This article was downloaded by: [Massey University Library]

On: 16 February 2014, At: 01:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Quality in Higher Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cqhe20
The renewal of quality assurance
in Australian higher education: the
challenge of balancing academic
rigour,equity and quality outcomes
Mahsood Shah
a
, Ione Lewis
b
& Robert Fitzgerald
b
a
RMIT University , Melbourne, Australia
b
University of Canberra , Canberra, Australia
Published online: 01 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Mahsood Shah , Ione Lewis & Robert Fitzgerald (2011) The renewal of quality
assurance in Australian higher education: the challenge of balancing academic rigour,equity and
quality outcomes, Quality in Higher Education, 17:3, 265-278, DOI: 10.1080/13538322.2011.614474
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.614474
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
The renewal of quality assurance in Australian higher
education: the challenge of balancing academic rigour, equity
and quality outcomes
MAHSOOD SHAH
a
*, IONE LEWIS
b
and ROBERT FITZGERALD
b
a
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia;
b
University of Canberra, Canberra,
Australia
The renewal of quality in Australian higher education comes at a time
of signicant change in the external policy framework. Such changes are
timely due to the growth of higher education and the emergence of the
quality and equity agenda in the context of ongoing decline in public
funding. The article provides an overview of current quality assurance
arrangements and the outcome of the recent review of higher education.
The dilemma faced by Australian universities in improving quality out-
comes and maintaining high standards, while meeting the governments
aspiration to increase the enrolment of students from targeted equity
groups, is outlined. The article critiques past inequity in rewarding uni-
versities based on measures of student satisfaction, rather than using
measures of access, participation and retention of students from diverse
equity groups. The challenges facing universities in meeting the govern-
ments 2020 equity targets without compromising academic rigour, stan-
dards and quality outcomes are presented.
Keywords: academic rigour; equity; quality outcomes; higher education;
funding; student satisfaction; standards
The emergence of quality assurance
The renewal of quality assurance in Australian higher education comes at a
time of enormous change in the higher education sector. The planned
changes will bring about signicant reforms in higher education, with
increased accountability in order to improve outcomes related to teaching
and research. The changes in government policy coupled with external pres-
sures such as ongoing decreased public funding place signicant pressure on
universities in an environment of growth in student numbers and increased
competition with private higher education providers. The most debated
change is the governments aim to increase the participation of students
*Corresponding author. Email: mahsood.shah@rmit.edu.au
Quality in Higher EducationAquatic Insects
Vol. 17, No. 3, November 2011, 265278
ISSN 1353-8322 print/ISSN 1470-1081 online
2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.614474
http://www.tandfonline.com
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

from various equity groups to forward its social inclusion agenda. There are
concerns that both students and universities may be unprepared for this
change.
The government expects that increased enrolment of students from
diverse equity backgrounds should not compromise high student achieve-
ment and the quality and standard of education. Arguably, the equity and
access agenda ensures that higher education institutions are fullling their
moral purpose to provide an equal chance for all groups of people to partici-
pate in tertiary education (Keohane, 2006).
Overview of current Australian higher education quality assurance
framework
The current Australian higher education quality assurance framework was
introduced in 2000. The year 2010 marks the tenth anniversary in the imple-
mentation of a framework that comprised ve key elements: state and terri-
tory government responsibility for the registration, re-registration and
accreditation of higher education providers other than universities; the estab-
lishment of the Australian Universities Quality Agency tasked with under-
taking ve-yearly cyclical quality audits; Commonwealth government annual
monitoring of universities performance on a range of performance measures
related to teaching, research and equity; the onus on universities to ensure
the development and enhancement of quality and standards; and nally,
higher education institutions compliance with various laws, regulations and
external reference points.
Since the implementation of the quality assurance framework in 2000,
the higher education sector has witnessed signicant changes. Some of the
notables changes include: the growth of the student population from
695,485 in 2000 to more than 1.1 million students in 2009; growth in inter-
national students from 95,607 in 2000 to 320,970 in 2009; the growth of
private for-prot higher education from a few providers in 2000 to more
than 160 providers in 2009 with a consistent 20% increase in enrolments
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2009a); increased diversity of the student pop-
ulation; the increased use of technology in learning; and consistent decline
in public funding of universities. These changes have resulted in the
renewed interest in quality assurance in Australian higher education.
An analysis undertaken by Shah et al. (2010) of the current Australian
higher education quality assurance framework suggests nine deciencies
including: lack of comparison using quantiable data across all higher-
education institutions; limited improvement in student experience despite 10
years of external quality audits; inequity in rewarding institutions using
student satisfaction as a measure of educational quality; university
complacency; lack of monitoring across institutions on comparable academic
standards; the role of the Australian Universities Quality Agency and its
266 M. Shah et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

