Quality Assurance in Australian Higher Education- Historical and Future Development

7/27/2019 Quality Assurance in Australian Higher Education- Historical and Future Development

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/quality-assurance-in-australian-higher-education-historical-and-future-development 1/9

Quality assurance in Australian higher education: historicaland future development

Mahsood Shah • Sid Nair • Mark Wilson

Received: 9 June 2010 / Revised: 10 January 2011/ Accepted: 4 February 2011 / Published online: 23 February 2011Ó Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2011

Abstract Higher education policies related to quality

assurance are implemented in many countries. The pur-poses of such policies are to ensure the provision for

high-quality education, university accountability and trans-

parency in the use of public funding and meeting the needs

of the diverse stakeholders. The current Australian Higher

Education Quality Assurance Framework was implemented

in the year 2000. It can be described that the framework has

been enjoyed by universities, academics and other pro-

viders in Australia. This paper provides a brief history of

quality assurance, its evolution in higher education in

Australia and current changes and trends in quality assur-

ance in other developed countries. It then provides an

analysis of the success and deficiencies of the currentframework used in Australia and suggestions which may

be helpful in the development of the new framework.

The analysis includes the thoughts of the three authors

based on their experience in managing quality and reviews

in seven different institutions and the views of more than

40 participants who are staff members from 25 Australian

universities.

Keywords Quality assurance framework Á Higher

education

Brief history of quality assurance

The quality movement can be traced back to medieval

Europe, where craftsmen began organizing into unions

called guilds in the late thirteenth century. Until the early

nineteenth century, manufacturing in the industrialized

world tended to follow the craftsmanship model. The fac-

tory system, with its emphasis on product inspection,

started in Great Britain in the mid-1750s and grew into the

industrial revolution in the early 1800s. In the earlytwentieth century, manufacturers began to include quality

processes in quality practices. After the United States

entered World War II, quality became a critical component.

The birth of quality in the United States came as a direct

response to the quality revolution in Japan following World

War II. The Japanese welcomed the input of Americans

Joseph Juran and Edwards Deming and rather than con-

centrating on inspection, they focused on improving all

organizational processes through the people who used

them. By the 1970s, US industrial sectors such as auto-

mobiles and electronics had been broadsided by Japan’s

high-quality competition. The US response, emphasizing

not only statistics but approaches that embraced the entire

organization, became known as total quality management

(TQM). By the last decade of the twentieth century, TQM

was considered a fad by many business leaders but while

the use of the term TQM has faded somewhat, particularly

in the United States, its practices continue.

In the few years since the turn of the century, the quality

movement seems to have matured beyond total quality.

New quality systems have evolved from the foundations of

M. Shah (&)Manager, Quality and Improvement, University of Canberra,Canberra, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

S. NairUniversity of Western Australia, Perth, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

M. WilsonSouthern Cross University, Lismore, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

123

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2011) 12:475–483

DOI 10.1007/s12564-011-9152-2



Deming, Juran and the early Japanese practitioners of

quality, and quality has moved beyond manufacturing into

service, healthcare, education and government sectors.

Evolution of quality in Australian higher education

The Australian higher education system comprises, for themost part, autonomous universities established under State,

Territory, or Commonwealth government legislation with

the power to accredit their own courses. State/Territory

governments retain the power to accredit individual higher

education courses developed and delivered by other pro-

viders. Accreditation arrangements and approaches, how-

ever, vary among the States/Territories.

In 1980s, with the absence of a national quality

management framework, individual universities were

responsible for the development, implementation and

enhancement of systems and processes for quality assur-

ance. Major discipline reviews were funded to determinestandards and to improve quality and efficiency. While

these reviews served to highlight the importance of quality

assurance within institutions and across the sector, there

was no mechanism to ensure that the recommendations of

the reviews were acted upon at the institutional level.

