higher Education The purpose of universities and those organisations that offer degree level
educational outcomes.
Internal Referents A standard defined within the institutional context that is used as a point
of reference for design or evaluation.

Term Definition
Internal Benchmarking Comparison of practice against a pre-defined set of benchmarks
Learning Technologies The use of technology to support pedagogy and to enhance learning
outcomes.
Moderation (internal and external) Moderation includes: feedback on the suitability of the designed
assessment for allowing participants to demonstrate their learning;
ensuring consistency in the application of standards; and checking the
standards against external referents.
Participant Academic staff and staff who support learning and teaching who are
undertaking the formal academic professional program/course/module.
Pedagogy The approach taken towards learning and teaching by educators
Practice Refers to actual application or the way of doing work, in contrast to
abstract theoretical notions about work or activity
Program/Course/Module A coherently designed learning experience that leads to defined learning
outcomes. In this project it refers to the formal academic professional
development opportunities offered.
Quality Effectiveness of practices in achieving defined outcomes
Quality Assessment Tasks Assessment tasks that are designed according to principles of
assessment design including equity, validity, reliability, authenticity
and balance between individual and group.
Quality Assurance Processes that work to maintain the quality of practice at a pre-defined
standard
Quality Enhancement Processes that seek to improve the quality of practices and outcomes
Rationale An explanation of why a certain argument or way of thinking was used
and how this supports the ranking against the benchmark.
Rubrics A matrix used in criterion referenced assessment systems that define
the criteria and relevant standards of achievement against those criteria.
Used to communicate to learners and markers the expectations for
assessment outcomes.
Scholarship A characteristic of academic work that emphasises the link between
theory, research and practice.
Self-review A formalised and documented approach to assessment against each
benchmark, conducted in a collaborative and collegial way.
Standard The level of attainment
Students Enrolled students who participants may teach
Student Experience and Success Recognition of the impact of the broad range
University Plans High level institutional strategic plan that guide the university’s learning
and teaching practices
University Policies, Systems and
Processes
The agreed upon documents, organisational structures and operating
procedures that impact learning and teaching, academic work and
attendant practices within an institution.
Workload Allocations Calculated number of hours required to complete as part of employment
responsibilities

18
References
CADAD (2010) Benchmarking Performance of Academic Development Units in Australian Universities. Available
from: http://cadad.edu.au/pluginfile.php/401/course/section/78/Benchmarking_Report.pdf
Chalmers, D., Stoney, S., Goody, A., Goerke, V. and Gardiner, D. (2012) Measuring the effectiveness of academic
professional development: Identification and implementation of indicators and measures of effectiveness of teaching
preparation programs for academics in higher education (Final Report). The University of Western Australia, Curtin
University Edith Cowan University.
Crookes, P., Booth, S., Outram, S. and Stainton, C. (2014) Transforming Practice Programme, 2013-2014:
Promotion, Policy and Process. Presentation at the Office for Learning and Teaching, Transforming Practice
Programme Start-up Day.
Wills, S., Brown, C., Cashmore, A., Cane, C., Sadler, D., Booth, S., McHanwell, S., Robson, S. (2013) Promoting
teaching: making evidence count (Benchmarking Guide). The Higher Education Academy, UK.

Appendix A: Benchmarking Template for
Formal1
Academic Professional Development
Opportunities
This template and accompanying benchmarking guide were developed as part of the Advancing Academic
Professionalisation: National Benchmarking of Graduate Certificates for Higher Education research project funded
by the Australian Office for Learning and Teaching. This project was a collaborative partnerships between six
participating universities (Queensland University of Technology, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Monash,
Griffith, Macquarie and James Cook Universities) and had three deliverables: develop a benchmarking template
and guide for use in formal academic professional development programs/courses/modules; summarise
approaches to graduate certificates and alternatives in higher education; and produce a core list of common
elements in graduate certificates to inform the future collaborative development of modules and resources that
could be shared across the sector.
Benchmarking is a systematic process of comparison between current practice and external standards of
performance or partners (or both). It focuses on:
• Assessing the current state as a means of quality assurance; and
• Learning from the comparison to inform quality enhancement.
Benchmarks can also be useful in informing the design of future practice. Benchmarking is a systematic process
that must be planned and managed if it is to achieve the desired outcomes. The benchmarks developed for this
guide are designed to be used as internal benchmarking against standards and/or benchmarking with external
partners. Please refer to the Benchmarking Template Guide for further information on how to use the template.
This template is divided into two sections:
• SECTION ONE: Program/Course/Module Details – this section asks for contextual information about the
program/course/module you will be benchmarking.
• SECTION TWO: Benchmarking – this section describes categories that you can use to either do an internal
benchmark of your graduate certificate (by comparing with the standards described), or gather data and
evidence that you might use to do a cross institutional benchmarking activity (by comparing your responses
with one or more partner institutions).
1
Formal programs are defined as ‘those which are accredited, mandated or required, and offered in either intensive (one to three days) or extended (usually from one semester to two
years) mode’. Source: Chalmers, D, Stoney, S, Goody, A, Goerke, V Gardiner, D (2012: 17) Identification and implementation of indicators and measures of effectiveness of teaching
preparation programs for academics in higher education, Final Report to Office for Learning Teaching, Sydney.