powers; inconsistent state and territory governments approach to registration
and accreditation of non-university providers; promotion of quality of higher
education institutions with wider stakeholders; and student engagement in
quality and improvement. The next section will examine the ndings of the
2008 Bradley review of higher education.
Review of higher education
The recent review of Australian higher education in 2008 found that the cur-
rent arrangements for quality assurance are complex, fragmented and inef-
cient. The review recommended the development of a new framework
focussed on outcomes and standards rather than the current tness-
for-purpose approach to quality. The review also recommended the estab-
lishment of a new regulator responsible for the registration, accreditation,
course approval, external quality audits, compliance monitoring and perfor-
mance monitoring of all higher education institutions including universities
and private higher education institutions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008,
pp. 11516). In response to the review, the Commonwealth government
established a new national regulator with overarching responsibility for qual-
ity assurance of all tertiary education providers, including higher and voca-
tional education, with powers to impose sanctions on universities and other
higher education providers. The proposed quality and regulatory framework
for Australian higher education includes four elements. First, the establish-
ment of an independent national regulator (the Tertiary Education Quality
and Standards Agency) with powers to register university and non-university
higher education providers and monitor quality and ensure standards. Sec-
ond, the creation of a national register of all higher education providers.
Third, the development of a higher education standards framework that
includes provider standards, qualication standards, information standards,
teaching and learning standards and research standards. Fourth, the establish-
ment of the My University (similar to My Schools) website to publish institu-
tional performance on agreed measures.
These initiatives will be implemented through government plans to invest
$5.4 billion in public higher education between 2010 and 2014 (Common-
wealth of Australia, 2009b). The government also introduced policies related
to the funding of universities using a demand-driven model with funding of
student places in universities and performance-based funding on specic
measures to reward universities. High performance on areas such as access
and participation of disadvantaged students; student satisfaction or experi-
ence on generic skills; good teaching and overall course satisfaction via the
national course experience questionnaire with graduating students will be
rewarded. The government also aims to implement a new university experi-
ence survey to assess the student experience of enrolled students and intro-
duce a new collegiate learning assessment based on the US assessment of
Quality in Higher Education 267
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

generic skills and improvements in higher-order competencies (Benjamin &
Chun, 2009).
Australian universities in turbulence
The current policy changes in higher education have placed universities in a
state of turbulence with other recent challenges such as downturn in the
international student market (following changes to immigration policy) and
institutional ranking using research performance measures. The quality
assurance changes in relation to Australian higher education are timely
because the sector is growing rapidly and now includes a greater number of
private providers. Additionally, there is greater diversity of higher education
students and ongoing decline in student satisfaction at the same time as rises
in student tuition fees. Stakeholders such as employer groups demand higher
standards of education to address national issues of skills shortages. Interna-
tional developments in higher education across the world aim for interna-
tional comparability, for example the Bologna process in Europe (Bologna
Declaration, 1999).
While the government has set ambitious targets for equity and quality as
integral to its education revolution, universities face a dilemma in maintain-
ing high-quality outcomes with reduced funding. At the same time as fund-
ing has decreased, the government plans to increase enrolments in
universities. There is an emphasis in higher education policy on increasing
the participation and success of students from low socio-economic back-
grounds, who in some cases may be unprepared for university education.
The government has set a target for 2020 to increase the participation of
such students by 20% (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009b).
It is yet to be seen whether the $5.4 billion investment actually adds
value to the Australian higher education sector or the extent to which it
improves the quality and standard of higher education. It appears the pro-
posed government policy is more focussed on rewarding institutions based
on increased enrolments of students from disadvantaged backgrounds to
meet government targets and using student satisfaction as a measure to
reward institutions. There seems to be a lack of focus on input factors
needed to achieve improved outcomes, such as academic support services
and infrastructure for students from various equity groups such as low
socio-economic status. Student achievement measures such as retention and
progression of students have been ignored by the government in monitoring
and rewarding institutions.
Increasing access to higher education is important for higher education to
full its moral purpose of providing access and opportunity for diverse
groups of people to participate and succeed in education, to develop charac-
ter and critical thinking skills and to improve the human condition
(Keohane, 2006). A focus on academic rigour should not disadvantage
268 M. Shah et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