Since then, major changes were initiated such as policy

statement, Higher Education: Quality and Diversity in the

1990s, to address the weaknesses of the discipline review

approach to quality assurance; committee for quality

assurance in higher education between 1993 and 1995 to

review the quality assurance practices and outcomes of

public universities and made annual recommendations tothe government for allocating Quality Assurance and

Enhancement element of universities’ operating grant;

implementation of Australian Qualifications Framework

(AQF) in 1995 to provide national articulation of awards

offered in the Australian vocational education and training

and higher education; integration of quality improvement

plan into annual Educational Profiles submission now

called Institutional Assessment Framework (IAF) which is

used by the government to evaluate university performance

and negotiate funding for the triennium.

Furthermore, in 2000, a number of new policies were

implemented as part of quality assurance. They include the

following. Commonwealth government introduced its first

quality assurance framework for higher education along

with the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval

Processes; the introduction of the Education Service for

Overseas Students (ESOS) Act which is aimed to ensure

quality education services and the interests of overseas

students, by setting minimum standards and providing

tuition and financial assurance; and the formation of an

external agency named Australian Universities Quality

Agency (AUQA) was endorsed (Commonwealth of Aus-

tralia 2000a, b).

The quality assurance framework as outlined in Fig. 1

was introduced in 2000 which consisted of five key ele-

ments including State and Territory responsibility for the

registration, reregistration and accreditation of higher

education providers other than universities, the role of

AUQA in undertaking five yearly cyclical audits, Com-monwealth monitoring of universities performance via IAF

and other data submissions, the onus on universities to

ensure the development and enhancement of quality and

standards, and finally, compliance to various laws, regu-

lations and guidelines such as national protocols and

national code.

In 2003–2004, the government initiated a major review

of higher education ‘ Backing Australia’s Future.’ The

outcomes of the review resulted in numerous changes such

as performance-based funding for learning and teaching

using a number of measures such as retention, progression,

outcomes of national Course Experience Questionnaire(CEQ) and outcomes of the Graduate Destination Survey

(GDS). In 2006, the government also reviewed and made

further changes to the National Protocols for Higher Edu-

cation Approval Processes. In 2006/2007, the National

Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers

of Education and Training to Overseas Students was sub-

stantially revised to improve clarity and to give institutions

more flexibility and to provide greater protection for

international students. The review resulted in the imple-

mentation of the national code 2007 which is established

under the Education Services for Overseas Students

(ESOS) Act 2000.In 2007, the Labor government came in power with the

‘Education Revolution’ as a key to the party’s political

campaign. The government initiated a major review of

higher education (Bradley review) which focussed on all

aspects of higher education such as funding, provision for

higher education to various equity groups, collaboration

between vocational and higher educations, student experi-

ence, research and quality assurance. The findings of the

report were released in 2008 along with Commonwealth

response to the review recommendations in 2009. As part

of higher education reforms, the Commonwealth initiated a

review of the ESOS Act and the AQF in 2009. The years

2010–2013 will witness significant changes in higher

education policy, directions and funding arrangements as a

result of the Bradley review.

It is apparent that quality assurance in Australian higher

education has consistently evolved and governments

played key roles in initiating such reforms to improve the

quality and standard of higher education. At the same time,

external pressures such as the growth and massification of

higher education continued decrease in Commonwealth

476 M. Shah et al.

123



funding from 60 per cent funding in early 1990s to 40 per

cent (Universities Australia 2009) has significantly affected

universities to be able to meet the needs of various stake-

holders such as diverse student groups, governments,

employers and industry and the broader community. Due to

consistent decrease in Commonwealth funding, universities

have seriously reconsidered strategies to generate income

to ensure self-reliance in uncertain times. International

education was seen as one of the strategies to generate

external sources of income and so far, Australian univer-

sities have been very successful. Between 2000 and 2008, anumber of multicampus universities have closed campuses

due to the lack of funding and economic sustainability.

