NIER Seminar, Tokyo, 25 April 2011

R t li d l t iRecent policy developments in Australian higher education

1 Transformation into a universal participation system: Expanding participation and improving equity.

2 The establishment of TEQSA and its role in standards, including threshold standards.

3. Research assessment – the ERA process and outcomes

4. The renewal of undergraduate curricula, the case study of the ‘Melbourne Model’

Professor Richard JamesPro Vice-Chancellor (Participation and Engagement) Professor of Higher EducationProfessor of Higher EducationDirector, Centre for the Study of Higher Education

The Australian higher education system

39 comprehensive universities.

A l l bli i it tA largely public university system.

The majority of public funding derived from the federal governmentfederal government.

Policy for higher education formed by the federal government but universities exist under stategovernment but universities exist under state legislation.

Transformation of the Australian higher education sector following the Bradley Review:education sector following the Bradley Review: The goals of expansion and equity

The problems, pre‐Bradley Review:

1. A chaotic system of tuition fees, loans and HECS

2. Faltering domestic participation

3. Failure to achieve diversity in public higher education

4. Concerns about standards, especially in international education

5. Problems with the government‐institution relationship( h hi f i d i )(the architecture of tertiary education)

Core recommendations of the Bradley panel(46 recommendations overall)(46 recommendations overall)

• a demand‐driven system in which recognised providers would be free to enrol as many eligible students as they wish and student entitlement system in which eligible;

• new student‐centred funding arrangements — a voucher‐like learning entitlement for ‘eligible’ students, though funds are not given directly to students;given directly to students; 

• improvements in the funding base for students; and

• a new quality, regulation and standards agency, the Tertiary Education quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), anticipatingEducation quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), anticipating concerns about quality as the system expands and diversifies. 

.. and national targets for expanding participation and improving equity/social inclusion p g q y/

40 per cent of 25‐ to 34‐year‐olds attaining a qualification at bachelor level or above by 2025.

Presently at 29 per cent.  ese y a 9 pe ce

20 per cent of higher education enrolments at undergraduate level being people from low socio‐economic status backgrounds by 2020.

Presently at around 15 per cent and static for over a decade.

The likely character of a higher education sector for Australia that is geared to universal participationthat is geared to universal participation

• Significant institutional mission diversity, however some institutions will retain elite era characteristics (these may even be heightened). 

M di d l i d fl ibl M l• More diverse courses, more modularised, flexible programs. More people dipping in and out of higher education over their lifetimes.  Much sandwiching of study and work. Higher education meaning different things to different people.to different people.

• New notions of ‘eligibility’— less emphasis on ‘meritocratic’ entry based on school achievement (for some institutions at least), more diverseon school achievement (for some institutions at least), more diverse selection/recruitment methods and criteria. 

• Less consensus on absolute academic standardsLess consensus on absolute academic standards(not that we have much at present) and more emphasis on ‘value‐adding’.  Universities doing what schooling hasn’t done for some people.

The establishment of TEQSA and its role in standards including threshold standardsstandards, including threshold standards

http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/teqsa/Pages/Overview.aspx

The national standards framework

• Provider Registration Requirements will be minimum standards establishing the threshold that higher education providers must meet to become registered and operate as an Australian higher education provider, based on the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes

Q lifi i S d d h A li Q lifi i F k (AQF)• Qualification Standards—the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)

• Teaching and Learning Standards— TEQSA to focus on threshold standards but no framework exists as yet A range of related initiativesstandards but no framework exists as yet. A  range of related initiatives have been underway for some time, including the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s  “Learning and Teaching Academic Standards” projects  in a range of disciplines.p j g p

• Research Standards—the government will consider facilitating the development of benchmarks of the quality for research. 

• Information Standards—will set out the information providers should make available to prospective students to allow them to make informed d i idecisions.

Five perennial questions and dilemmas

1. The differing conceptions of ‘academic standards’

2. The difficulty in codifying ‘tacit knowledge’ and concerns about over-simplification

3. The resistance of some academics to what are perceived to be managerial interventions

4. The balancing act between over-specification (stifling diversity) and under-specification (failure to define or guide y) p ( gpolicy and practice in any useful way)

5 The major differences between standards of inputs5. The major differences between standards of inputs, processes and outputs or outcomes

TEQSA’s approach to T&L standards is not yet established

The Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s  “Learning and Teaching Academic Standards” project outcomes have been judged not appropriate by the TEQSA Chair, Professor Denise Bradley.

It is not clear what statements of standards will be used and what measures of performance will form the basis for TEQSA judgements.

Toward a coherent national framework for T&L standards

A working definition of teaching and learningA working definition of teaching and learning standards

Teaching and learning standards in higher education encompass:

th di i f i l t hi l t• those dimensions of curriculum, teaching, learner support and assessment that establish the pre-conditions for learning and educational outcomes fit for the award of a higher education qualification; and

• the explicit levels of attainment required of and achieved by students and graduates individually and collectively inby students and graduates, individually and collectively, in defined areas of knowledge and skills.

Toward a coherent national framework for T&L standards

Three essential dimensions of a framework for T&L standards in HE

Statements of Aligned Aligned 

assessment and standards

practicesgrading practices

Processes forProcesses for critical peer or expert review

Research assessment – Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) process andResearch in Australia (ERA) process and outcomes

ERA iERA – in summary1. First ratings done in 2010, released 2011. Next round in 2011

2.