students from access to and participation in higher education. The new
approach to a standards-based quality assurance framework (Commonwealth
of Australia, 2008) should reward institutions for providing access to stu-
dents from targeted equity groups and provide funding for academic support
services needed to achieve quality outcomes such as retention, progression,
completions, a high level of student satisfaction and graduate outcomes
desired by employers.
It is clear that the government is renewing its approach to higher
education quality assurance with new governance and regulatory arrange-
ments in relation to quality assurance and academic standards. There is a
focus on improved accountability, greater transparency and improved effec-
tiveness and efciency of higher education to meet the needs of diverse
stakeholder and thus increase the competitiveness of higher education. The
new governance arrangement places the onus on higher education institu-
tions to tackle social and economic issues affecting access and outcomes.
The media in Australia recently reported that university leaders fear the new
arrangements may result in increased bureaucracy and loss of university
autonomy (Trounson, 2010b). The lite group of eight universities in
Australia (Go8) stated that the new accountability for quality agenda is
both ambitious and ambiguous (Gallagher, 2010, p. 1).
The focus on equity and increased participation of students from various
equity groups is also part of higher education reforms in countries such as
the UK and the USA. President Obama aims for USA to become the
worlds best-educated country by 2020 (Cunnane, 2010). In the UK, the
government aims for at least 50% of young people (aged 1830) to enter
higher education and to increase the participation rates of young people
from poorer backgrounds (BIS, 2009). Government reforms in the UK are
similar to those in Australia with performance-based funding linked to insti-
tutional performance on various measures. The Australian government has
also set ambitious target for growth in higher education attainment, so that
by 2020, 40% of all 2534-year-olds will hold a qualication at bachelor
level or above.
Academics standards and future challenges
The purpose of maintaining high academic standards is not only to meet
government requirements. First and foremost, high academic standards are
fundamental to the production of high-quality research and teaching out-
comes and quality graduates. High standards provide condence to the gov-
ernment, employers, industry, professional accrediting bodies, students and
the community that the quality of education will meet the current and future
needs of the society. Therefore, higher academic standards are also linked to
the moral and ethical purpose of universities as civic institutions (Keohane,
2006).
Quality in Higher Education 269
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

Questions and debates about the academic standards of higher education
institutions are readily apparent in recent media reporting in Australia (Cra-
ven, 2010; James, 2010; Lane, 2010). The decline in student satisfaction
measured via the course experience questionnaire in Australia (Common-
wealth of Australia, 2008), the national skills shortage in various professions
in Australia and employers view that graduates lack vital skills in some
professions (Grebennikov & Shah, 2008) are publicly decried, with some
critics suggesting that a national overhaul of the higher education system is
needed.
To achieve higher academic standards, some critics have suggested rais-
ing entry requirements, arguing that this will result in positive outcomes
such as higher student retention. James et al. (2002) argue that the use of
input factors to safeguard standards such as selective student admission mea-
sures is at odds with contemporary trends to increase access and student par-
ticipation and to provide exible modes of delivery. They suggest that
student attainment of learning outcomes may be a useful indicator for stu-
dent achievement in the context of diversication of university entry path-
ways, modes of student participation and engagement with learning.
Government policy on academic standards and outcome-based funding
may favour lite and well-resourced universities but may not be fair to uni-
versities committed to education, research and engagement in their own
regions with large proportions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Using measures such as student satisfaction to reward universities will wit-
ness lite and well-resourced universities with well-established faculties,
administrative structures and extensive student support services beneting
further from increased funding. According to Harvey and Green (1993), an
institution that takes the highest performing students and provides them with
the best human and physical resources by its nature will excel. Astin (1990)
argues that a high level of resourcing endorses the universitys reputation
and a good reputation attracts greater resources.
While the ideals of academic standards, academic rigour, comparability
and equivalent outcomes are important, the question is the extent to which
governments are prepared to recognise and resource universities who pro-
vide access and participation for disadvantaged student groups. There is no
simple answer to the complex question of how to ensure rigorous higher
education quality at the same time as educating students with diverse needs
and levels of preparedness for tertiary education. Higher education institu-
tions have to adjust their goal of providing lite education that aims for
excellence with the government priority of mass education for large sections
of the population. According to Schnee (2008), students with the strongest
academic performance may miss out on being challenged intellectually, as
resources and attention are directed towards those with weaker skills.
Increases in student enrolments at the same time as government funding
has decreased has been noted in recent Australian media reports (Hare,
270 M. Shah et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