Within the same period, approximately eight universities

reported to have financial deficits of more than $10 million

which resulted in restructures realignment of courses, loss

of staff due to redundancies, faculty realignment and sig-

nificant impact on various student support services.

International developments in higher education quality

assurance

Quality assurance policies have now been introduced in

many parts of the world. Such policies have been in place

for more than a decade in countries such as Europe, New

Zealand, Hong Kong and USA. Governments in these

countries have continuously revised the policy based on the

external operating environment such as growth of students,

internationalization of higher education and changes in

world economy. What is common in most parts of the

world is increased emphasis on university accountability

on the public funding of universities. Steps such as ranking

and leagues tables, performance-based funding and exter-

nal scrutiny are evident in most countries. In Sweden and

Netherlands, accreditation has been a traditional role of

government and focus has been to assess programmes and

institutions with possibility that programmes may be de-

registered. In the United Kingdom, there is a strong tradi-

tion of external quality audits and subject reviews with

more focus on outcomes and standards. One of the key

elements of the UK higher education quality assurance is

the use of external examiners and external reference pointsin monitoring assessment standards. The approach in the

USA is voluntary accreditation. In the Middle East, the

Commission of Higher Education uses 19 standards to

assess institutional accreditation. The Middle East system

focuses on systems and processes to assure quality and also

outcomes and standards. In South Africa, quality assurance

and accreditation uses both fitness for purpose and also

fitness of purpose approach to quality. The former assesses

institutions systems and processes to achieve its mission

and objective, whereas the later assesses the extent to

which an institution’s mission and academic activities are

responsive to national priorities and needs. In New Zea-land, the approach used in the accreditation of institutions

and courses with external reviews is similar to the approach

used in Australia. Many of the approaches utilized inter-

nationally are in line with the suggestions of Brennan and

Shah (2000). They argue that a model of quality assurance

in higher education should be based on three key compo-

nents. They include the context (national and institutional),

methods of assessing quality (national and internal) and

finally, measuring the impact of the systems at national

States/TerritoriesAccreditation

(based on nationalProtocols)

AUQA(AustralianUniversities

Quality Agency)Audits

CommonwealthFunding,

performancedata and quality

assurance/research

UniversitiesResponsible for

academic standards

AQF(Australian

QualificationsFramework)

National register and

Fig. 1 Australian higher education quality assurance framework

Quality assurance in Australian higher education 477

123



level, institutional level, basic unit and individual level.

They also suggest the use of rewards to foster change

organization cultures.

Methodology

The methodology used to review the quality assuranceframework included the experience of the three authors in

managing quality in seven higher education institutions in

Australia. The analysis also included the thoughts of 40

representatives from 25 Australian higher education insti-

tutions in a workshop facilitated at the Australian Univer-

sities Quality Forum in 2009 which was focussed on

preparing institutions for an external quality audit. The

participants in the workshop included six senior staff

responsible for quality assurance; 18 academics from var-

ious universities; 14 managers or quality officers; and two

participants from private for-profit higher education. Par-

ticipants attending the conference selected to attend theworkshop which provided a representative sample of par-

ticipants from various institutions including academic and

administrative staff. The participants ranged from elite,

large multicampus, regional, technology and post-1987

universities and few private for-profit higher education

institutions. Participants in the workshop were in groups of

five on each table from different institutions, and the data

were collected during the workshop presentation which

included questions and discussions. Group discussions

enabled the presenters to collect qualitative comments from

each table which were recurring themes based on the dis-

cussion questions. The participants provided comments ontheir thoughts on the success and deficiencies of the

framework.