3. Ratings on two-digit fields (eg 13 = Education) and four-digits sub-fields (eg 1302 = Curriculum and pedagogy)

4. Journals rated A*, A, B and C4. Journals rated A , A, B and CApplied measures are patents (and the like)Esteem measures are prizes, awards (and the like)

5 20% of research outputs submitted for assessment5. 20% of research outputs submitted for assessment

6. A 10000 character argument for each 2-digit field

7. Ratings by expert panels

ERA E ll i R h f A t liERA – Excellence in Research for Australia

ERA E ll i R h f A t liERA – Excellence in Research for Australia

B dl th ERA ti h fi d h t l d id lBroadly, the ERA ratings have confirmed what was already widely known – there are major differences in the quality of research across universities.

The top ratings of 5 are heavily concentrated in the Group of Eight universities. The University of Melbourne topped the nation, with 98% f h t ld t d d b98% of research at world standard or above.

The findings have raised questions about funding arrangements, with suggestions that high-performing universities should benefit from a different funding formula.

Ratings of ‘5’ at 2 digit level Go8 universities to the leftRatings of 5 at 2-digit level, Go8 universities to the left

The renewal of undergraduate curricula, including the ‘Melbourne Model’including the Melbourne Model

A wave of undergraduate curriculum renewal in Australia

THE OBVIOUS FACTORSTHE OBVIOUS FACTORS

• Desire for institutional differentiation in the marketplace, finding new student markets

• Desire to improve/redefine student learning

• Desire to improve graduate outcomes

• ICT and Internationalisation• ICT and Internationalisation

THE LESS OBVIOUS FACTORS

• Changing student expectations of the university experience

• Changing relationships between universities and communities

• Changing ideas about the nature of knowledge more• Changing ideas about the nature of knowledge, more permeable knowledge boundaries between disciplines

• Changing ideas about what it’s valuable for students to learn

A wave of undergraduate curriculum renewal in Australia

UNIVERSITIES ARE CHOOSING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS …

• Vocational curricula including workplace learning (eg Victoria• Vocational curricula, including workplace learning (eg Victoria University)

• Liberal arts style curricula (eg Univ. of Melbourne and University of W t A t liWestern Australia.

• Thematic curricula (eg James Cook University emphasising the tropics)

The ‘Melbourne Model’ in essenceThe Melbourne Model in essence

Six broad liberal(ish) 3 year undergraduate degrees:Six broad, liberal(ish), 3-year undergraduate degrees:

BA, BSc, BCom, BMus, BEnv (Environments), BBiomed

Professional training undertaken at Masters level in two year (or more) coursework degrees.

Research masters degrees for PhD pathways.

Initially 25% (but now <20%) ‘breadth’ component in the undergraduate degrees … studies in ‘different ways of knowing’.

Melbourne prior to the ‘Melbourne Model’Australia’s no 1 or no 2 university A large university withAustralia s no. 1 or no. 2 university. A large university, with comprehensive curriculum. Around 25% international students.

A d 100 d d t d ! Ab t 25% f t d t d iAround 100 undergraduate degrees! About 25% of students doing dual degrees. A curriculum ‘trying to be all things …’

Little University-wide discussion of curriculum philosophy and practice.

Equity an issue: 7% low SES compared with 14.5% nationally and 25% in the population overall. (School-leaver rank of 99.0+ needed p p (for admission to Law, for example).

The drivers for changeThe drivers for change

A desire to create a distinctive niche in the marketA desire to create a distinctive niche in the market.

A desire to develop a broader leader experience and to postpone specialisation and career choice.

A desire to improve the quality of the student experienceA desire to improve the quality of the student experience.

A desire to reduce faculty power-bases, a desire to drive an i tit ti l t t th h i l di iinstitutional restructure through a curriculum discussion.

A desire to become more graduate in character partly driven by theA desire to become more graduate in character, partly driven by the financial advantages of a less-regulated graduate education environment.

Key success factorsKey success factorsA high-morale institution, a commitment to being a deeply international, highly ranked universityhighly ranked university.

A generally sound, open climate for robust debate.

The unforgiving pace of change.

Outstanding professional staff.

Measures of progressMeasures of progress

Demand for the University’s courses has remained strongDemand for the University s courses has remained strong.

Student satisfaction levels very high.

Equity has been improved (modestly). The composition of graduate cohorts will be the real test.

Our capacity to create distinctive graduate pedagogies will be vital to long-term credibility and successterm credibility and success.

Important outcomesImportant outcomes

International recognition for curriculum innovation A nationally distinctiveInternational recognition for curriculum innovation. A nationally distinctive curriculum.

A it li d d d i l th t h t th t d t ‘ l t thA revitalised and renewed curriculum that has put the student ‘closer to the centre’. Greater uniformity in the services offered to students.

A platform for future change, including building the graduate character of the University over time.

A clearer sense of ‘what we stand for’.

Some final observationsSome final observations …

Th U i it M lb i d iti t t thi ‘ i k ’The University Melbourne was in a good position to try something ‘risky’ (high morale, aspirational staff, well-resourced, strong market position). Few Australian universities could have done this.

The planning and implementation of the Melbourne Model have transformed the University. It is now more adaptive, more flexible, more nimble. The policies and systems have been thoroughly renewed.

Thank you for your attention.Thank you for your attention.

Arigato gozaimass!Arigato gozaimass!

www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au

r.james@unimelb.edu.au