2010; Trounson, 2008). Critics suggest that high staffstudent ratios will
have negative consequences for the student experience. One prominent vice-
chancellor noted:
Government funding to assist with effective preparation and support for stu-
dents from disadvantaged backgrounds will assist students to succeed. How-
ever, it will not replace a check on overall education quality, which is more
important; to ensure that expanded intakes are matched by increases in the
numbers of students who complete successfully and maintain quality graduate
outcomes. (Gardner, 2010)
The Australian higher education sector has been advocating strongly for an
end to chronic underfunding of universities. Government funding shrank
from 77% of university revenue in 1989 to just 44% in 2009. Public fund-
ing of universities has consistently declined despite the review of higher
education in 2008. According to the most recent Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) statistics, Australia is ranked 15 out
34 (below the OECD average) on higher education expenditure. The OECD
statistics show that the average expenditure per student in Australia is
$15,000 compared to $25,109 in the US (OECD, 2006).
Inequitable funding
The introduction of a learning and teaching performance fund (LTPF) worth
a quarter of a billion dollars over four years (20052008) by the Australian
government has mostly rewarded lite universities. The learning and teach-
ing performance fund used measures such as student retention and progres-
sion rates, student satisfaction and graduate employment to reward public
universities. An analysis done by the authors as part of this article suggests
that almost 48% of the reward was shared between lite universities. lite
universities with high student admission criteria, high retention rates,
well-developed and mature academic and support services with high student
satisfaction beneted from the controversial reward system. The most con-
tentious issue was the use of student satisfaction as a proxy to link billions
of dollars reward to institutions.
There seems to have been little appreciation or reward of those universi-
ties with a successful history of gaining and retaining underrepresented stu-
dents in higher education. The performance-based funding introduced in
2004 has witnessed considerable benet to lite universities with more than
ve million dollars reward to each university each year between 2005 and
2008. In comparison, the three post-1987 universities only received just
above one million dollars in the nal year of performance-based funding.
The proposal to reward universities on the proportion of students from
various equity groups from 2011 will witness multi-campus, regional and
post-1987 universities beneting from the new funding arrangements. In
Quality in Higher Education 271
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

contrast, lite universities currently have only 10% of underrepresented stu-
dents compared to almost 22% in some post-1987 universities (Trounson,
2008). Analysis undertaken by the authors on three lite and three post-
1987 universities in Australia suggested that lite universities have an aver-
age of 7% of students from low socio-economic background compared to
21.5% in three post-1987 universities.
The controversy around the new performance-based funding focuses on
the assumption that assessment of student satisfaction using the course expe-
rience questionnaire and the proposed new university experience survey is
an indicator (or a proxy) of educational quality. Some commentators
(Coaldrake, 2005) have argued the need to undertake audits on institutional
student survey data collection practices. Student satisfaction may not be the
right measure to assess educational quality and student achievement. Gov-
ernment has mostly focused on increasing the enrolments of students from
diverse backgrounds without also monitoring and rewarding institutions for
positive student retention and progression rates. Such a strategy may result
in universities meeting the enrolment target while also having high attrition
rates, as the reward has not been linked to evidence of student retention and
progression.
A sustainable approach to academic rigour, equity and quality
The changing landscape of international higher education has required gov-
ernments and universities to change and evolve to meet internal and external
demands. In the Australian context, the new quality assurance and regulatory
arrangement and governments aspiration to increase the access and participa-
tion of students from targeted equity groups, as well as internal changes in
universities, have placed the higher education sector in turbulence. While it
is yet to be seen how the sector responds to the forthcoming government pol-
icies and the value added by the proposed funding, it is clear that maintaining
academic rigour, equity and quality outcomes will be challenging.
The renewal of quality in Australian higher education and other changes
such as increasing the proportion of students from diverse backgrounds with
university expectations to improve quality outcome and academic standards
is a great challenge for the sector. Using teaching and research performance
measures will undoubtedly increase the use of rankings in Australian higher
education. Institutions and academics fear government intrusion into univer-
sities and an undermining of academic autonomy (Henkel, 2005). Changes
in practice include some universities using student satisfaction measures to
reward individual academics. The danger of overreliance on satisfaction
measures is increased focus on outcomes rather than inputs such as course
design, professional development of academics, quality management of stu-
dent assessments, teaching methods, student attainment of key capabilities
and resources and infrastructure needed to support teaching.
272 M. Shah et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