Evaluation of the Australian higher education quality

assurance framework

The current Australian higher education quality assurance

framework has achieved a great deal of success at all levels

including the following: government, individual universi-

ties, students and other stakeholders. Some of the success

includes the following:

Reputation of Australian higher education: despite the

continuous decline in public funding, the quality of Aus-

tralian higher education is highly regarded globally. The

consistent rise in international student enrolments from

34,408 in 1991; 210,393 students in 2003; and 294,000 in

2008 (Commonwealth of Australia 2008) with an average

of 7 percent growth in the last 3 years and Australia being

one of the first preferred countries to study is a testimony to

the success. The 2006 International Student Survey results

show that the two extremely important or important factors

for students to decide to study in Australia are quality of

education (95 per cent) and safe and secure environment

(88 per cent) AEI (2006). Based on the 2009 i-graduate

survey of international students, the top two reasons for

choosing to study in Australia included living in the

country and reputation of the education system. Australia’s

strong economy at a time of global recession, commitmentto democracy and equity, low unemployment rate and

safety and security will no doubt result in ongoing rises in

international education in both vocational and higher

education.

International ranking: the international reputation of

Australian higher education is based on strong university

systems in research, learning and teaching and international

education. Being a small country with only 39 universities,

Australia performs highly on international ranking mea-

sured via Times Higher Education and Shanghai Jiao Tong

ranking. The 2008 Times Higher Education ranking shows

eight Australian universities (20 per cent) in the top 200,although the 2004 ranking included 14 (36 per cent) of

Australian universities in the top 200.

Internal quality management systems: Australian uni-

versities have a long history of having internal systems and

processes to assure quality. Some of the many processes

used which is in line with international practices include

the following: strategic planning, use of key performance

indicators to track and improve the quality, benchmarking

in some areas of the university, governance of universities

and active role of the University Council and academic

committees, risk management practices, ongoing academic

programme reviews, review of faculties and schools,review of research centres, review of administrative units,

special purpose reviews, e.g., offshore international edu-

cation, academic and non-academic policies and proce-

dures, using a range of surveys with students, staff,

employers and community to assess satisfaction, embed-

ding graduate attributes in the curriculum, peer reviews in

teaching and research, long history of using external

examiners in higher degree research programmes, assess-

ment moderation and closing the loop on reviews and other

initiatives.

The emergence of quality cycle: the evolution of quality

in Australian higher education and external quality audits

by AUQA since 2002 has resulted in the use of various

quality cycles. Many universities have embedded a quality

cycle within their strategic planning framework. An anal-

ysis of all Australian university quality frameworks suggest

that 32 (82 per cent) of universities currently use a common

quality cycle such as plan, implement, review and improve

or approach, deployment, results and improvement . The

use of a quality cycle and its integration within the uni-

versity planning framework have played a key role in

478 M. Shah et al.

123



promoting staff awareness and communicating about

quality, engaging staff about quality and fostering a quality

culture. Another significant milestone as a result of using

the quality cycle is systematically closing the loop on

reviews and student feedback.

Government monitoring: the Commonwealth govern-

ment has played a key role in direction setting and moni-

toring of university performance. Each university as part of the funding agreement is required to report to the Com-

monwealth on an annual basis such as annual IAF reporting

which includes the planning for triennium in various areas

and reporting data to the Commonwealth on learning and

teaching and research. The Commonwealth uses perfor-

mance data and produces an IAF report which includes

trend performance data on various KPIs, which are

benchmarked with comparable institutions.

Performance-based funding: since 2006, the Common-

wealth has introduced performance-based funding for

public universities in learning and teaching. Although the

system has been condemned and subject to controversy bymany individuals including Vice Chancellors, the govern-

ment has implemented a culture of performance-based

reward using measures such as retention, progression,

outcome of student surveys and graduate employment.

External quality audit: AUQA commenced the audit of

universities in 2001 using the ‘ fitness for purpose’

approach. The cycle one audit was focussed on whole of

institutions, and it was completed in 2007. In 2007 cycle,

two audits commenced with the focus being on three areas:

follow-up on a number of selected recommendations from

cycle one audit, internationalization theme as a default to

almost all institutions, and one additional theme based onnegotiations with universities using a risk-based approach.

AUQA also commenced cycle one audits of private higher

education providers in 2007.

