External Review of Standards (EROS)
Overview
Over the past few years, University and institutions across Australia are being asked to report
increasingly on the quality of their graduates, and the achievement of standards that assure that
quality. In this context, quality is seen as a reference point for an agreed standard or set of
standards. At the same time, many disciplines have undertaken their own determination of those
standards, including an understanding of the “minimum threshold learning standards” for their
particular discipline.
Various frameworks exist that provide external referencing, benchmarking, moderation and other
forms of external review, including peer-review. See University of Tasmania for further publications
on the various external peer-review models.
For example, ‘Achievement Matters’ highlights a substantial project undertaking across ten (10)
universities that has realised a set of national standards that are disciplinary focussed in Accounting
education, rather than what may have been previously practiced at a local/university level (Watty,
Freeman, Howieson et al, 2014). These standards are primarily focussed on achievement of learning
outcomes, acting as a minimum benchmark requirement for graduates. The final report highlights
the strategies and processes utilised, literature on peer review of learning, valid assessment
practices and social moderation theory.
Other models include the ‘inter-institutional review’, which addresses the Tertiary Education and
Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) imperative to demonstrate sector-level, self-regulated,
robust approach for assuring quality and standards highlighting the role of peer-review (Krause, K.,
Scott, G., Aubin et al, 2013). The final report informs on successfully delivering a robust approach
for assuring subject achievement standards through inter-university moderation across disciplines.
The project also delivers a range of resources including: a user guide; a peer review template; a
sample policy for inter-institutional peer review; guidelines on how best to respond to areas for
improvement identified through the peer reviewer process; strategies for publishing selected interinstitutional peer review outcomes; and recommendations on how to improve national and
institutional policy and practice. The project website and all information and resources related to the
project is available at: www.uws.edu.au/latstandards.
The GO8 Quality Verification System (GO8-QVS) is a process of external, discipline-led, academic
peer review of final year undergraduate student outcomes. The QVS reviews two core subjects, or
the equivalent of a quarter of a year’s work, in undergraduate programs across Go8 universities.
Based on their academic judgement and the set of documents provided, the Go8 QVS External
Reviewers:
•
•
review the appropriateness and comparative quality of the specified learning outcomes,
assessment tasks, assessment criteria and assessment processes set for samples of final year
subjects; and
reports on the appropriateness of the grades awarded to stratified random samples of
student work in these subjects.
The QVS involves quality verification by external reviewers. It is not moderation of grades by
external examiners. The QVS reviewers retrospectively verify the appropriateness of grades awarded
to a sample of student assessment after their results have been published. The QVS review does not
influence the grades awarded to students enrolled in the subjects being reviewed. The published
guidelines highlight the core elements of the GO8-QVS system, process steps and requirements
involved, and reviewer’s evaluation and feedback forms. Recent feedback suggests that the nonblind review process involved in the QVs requires some rethinking, in terms of meeting the principles
of external verification of standards required for forthcoming work in this area.
Points for consideration (at Curtin):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What evidence will be required to demonstrate student’s achievement of standards on
graduation, and how will this be obtained?
What will the efforts of benchmarking/moderation look like?
o Periodic externally referenced course reviews
o External referencing against comparable courses (could also include progression,
grades, completion times and rates, locations etc)
o Assessment methods and grading of students’ achievement of Learning Outcome’s
What comparative benchmarking can be undertaken to verify standards (and with whom)?
Is your designed program flexible enough to support diverse institutional requirements (offshore, multi-mode etc)
How will undertaking EROS impact on the quality of programs at Curtin?
Will your approach be sustainable and does it align with current accreditation requirements?
Do staff have the required knowledge and skills to undertake the desired EROS, and if not,
what will be the professional development requirements needed to undertake your
approach?
References:
Kim Watty, Mark Freeman, Bryan Howieson, Phil Hancock, Brendan O’Connell, Paul de Lange & Anne
Abraham (2014) Social moderation, assessment and assuring standards for accounting graduates,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:4, 461-478, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.848336
Krause, K., Scott, G., Aubin, K., Alexander, H., Angelo, T., Campbell, S., Carroll, M., Deane, E., Nulty,
D., Pattison, P., Probert, B., Sachs, J., Solomonides, I., Vaughan, S. (2013). Assuring final year subject
and program achievement standards through inter-university peer review and moderation. Available
online: www.uws.edu.au/latstandards.