20
SECTIONONE:PROGRAM/COURSE/MODULEDETAILS
NameofInstitution:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NameandRoleofPersonCompletingtheBenchmarkingTemplate:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ContactDetails:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ProgramWebsiteLink:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Fillinthefollowingtable)
ElementDetails
NameofProgram/Course/Module
Isthisanaccredited/approvedprogram/course/
modulewithintheuniversity’sstructure?
Externalreferentsthatinformtheprogram/course/
module?
Whatwastherationalefortakingthispathway?
Howdoesyourexternalconnection/smeetyour
expectationsandneeds?
Whatareas,ifany,doesitnotmeetthoseexpectations
andneeds?
AQF
HEAUKPFS
HERDSAFellowshipScheme
Chalmers’sTPPFramework
AcademicProfessionalDevelopmentFramework
AustralianUniversityTeachingCriteriaandStandardsFramework
OLTProfessionalisationProject
OtherPleaseprovidedetails_______________________________________________________

21B E N C H M A R K I N G F O R M A L A C A D E M I C P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S
ElementDetails
LengthofProgram/Course/Module
CohortSize
CohortDiversity(e.g.international/domestic,
academic/professional,inside/outsideuniversity,
appointmenttypeandlevel,PhDstudents,Indigenous,
disability,gender)
Attendance(e.g.mandatory,optional)
Pre-requisitesforEntrancetoProgram/Course/
Module
ApproachtoRecognitionofPriorLearning
(e.g.credentialingofpriorformalandinformallearning
andwork-basedexperience)
WhoownstheProgram/Course/Module?
(e.g.TandLunit,faculty)
WhoteachesintoProgram/Course/Module?
ParticipantFunding
(e.g.self-funded,fullysupported,bursary)
ParticipantSupport
(e.g.expectedworkloadortimereliefforcompletion)

22
ElementDetails
WhataretheProgram/Course/ModuleOutcomes?
BriefDetailsofCourses/UnitsinProgram/Course/
Module(includingdeliverymode)
NumberandWeightingofAssessmentTasksineach
Course/Unit
Optional:OtherDetails

23
SECTIONTWO:BENCHMARKING
AreyoubenchmarkingaCurrentProgram/Course/Module
OR
FutureProgram/Course/Module
BenchmarkingCategoriesforFormalAcademicProfessionalDevelopmentOpportunities
Thisbenchmarkingtemplate(below)isdividedintofivecategories:institutionalstrategicintent;program/course/moduleoutcomes;contentandapproaches;assessment,feedbackand
moderation;andevaluationandinnovation.Tenbenchmarksareincludedwithinthesedimensions.Youareaskedtomakeacurrentstatusratingagainsteachbenchmarkmeasuredona
scalebetweenLevel5andLevel1,withLevel5beingthemostevidentofqualityoutcomesandLevel1showingtheleastamountofevidenceinquality,asexplainedinthefollowingtable.
Level5Yes,and…Thispracticeorstrategyisconsideredasaninnovativeexemplar.
Level4YesEffectivestrategiesareimplementedsuccessfullyacrosstheprogram/course/module.
Level3Yes,but…Goodstrategiesinplace,somelimitationsorfurtherworkneeded.
Level2No,but…Thisareahasnotyetbeeneffectivelyaddressed,butsomesignificantworkisbeingdone.
Level1NoNoeffectivestrategiese.g.notaddressed,addressedonlyinisolatedparts,notionallyaddressedbutmajorbarriersto
implementation.
Note:Theword‘participant’isusedtomeanacademicstaffandstaffwhosupportlearningandteachingwhoarestudentsofthedevelopmentprogram(asdistinctfromtheenrolled
studentsthattheparticipantsmayteach).