Personal experience of the authors in coordinating both

cycle one and two audits in seven institutions and discus-

sions with 25 institutions suggest that the AUQA audit

process has led to the strengthening of quality assurance

processes in universities. Such improvement would happen

as part of internal quality assurance processes; however,

the external driver has played key role in rapid change.

The processes used including the preparation of the per-

formance portfolio, self-reviews, trial or mock audit,

improvements as a result of self-reviews, AUQA visit in

(onshore and offshore), and post-audit follow-up have been

instrumental in fostering and promoting quality culture and

engaging staff in quality. The audit itself, which allows

institutions to undertake self-review and address areas,

needing improvement before the actual AUQA audit has

been valuable. The participation and voices of stakeholders

in the process including senior university leaders, academ-

ics, general staff, sessional academics, students, student

unions, alumni, employers, and research partners are also

seen as critical in the process.

Discussions with more than 25 universities suggest that

AUQA audits together with change in government policy

and external operating environment have been a driver for

change and improvements in universities. Scott and Hawke

(2003) argue that a unique benefit of an external quality

audit for a university is the extrinsic motivation it providesfor that university to document, critique and enhance its

internal capability for continuous quality assurance,

improvement and innovation. Similar conclusions were

reached in a number of studies reviewing university audit

processes overseas, for example in South Africa (Wickham

et al. 2007), Denmark (Kristensen 1997), United Kingdom,

New Zealand, Sweden and Hong Kong (Dill 2000).

Changes within the university would happen anyway;

however, external audits have led to rapid changes and

their uptake was definitely enhanced with the fear of the

public reports and further scrutiny.

The most recent analysis of all AUQA cycle one auditreports by Ewan (2009) in the learning and teaching area

suggests that the opportunity for institutions to undertake

self-reviews and identification of its own shortcomings and

strategies for self-remediation has been beneficial. The

value add of self-reviews as a part of AUQA audit is also

confirmed by Adams (2008), suggesting that self-review

can play not only a critical role for institutions committed

to learning and improvement, but it can also underpin the

capacity of an institution to meet external quality assurance

requirements.

Discussions with the 40 representatives revealed recur-

ring themes based on participants suggesting that auditshave been beneficial in the following aspects at institu-

tional level:

• fostering and promoting quality culture;

• formation of quality committee and key roles such as

(Pro Vice Chancellor-Quality, Directors and Managers)

to provide leadership in quality;

• quality grants and funds in some universities as part of

achievement in improved quality outcomes;

• integration of strategic planning and quality into a

single framework;

• improved alignment between strategic, operationalplanning and lower level plans;

• engagement of academic and general staff by forming

quality reference groups with membership of Deans,

Associate Deans, Head of Programs and Directors;

• enhancement in the methodology used to report on KPI

and management information capacity;

• evidence-based culture in decision-making;

• strengthening surveys and feedback mechanisms;

• closing the loop on reviews and student feedback;


123



• initiation of benchmarking after cycle one audits with

selected comparators in areas of strategic benefit;

• strengthened quality assurance of international educa-

tion particularly offshore operations;

• implementation of various learning and teaching pro-

jects such as student retention project;

• improved performance development and review pro-

cesses for staff;• the audit process itself with self-reviews, improve-

ments, AUQA audits and post-audit reviews resulting

in changes particularly related to affirmations and

recommendations;

• initiating special purpose reviews such as offshore

review and community engagement reviews; and

• strengthening the role of planning and quality office to

support university quality initiatives.

Shah and Grebennikov (2008) suggest that their experience

in a large multicampus university shows that the external

quality audit motivated the university to self-assess and

improve its core business and support services. Normally,

this happens as part of formal review processes; however,

the effective use of the external driver led to improvement

or innovation as a direct result of review outcomes.

Student surveys: a number of survey instruments have

been used in all Australian universities for the last 15 years.

