Assuring Learning and Teaching
Standards through Inter-Institutional
Peer Review & Moderation
From Pilot to Implementation
The Inter-Institutional Peer Review
Model
Brief Process Outline
• Home Institution with at least one partner
• 1 unit of study or capstone unit
• Peer review of unit materials can be blind (3+
partners)
• Range of assessment samples across 4 grade
bands with grades removed
• Reviewer “moderates” the 4 samples using home
university criteria
• Reviewer “Peer Reviews” the Unit materials
How Did We Start?
Establish A Baseline
• In 2013 UWS undertook a university wide stock
take of benchmarking activities which included
• External Benchmarking & Peer Review Processes
(e.g. professional accreditation)
•Internal Peer Review Moderation Processes
(assessment moderation, double marking, external
marking)
•Benchmarking of learning standards and/or
assessment standards (who/what/when/outcomes)
Engaged with Schools
From the outcomes of the Stock Take
• We were able to compliment internal
approaches to assuring academic standards
through the inter-institutional peer review
model.
• Schools nominated a course/unit and possible
partner institutions to approach
• Support has been provided centrally to
facilitate the peer review process, coordination,
document exchange and follow up.
Identifying Partner Institutions and
Reviewers
– Partner Institution does not need to have like for
like courses
– More likely to identify expertise in the discipline
area appropriate to review the particular “Unit”
– Ideally have “2” Reviewers from each institution
where there is only “1” external partner involved
– UWS has coordinated the document exchange and
offered admin support to both institutions
including reporting findings
– User Guide outlines confidentiality obligations
Review materials
Reviewers
are
provided
with
• User Guide
• “Unit Outline” Template returned
with Unit Outline, Unit
Assessments, 4 Samples of Student
Assessment, Marking Criteria,
• “Peer Review Feedback Form” and
partner unit materials.
• Peer Review Findings Report &
Debrief Opportunity
Part 1 - Unit Overview
Template
•
•
•
•
Completed by each participating institution
Provides context for the Unit within the course
Outlines the expected learning outcomes
Aligns the unit learning outcomes with the
course level outcomes
• Includes copies of requested unit materials are
attached ie, unit outline, unit assessment items,
marking guide, 4 samples of student
assessment.
Part 2 – Peer Reviewer
Feedback Form
•
•
•
•
Coversheet for each Peer Reviewer
Reviews all the attached materials
Tick and Comment boxes as appropriate
Moderates the samples of student
assessments using the marking criteria
• The Feedback Form addresses the following
questions
Part 2 - FEEDBACK FORM
SECTION A: YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE UNIT OUTLINE
•
To what extent does the curriculum content for this unit cover all that a final
undergraduate unit on this topic should cover? (select the description that best represents
your view)
NOT AT ALL
SOMEWHAT
ADEQUATELY
VERY WELL
COMPLETELY
•
Please explain your rating. Please list up to three specific suggestions for improvement where
appropriate
•
To what extent does the unit outline/learning guide explain how the assessment tasks
relate to the unit learning outcomes?
NOT AT ALL
•
SOMEWHAT
ADEQUATELY
VERY WELL
COMPLETELY
Please explain your rating. Please list up to three specific suggestions for improvement
•
To what extent does the unit outline/learning guide explain how the assessment tasks
relate to the overall graduate outcomes of the degree program?
NOT AT ALL
SOMEWHAT
ADEQUATELY
VERY WELL
COMPLETELY
•
Please explain your rating. Please list up to three specific suggestions for improvement where
appropriate.
•
To what extent does the unit outline/learning guide explain clearly (preferably with
examples) the requirements for achieving at various grade levels (e.g., what is required to
achieve a credit, distinction etc.)?
NOT AT ALL
SOMEWHAT
ADEQUATELY
VERY WELL
COMPLETELY
•
Please explain your rating. Please list up to three specific suggestions for improvement where
appropriate
•
What, briefly, are the Best Aspects of the unit outline/learning guide?
•
Do you have any suggestions for further enhancing the unit outline/learning guide?
SECTION B: YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE GRADING GUIDELINES
•
•
In reflecting on the assessment grading guidelines provided for the samples of student work
that you are reviewing:
To what extent is it clear how student work will be awarded grades at different levels for that
assessment task? (Please select)
NOT APPLICABLE
NOT AT ALL
SOMEWHAT
ADEQUATELY
VERY WELL
COMPLETELY
•
Please explain your rating. Please list up to three specific suggestions for improvement where
appropriate.
•
To what extent are the grading criteria at an appropriate level for a final year undergraduate
unit of study in this field of education? (Please select)
NOT APPLICABLE
•
NOT AT ALL
SOMEWHAT
ADEQUATELY
VERY WELL
COMPLETELY
Please explain your rating. Please list up to three specific suggestions for improvement where
appropriate.
SECTION C: YOUR FEEDBACK ASSESSMENT TASK/S
•
•
In reviewing the list of assessment tasks which students have to complete in the unit of
study:
To what extent is the range of assessment tasks suited to assessing the key learning
objectives listed in the unit outline? (Please select)
ASSESSMENT
NOT AT ALL
SOMEWHAT
ADEQUATELY
VERY WELL
COMPLETELY
1
2
3
4
5
Please explain your rating. Please list up to three specific suggestions for improvement where
appropriate.
Comments
SECTION D: YOUR OVERALL FEEDBACK ON THIS PROCESS
• Please provide brief feedback on this peer review process as a collegial way to monitor and
assure standards in common units of study between different universities.
• What, briefly, are the best aspects of this peer review process?
•
Which aspects of this peer review process do you think we could improve and how might
this be achieved?
SECTION E: MODERATION OF STUDENT ASSESSMENT SAMPLES
•
•
•
(Completed by: Unit Coordinators and/or Support Persons in each Partner University)
The Partner Institution has provided 4 samples of student assessments for external
moderation. Using the grading guides / criteria sheets from the Partner Institutions please
mark and grade the samples.
Please record your marks and final grade in the table below. You may like to make comments
regarding the rubric and grading criteria that will be useful to discuss during the debrief
between the partner institutions.
Student Sample Number
Mark
Grade (F/P/C/D/HD0
Assessment 1
Assessment 2
Assessment 3
Assessment 4
•
SECTION F (Optional Questions for peer review)
Comments
The Peer Review and Moderation Model
Provides a relevant and feasible way to assure the
validity, reliability and comparability of assessment
outcomes and achievement standards in similar
institutions
Provides a validated approach for assuring subject
achievement standards
Outcomes of Peer Review
• Each institution can determine how they
utilise the findings of the Peer Review.
• A debrief bringing together the reviewers
has been beneficial to discuss the findings
• Some accreditation bodies have been
interested in the peer review process
findings
Lessons Learned
• Coordinator required to manage process and
monitor progress
• Timing of timelines, delays, staff leave, follow
ups. BE FLEXIBLE but not too FLEXIBLE
• Partner Institution cooperation and awareness
• Dealing with various assessment types
• Blind Peer Review not considered essential.
NEXT STEPS
-The online tool being developed by UTas
may streamline the peer review process for
the reviewer and administrator.
- Sector wide involvement in a peer review
model would facilitate easier identification
of expertise
-The model is very flexible and can
accommodate needs specific to institutions
or disciplines.