24
InstitutionalStrategicIntentRating
(Fivepointscale)
Rationale
(Whydidyougiveyourselfthisrating?)
Evidence
(Providenameandwebreferenceif
publicallyavailable,reference,data
sources,etc.)
Benchmark1:Institutionalplansreflectacommitmenttothe
program/course/moduleasameanstoimproveteaching
qualityforacademicstaff.
Questionstoinformyourresponsemayinclude:
• Doestheprogram/course/moduleappearinuniversityplans?
• Howistheprogram/course/modulealignedtouniversityplans
forteachingquality?
• Howdouniversityplansreflectcommitmente.g.workloads,
recognition/reward,funding,employmentrequirements?
• Doestheuniversityprovidefundingforprogram/course/
moduletotherelevantLearningandTeachingand/or
EducationUnits?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No
Benchmark2:Theprogram/course/moduleissupportedby
universitypolicies,systemsandprocesses.
• Istheprogram/course/modulemandatedforspecificstaff
cohorts?Ifso,forwhom?
• Howisitrecognisedinuniversityprocessese.g.promotion,
performanceplanning,teachingawards?
• Isprogram/course/moduleparticipationrecognisedin
workloadallocations?Ifso,how?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No

25
Program/Course/ModuleOutcomesRating
(Fivepointscale)
Rationale
Evidence
sources,etc.)
Benchmark3:Theprogram/course/modulelearning
outcomesarearticulated,communicatedtoparticipantsand
potentialparticipants,andconnectedtointernalandexternal
referents.
• Aretheprogram/course/moduleoutcomeswritteninaclear
andconcisewaysoallconcernedcanunderstandtheir
meaningandapplication?
• Howaretheprogram/course/modulelearningoutcomes
communicatedtoparticipantse.g.induction,information
sessions?
• Howarethelearningoutcomesconnectedtointernal
referentse.g.universitygraduatecapabilities,promotion
standards?
• Howarethelearningoutcomesconnectedtoexternal
referentse.g.AQF;HigherEducationStandardsFramework,
HEA,otherinternationalreferents?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No

26
ContentandLearningandTeachingApproachesRating
(Fivepointscale)
Rationale
Evidence
sources,etc.)
Benchmark4:Contentisupdatedinlightofdevelopmentsin
thefieldofhighereducation/academicpractice
• Howandwhenaredecisionsmadeaboutupdatingcontent?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No
Benchmark5:Contentandlearningandteachingapproaches
areconstructivelyaligned
• Howisalignmenttooutcomesevidenced?
• Howisthecontentandlearningandteachingapproaches
alignedtotheneedsofparticipants?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but…
1.No
Benchmark6:Learningandteachingapproachesmodel
evidence-basedscholarshipandpractice.
• Howdoestheprogram/course/moduleincorporatelearning
technologiesbothindeliveringcontentandasanareaof
program/coursecontent?
• Whatmodel/sunderpinstheprogram/course/module’s
teaching/pedagogy?
• Doesthecontentlinktocontemporaryscholarshipand
practicearoundstudentexperienceandstudentsuccess?If
so,how?
• Howdoparticipantsandteachers/educatorsworktogetherto
constructlearningandassessment?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No

27
Assessment,FeedbackandModerationRating
(Fivepointscale)
Rationale
Evidence
sources,etc.)
Benchmark7:Asuiteofappropriateassessment
opportunitiesareusedtoevidencelearning,
• Doestheassessmentconstructivelyalignwiththelearning
outcomes?
• Doestheassessmentadheretotheprinciplesofassessment
designincludingequity,validity,reliability,authenticityand
balancebetweenindividualandgroup?
• Howisassessment(formativeandsummative)usedto
engageparticipantsinproductivelearning?
• Whattypesofassessmentareused?
• Whatuseismadeofpeerandself-assessment?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No
Benchmark8:Theprogramconsistentlyappliesinternaland
externalmoderationtoassurethequalityofassessment
practices.
• Doyouhaveaprocessofinternalmoderationacrossthe
markingteam?
• Isthereaqualityassuredprocessformanagingassessment?
• Isthereaprocessforensuringcalibrationofmarkingthrough
preparingmarkersfortheirrole?
• Doyouhaveexternalmoderationaspartofaperiodicreview?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No
Benchmark9:Formativeassessmentandmeaningful
feedbackisusedtoactivelysupportparticipantlearning.
• Howisfeedbackprovided?
• Howisfeedbackusedtoactivelyimproveparticipant
learning?
• Isformativeassessmentsystematicallyembeddedinthe
learningprocess?Ifso,how?
• Howarerubricsused?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No

28
EvaluationRating
(Fivepointscale)
Rationale
Evidence
sources,etc.)
Benchmark10:Thereisasystematicapproachtoevaluation
andenhancementinplace.
• Whatformsofevaluationareused?Howoften?
• Whatopportunitiesarethereforstudentstoprovide
feedback?
• Howisevaluationusedtoenhancetheprogram/course/
module?
• Inwhatwaysistheimpactoftheprogram/course/module
evaluated?
• Howdoestheprogram/course/moduleincorporatenewand
innovativepractices?
5.Yes,and…
4.Yes
3.Yes,but…
2.No,but….
1.No

AAP Benchmarking Resources Booklet

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to AAP Benchmarking Resources Booklet

AAP Benchmarking Resources Booklet