TheAustralian Graduate Survey (AGS) which consists of the

CEQ and GDS allows all universities to benchmark perfor-

mance data. TheAGS is coordinatedby the Graduate Careers

Australia (GCA) which is funded by the Commonwealth.

The Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire

(PREQ) is also used by all universities to measure higher

degree research student experience. In addition, the Aus-

tralasian University Survey of Student Engagement (AUS-

SE) was conducted in Australian and New Zealand

universities for the first time in 2007 with 25 universities,

with 29 universities in 2008, andwith 35 universities in 2009.

The deficiencies of the current assurance quality

framework

The current quality assurance framework used in Austra-

lian higher education has been instrumental in monitoring

quality. While there are success stories of the current

quality assurance framework and related policies, further

work is needed to improve the quality and standard of

education with comparators. Some of the deficiencies of

the current quality assurance framework which may be

considered while the Commonwealth is currently devel-

oping the new framework are as follows:

Quantifiable results: ranking and league tables are

generated to compare university performance. Such

information is used by students (where to study);

employers (where to find high-quality graduates); indus-

tries (where to invest in research). The availability of such

information in public domain influences student choice in

domestic and international student markets. The United

Kingdom experience suggests that the use of league or

ranking tables in newspapers and other media has resulted

in 30 per cent increased student applications in top rankinguniversities in 2001 (Gunn and Hill 2008). Ranking of

universities is prominent in the United Kingdom and

United States, and it is apparent that similar league tables

will be generated using a number of measures to assess

university performance in Australia. The current system

does not enable the sector to generate quantifiable results

on an annual basis similar to the Melbourne Institute

ranking last conducted in 2007.

The student experience: students are the most important

clients of universities, and their experience or knowledge

and understanding of higher education must be based on

their voices. In other words, student experience is createdby students rather than it being defined by universities.

Students play a very key role in university management by

providing feedback on what they see as most important and

their satisfaction. By fostering and promoting engaged

partnerships with students, institutions can improve

teaching, course design, assessments, and quality pro-

cesses, which produce the best outcomes for students.

According to Ramsden (2009), prospective students do

need better information about what they can expect from

higher education in terms of independence in learning,

contact with tutors, and other forms of support. He argues

that it is not because it will improve quality by gettingstudents to choose more wisely rather it is because higher

education is different compared with school or further

education. Institutions need to articulate student expecta-

tion and find ways to find out student experience in early

stages of study. Such a strategy will enable institutions to

act on areas needing improvement in a timely manner.

The current quality assurance framework and learning

and teaching measures are more focussed on achieving

high results rather than the means (input) needed to pro-

duce high outcomes. Government policy on using indica-

tors such as CEQ to measure and reward universities based

on satisfaction may not improve teaching quality. The

growth of student enrolment post-2010 to meet government

targets will definitely witness increased staff/student ratio,

the need for additional support for students from different

equity groups and impact on campus infrastructure and

support services.

Rewarding for quality: one of the key ingredients of an

effective quality management system is reward based on

individual or organizational performance. Reward linked to

performance will engage academics and other staff in quality

480 M. Shah et al.

123



and improvement. Shah and Skaines (2008) suggest that one

of the many ways to engage academic staff in quality is to

reward individuals or faculties based on their performance.

The current system does not provide any reward/incentive or

penalty based on the outcome of external quality audits and

annual institutional assessment framework. While the

Commonwealth provides performance-based reward via the

Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF), the sys-tem has been criticized and has been subject to controversy.

LTPF and its process have in fact damaged the morale of

many universities who have been disadvantaged in funding,

although they have been successful in providing access to

students from various equity groups such as first in the family

to attend university education. Some critics also suggested

that the LTPF system may have resulted in the manipulation

of student survey data (mostly collected and coded internally

by universities) due to large sums of funding linked to stu-

dent survey outcomes.

