Search results

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the application of business process reengineering (BPR) and benchmarking principles to redesign an undergraduate course on BPR to achieve continuous improvements. The principles are applied on a course on BPR in the curriculum of engineering management (EM) program at Stevens Institute of Technology. The EM program aims to provide the students the knowledge and skills, which are necessary to work effectively at the interface between technology, management, and engineering. BPR course (EM435) is recently added to EM program's curriculum to support the need for providing the bridge between the engineering of systems and business operations.

The research approach design is laid out from the time the EM435 course is first offered in the fall of 2006 to the senior year EM students. The students are surveyed and areas of redesign and improvements are identified based on benchmarking against ABET criteria and their associated outcomes, student expectations, similar academic courses, and industry expectations of skills and knowledge.

The identification of the improvement areas in the BPR curriculum leads to a continuous process improvement (CPI) initiative, which has been continued in a more structured manner. Research findings indicate a strong support for more case studies, use of BPR tool, and real‐life project in their investigation of effective pedagogy for teaching BPR to engineering undergraduates.

This paper demonstrates the value of applying benchmarking and CPI methodology in maintaining effective teaching and learning of BPR concepts. More empirical metrics can be developed in future to measure the success of course, improvements.

The findings of this research will promote adoption of courses on BPR and lay a foundation for BPR curriculum in engineering. The CPI approach will provide opportunities to analyze improvements over a period of time.

This paper is unique in its application of benchmarking and CPI for improving BPR curriculum at an undergraduate engineering level.

The purpose of this paper is to examine current approaches to interpretation of student evaluation data and present an innovative approach to developing benchmark targets for the effective and efficient use of these data.

This article discusses traditional approaches to gathering and using student feedback across the tertiary sector. The limitations of the customary use of the statistical mean as a quality measure of performance are presented and examined. An alternative method of interpreting student evaluation data is proposed and examples given.

The traditional use of the statistical mean to interpret student evaluation data has limitations. Focusing on data at the macro level provides subject teaching staff and managers with a clearer indication of student satisfaction. The use of a percentage satisfied and percentage dissatisfied metric to classify and rank subjects is presented as an efficient alternative to the traditional approach, while recognising the value of the statistical mean to interpret data at the micro level.

In light of the important role student feedback plays in determining university ranking, prioritising staff development and its potential function as an academic performance indicator, the effective interpretation of student evaluation data is critical. As economic factors become increasingly important to higher education providers, the role of evaluation data obtained from students will continue to gain traction. The identification of methods to fully capitalise on the value of these data, such as the one proposed in this article, is therefore crucial.

In Australia, political imperatives that drive the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) call for a new understanding of assessment at the tertiary level. Assessment strategies are under the microscope to provide accountability but are increasingly called to measure a wider set of attributes considered important in equipping graduates to meet 21st century opportunities and challenges. This paper reports on a shared benchmarking exercise between two universities to ensure the current assessment strategies in their undergraduate early childhood programs meet such requirements.

Data were collected using qualitative methodology and conceptualised using an interpretivist frame that enabled the collaborative groups to socially construct the meaning of assessment and identify what was specific, unique and different across the two programs. A cross-case analysis enabled a robust examination of the data.

Findings identified key structural and procedural differences between the two benchmarked university programs in terms of cohort size, university policies around assessment points, the use of exams and the choices surrounding professional experience placements.

Implications of the research note the complexity of contextual factors such as university policies on assessment and the impact these have on the quality of assessment.

This paper is unique in that it used the conceptual framework for self-evaluation from TEQSA and followed their six key phases of benchmarking.

As a way of focusing curriculum development and learning outcomes universities have introduced graduate attributes, which their students should develop during their degree course. Some of these attributes are discipline‐specific, others are generic to all professions. The development of these attributes can be promoted by the careful use of self‐ and peer assessment. The authors have previously reported using the self‐ and peer assessment software tool SPARK in various contexts to facilitate opportunities to practise, develop, assess and provide feedback on these attributes. This research and that of the other developers identified the need to extend the features of SPARK, to increase its flexibility and capacity to provide feedback. This paper seeks to report the results of the initial trials to investigate the potential of these new features to improve learning outcomes.

The paper reviews some of the key literature with regard to self‐ and peer assessment, discusses the main aspects of the original online self‐ and peer assessment tool SPARK and the new version SPARK^PLUS, reports and analyses the results of a series of student surveys to investigate whether the new features and applications of the tool have improved the learning outcomes in a large multi‐disciplinary Engineering Design subject.

It was found that using self‐ and peer assessment in conjunction with collaborative peer learning activities increased the benefits to students and improved engagement. Furthermore it was found that the new features available in SPARK^PLUS facilitated efficient implementation of additional self‐ and peer assessment processes (assessment of individual work and benchmarking exercises) and improved learning outcomes. The trials demonstrated that the tool assisted in improving students' engagement with and learning from peer learning exercises, the collection and distribution of feedback and helping them to identify their individual strengths and weaknesses.

SPARK^PLUS facilitates the efficient management of self‐ and peer assessment processes even in large classes, allowing assessments to be run multiple times a semester without an excessive burden for the coordinating academic. While SPARK^PLUS has enormous potential to provide significant benefits to both students and academics, it is necessary to caution that, although a powerful tool, its successful use requires thoughtful and reflective application combined with good assessment design.

It was found that the new features available in SPARK^PLUS efficiently facilitated the development of new self‐ and peer assessment processes (assessment of individual work and benchmarking exercises) and improved learning outcomes.