University complacency: one of the key components of

the current quality management framework is universitiesresponsibility to ensure effective and efficient internal

quality management system. The AUQA audits of all

universities in Australia between 2002 and 2007 show

varying systems and processes to manage quality. While

some universities have adopted best practices such as

cyclical course reviews with external input, external

assessment moderation and use of external examiners to

maintain high academic standards, such initiatives are not

consistent in other universities. Studies by Grant and Meek

(2000); Anderson et al. (2000) suggest that quality assur-

ance processes in universities vary with some universities

approach to pursue rigorous quality assurance across allaspects is almost entirely at their own discretion. An

analysis undertake by Shah and Treloar (2007) of all

Australian universities AUQA cycle one audit reports

suggest that quality management systems in core areas of

the university such as learning and teaching and research

vary with common recurring themes related to areas

needing improvement across all universities.

The review of AUQA cycle two audit reports of 16

universities suggests that some universities have been

unsuccessful in closing the loop on cycle one audit recom-

mendations which completed almost 5 years ago. The clo-

sure of many offshore programmes and partnerships as a

result of AUQA audits is a testimony of poor and inconsistent

quality management and lack of oversight in some

universities.

Comparable academic standards: academic standards

play a critical role in improving the quality of education

and research. High academic standards provide confidence

to the governments, employers, industry, professional

accrediting bodies, and to students on the quality of edu-

cation to meet the current and future needs of the society.

Therefore, higher academic standards are also a moral

purpose or ethical for all higher education institutions,

which seems to be unseen in the debate and discussion

around quality and academic standards. The present system

of audit is more focussed on processes rather than out-

comes and standards such as student achievements, learn-

ing outcomes, attainment of generic skills, curriculum

design and quality management of student’s assessments.We are unable to assess the extent to which graduates from

university x who has completed a science undergraduate

degree have achieved the learning outcomes and key gen-

eric skills compared with the graduates of university y.

AUQA’s role: the outcome of the Bradley review will

strengthen the role of AUQA or its successor, the Tertiary

Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The

current system does not provide power/authority to AUQA

to place sanctions or penalty on institutions. Cycle one

AUQA audits of universities and other higher education

providers show varied quality systems and processes within

institutions. Lack of an acceptable quality managementsystem and failure to close the loop on cycle one audit

findings should result in penalties to reinforce the need to

ensure high quality and standards.

One of the main limitations of the current quality

assurance system in Australia is the lack of monitoring of

academic standards and outcomes as well as the lack of

compliance monitoring against national policies such as

National Protocols for Higher Education Approval

Processes and the Australian Qualifications framework.

There has been more emphasis on developing systems and

processes for quality assurance rather than monitoring

standards and outcomes. The UK and the Middle Eastquality assurance system is focussed on input, processes

and standards and outcomes, whereas the Australian qual-

ity assurance framework is focussed on systems and pro-

cesses to assure quality rather than standards and outcomes.

Inconsistent State/Territory policies: the current frame-

work enables State and Territory governments to accredit

private higher education institutions and their courses. The

registration and accreditation of private providers and their

courses differ in State governments. In some instances,

courses are accredited in one State; however, the accredi-

tation in another jurisdiction is more difficult. Some argue

that some State governments have difficult processes rather

than having rigorous accreditation procedures. The annual

reporting of performance data in various States and Terri-

tory is also inconsistent and does not allow sector bench-

marking and comparison on common performance

indicators such as retention, progression, completions and

graduate outcomes. The current framework has resulted in

very poor regulation and planning of private higher edu-

cation in Australia with a lack of internal quality man-

agement within private colleges. Problems related to lack


123



together with external audits have been a driver for change

and improvement. It would be naive to suggest that

external quality audits itself have transformed Australian

higher education. The new standard-based quality assur-

ance framework needs to ensure that any effort to improve

quality assurance should improve student satisfaction/

experience.

References

Adams, R. (2008). Self–review for higher education institutions,

Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). Australia:Melbourne.

Anderson, D., Johnson, R., & Milligan, B. (2000). Quality assurance

and accreditation in Australian higher education: An assessment

of Australian and international practice, Department of Educa-

tion, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). Australia: Canberra.Australian Education International. (2006). International student sur-

vey. Retrieved on November 25, 2009 from http://aei.gov.au/AEI/ PublicationsAndResearch/Publications/IndustryPublications.aspx .Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher

education: An international perspective on institutional assess-

ment and change. Philadelphia, USA: OECD and Open Univer-sity Press.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2000a). The Australian higher educa-tion quality assurance framework. Retrieved on November 20,2009 from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/occpaper/ 00g/00g.pdf .

Commonwealth of Australia. (2000b). Quality assurance and accred-itation in australian higher education: A national seminar onfuture arrangements. Retrieved on November 21, 2009 fromhttp://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/pubs/quality/qa.pdf .

Commonwealth of Australia. (2008). Selected higher education

statistics. Retrieved on November 25, 2009 from http:// www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/ Publications/Pages/Students.aspx.

Dill, D. (2000). Capacity building as an instrument of institutionalreform: Improving the quality of tertiary education throughacademic audits in the UK, New Zealand, Sweden and HongKing. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Research and

Practice, 2, 211–234.

Ewan, C. (2009). Learning and teaching in Australian universities:

A thematic analysis of cycle 1 AUQA audits . Sydney, Australia:Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Grant, H., & Meek, V. L. (2000). Repositioning quality assurance and

accreditation in Australia higher education. Canberra, Australia:Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA).

Gunn, R., & Hill, S. (2008). The impact of league tables on universityapplication rates. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 273–296.

Kristensen, B. (1997). The impact of quality monitoring on institu-

tions: A Danish experience at the Copenhagen Business School.Quality in Higher Education, 3(1), 87–94.

Ramsden, P. (2009). A better student experience: Speech at the groupstudent experience conference, 19 November 2009, UnitedKingdom. Retrieved on December 16, 2009 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/news/detail/2009/a_better_student_experience_speech_by_paul_ramsden.

Scott, G., & Hawke, I. (2003). Using an external quality audit as leverfor institutional change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education, 28(3), 323–332.Shah, M., & Brown, G. (2009). The rise of private higher education in

Australia: Maintaining quality outcomes and future challenges:In Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum

(AUQF). Alice Springs:.AUQA (143–150).Shah, M., & Grebennikov, L. (2008). External quality audit as an

opportunity for institutional change and improvement. InProceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum

(AUQF). Canberra: AUQA (98–103).Shah, M., & Skaines, I. (2008). Strategic planning and reviews in a

university: Is it a myth or reality? In Proceedings of the

Australian Universities Quality Forum (AUQF). Canberra:AUQA (104–113).

Shah, M., & Stanford, S. (2009). Developing an effective tracking andimprovement system for learning and teaching: Achievementsand future challenges in maintaining academic standards. InProceedings of the Australian Association for Institutional

Research (AAIR). Adelaide.Shah, M., & Treloar, K. (2007). External quality audit outcomes in

Australia & international and possible benchmarking opportuni-ties. In Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality

Forum (AUQF). Tasmania: AUQA (143–151).Universities Australia. (2009). University funding and expenditure.

Retrieved on November 25, 2009 from http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/content.asp?page=/publications/stats/fexp.htm .

Wickham, S., Coetzee, G., Jones, B., & Metcalfe, A. (2007). HEQC

evaluative study of institutional audits 2006 . Pretoria: HigherEducation Quality Council.


123

http://aei.gov.au/AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/Publications/IndustryPublications.aspx


http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/occpaper/00g/00g.pdf


http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/pubs/quality/qa.pdf

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx



http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/news/detail/2009/a_better_student_experience_speech_by_paul_ramsden



http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/content.asp?page=/publications/stats/fexp.htm










http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/pubs/quality/qa.pdf





Quality Assurance in Australian Higher Education- Historical and Future Development

Documents

Transcript of Quality Assurance in Australian Higher Education- Historical and Future Development