Lack of appropriate student support and drawbacks in academic progression signify the importance of enhancing assessment and feedback in higher education (HE). Although assessment and feedback are significant in HE, minimal empirical research holistically explores the best practices. This study aims to address the niche and develop a decisive guideline for enhancing assessment setting and feedback provision within HE curricula.

A systematic approach was taken to obtain data for the study: a literature review underpinning the thematic content analysis of study documents, followed by semi-structured interviews. Document analysis contained mid-module reviews/student feedback; rubrics used in assessment; and formative/summative feedback provided for the graded work. Documental analysis informed the key attributes of the semi-structured interview. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) analysis identified the influence and reliance of each driver.

This study revealed 15 drivers – 4 fundamental, 6 significant and 5 important – for enhancing assessment and feedback. The level partitioning from the ISM analysis established that all assessment and feedback needs to be underpinned by the university policy and fed into the assessment regime and marking scheme. This study identified that National Student Survey results were significantly improved due to implementing said drivers compared with the national and sector benchmarks.

The developed drivers enable the best practices in assessment setting and feedback provision. The level partition diagram can be used as a decisive guideline or a provisional framework in assessment and feedback provision for quality assurance in HE.

This study is one of, if not the only, to develop a guideline for signposting drivers and their influence and reliance to enhance assessment and feedback in a holistic HE setting. The developed drivers and the level partition diagram bring novelty and add to the current body of knowledge.

This paper proposes a policy analysis framework for a University system that incorporates benchmarking technique to design effective policies for closing the gaps in performance. Once a university adopts a policy, decision‐makers must evaluate the effectiveness of the policy in achieving desired performances. Incorporating benchmarking techniques into the developed dynamic framework can identify the gaps in performance and a feedback mechanism to develop effective policies for closing the gaps. In this paper benchmarking is utilized as an indicator and a change agent to design effective policies. The proposed dynamic framework is developed using a system dynamics approach.

This study compares quality assurance across two case studies in the UK; a commercial organization operating in the private sector and a university. Case Study A is a private education organization specializing in the delivery of business and management programs. Case Study B is a university that delivers courses across four academic schools and through a number of partnerships. The business school offers a range of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in business management, economics, accounting, events, tourism, marketing, entrepreneurialism, and human resources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 organizational members from across the two organizations including 8 academics/tutors, 6 of whom are also employed as external examiners and/or external quality assurers (EQAs). The study compares the remit of both EQA working on behalf of awarding bodies and external examiners working on behalf of universities. The EQA role is conceptualized as an “arbiter of standards” whereas the external examiner is more likely to be considered as “critical friend.” This variance in conception has important implications for the way the process of quality assurance is conducted and utilized in support of program and institutional development. The research finds that one of the most significant differences between quality assurance processes in Case Studies A and B is the way in which student feedback is collected and utilized to support and enhance the process of review. This chapter provides recommendations designed to capitalize on the value of the quality assurance process through greater alignment of teaching and assessment strategy and policies and procedures in practice.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the role of the student experience questionnaire in collecting students' perceptions of their experiences in studying at an offshore campus of an Australian University, compared with the experiences of the University's students in Australia. In particular, it seeks to highlight the difference in perceptions of students resulting, for example, from the size of the campus versus the size of other campuses and the whole institution.

The case study is based on a student learning experience questionnaire utilised by a large research‐intensive Australian tertiary institution (with two overseas campuses). The results of the questionnaire are compared between one overseas campus and the whole institution. The case study looks at the experiences of the overseas campus compared with the Australian experience. Although the case study is situated within one institution, there are aspects and lessons that are applicable to other institutions internationally, in particular when considering collecting student feedback in relation to multi‐campus or multi‐venue programmes.

Higher satisfaction rates for different aspects of student learning experience were identified at the overseas campus in comparison with the whole institution. This was attributed to the smaller size of the overseas campus and thus better engagement of and personal attention to students at this campus. This finding may be particularly relevant to other international institutions in relation to the role of an institution's size and collection of student feedback.

The case study outlines a number of strategies adopted to enhance student engagement and subsequently to improve the aspects which they have indicated as being less satisfactory. The institution was chosen as an example of how particular strategies may be adopted in other institutions.

Enhancement of student experience is pre‐conditioned by good survey response rates among students for an institution to base its actions on opinions of a sufficiently high number of students. This paper describes a successful strategy of engaging students adopted by a large research‐intensive Australian university, and thus increasing survey response rates.

This study seeks to develop and describe the benchmarking approach of enhancement‐led evaluation in higher education and to present a cross‐evaluation process for degree programmes.

The benchmarking approach produces useful information for the development of degree programmes based on self‐evaluation, evaluation visits and analyses.

The cross‐evaluation of degree programmes can result in recommendations not only for the improvement of the degree programme, but also for that of the whole institution and the evaluation process.

The results of the study are useful for those who want to improve the quality culture of higher education institutions.

The purpose of this paper, informed by an action research framework, was to evaluate how a collaborative approach between unit facilitators and learning advisors in a first-year core business unit contributes to an environment where students are actively engaged in their learning. Student engagement in their learning is a key priority for university faculties, particularly in first year, as it is a key factor in student performance and persistence in their studies.

Using the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement as a benchmark, a mixed-methods approach was adopted using an online survey (n = 171) and focus groups (n = 17).

Findings indicate that specific cohorts of students benefit from this collaborative learning model, as it encourages students to actively engage in their learning, provides them with early feedback on their performance, encourages self-reflection and provides transferable skills that form the foundation of their future learning.

The current study contributes to student engagement literature pertaining to the factors affecting student engagement in higher education.

The key lesson learnt is that the future success of embedded learning support relies heavily on building strong relationships between academic and professional staff.