Based on the current and planned changes in the Australian higher edu-
cation sector, the authors outline four key challenges in maintaining aca-
demic rigour and increasing access and equity provisions without
compromising quality outcomes. They include: better funding of academic
support services; new institutional models for higher education; developing
valid and reliable student satisfaction measures that link to quality; and
forms of academic rigour that benet all students. Informed discussion of
these challenges will assist the higher education sector to plan better how to
meet such external demands without loss of unique institutional cultures that
suit local contexts and discipline-based teaching and learning practices.
Challenge one. The need for better funding of academic support services
The university sector urgently needs $1015 billion additional infrastructure
funding to meet the governments participation targets in the next 15 years.
Several vice-chancellors have emphasised universities need for signicant
additional human capital and physical and technological infrastructure to
effectively deliver on the governments equity agenda (Trounson, 2010a).
In particular, the approach to quality renewal in Australian higher educa-
tion will require additional funding for academic support services to help
diverse groups of students achieve to their potential in tertiary education.
The new performance-based funding arrangements to increase enrolment of
students from low socio-economic backgrounds will require additional sup-
port structures to ensure retention and assist progression. The Australian
government set national benchmarks for student support services and linked
these to Commonwealth funding (Ellis, 2008, 3 November). The new
approach has to be economically sustainable for universities as well as
socially responsible for the production of high-quality graduates to meet the
future needs of society, employers, professions and consumers. The pro-
posed access and equity policy focuses on the quantity of enrolled graduates
rather than their quality or achievement.
Studies undertaken at a large multi-campus university in Australia, with
a large proportion of students rst in their immediate family to attend ter-
tiary education, suggest that low progression measured using grade-point
average was associated with student characteristics such as non-English
speaking background, male gender and low socio-economic status (Greben-
nikov & Skaines, 2008). Their study found that the predictors of student
academic performance were previous academic performance, university entry
scores, previous course performance, female gender, age and socio-economic
status. Therefore, funding of academic and administrative support services
such as academic skills, mentoring programmes, rst-year student transition
and support, assistance for students at risk, counselling, tertiary preparation,
academic advice and other programmes are necessary to help retain students
who show poor progression and are at risk of withdrawal.
Quality in Higher Education 273
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

Challenge two. The need to consider new kinds of institutions
The review of higher education in Australia has focussed on many aspects
such as funding, quality assurance, student experience, research capacity and
improving collaboration between vocational and higher education. The review,
including the governments response, failed to assess the structure of tertiary
education in Australia and its ability to meet governments aspirations by
2020. The current structure includes 39 universities, 4 self-accrediting institu-
tions, more than 160 private higher education providers and approximately
4800 registered training organisations including technical and further educa-
tion institutes offering a mixture of vocational and some higher education
courses. Government policy on higher education reforms in Australia so far
has been silent about the future directions and the role of the burgeoning pri-
vate for-prot higher education in meeting the governments goals for access
and participation and quality assurance arrangements for registration, accredi-
tation, performance reporting and quality assurance of such providers.
An ideal solution is the formation of new kinds of institutions that provide
new pathways into universities to maintain academic standards and rigour
including selectivity of students, curriculum design, assessment practices and
achievement of learning outcomes. Community colleges in the USA have
been established to accommodate the growth of higher education. These col-
leges provide access and education to all groups of students, including minor-
ity groups, female students and those who had done poorly in high schools
(Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Studies undertaken by Phillippe and Sullivan (2006)
suggest that the key factor inuencing student choice of community colleges
is ease of access, low cost and support systems such as tutoring. Such publicly
funded institutions of higher education may provide access and opportunity to
undertake a two-year associate degree for those students unable to access uni-
versities due to low academic achievement. The pathway will enable these stu-
dents to articulate into a university for a year to complete an undergraduate
degree. New institutions such as university colleges or polytechnics will focus
on tertiary preparation, transition, engaged curriculum and assessments that
enable students to undertake eld placements and practicums to develop gen-
eric skills in their early years of study. Such an approach is used in some pri-
vate higher education institutions in Australia that provide pathway
programmes into universities. However, such private pathways are expensive
for students and are more focused on the international student market rather
than opportunities for domestic students.
The formation of such institutions in Australian has been promulgated in
recent media reports by a number of prominent vice chancellors (Davis,
2009; Parker, 2009). Such institutions could play a key role in improving
access and participation for all groups of students by providing a second
chance to participate in higher education and may also improve collabora-
tion between public and private higher education institutions.
274 M. Shah et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

Challenge three. Develop and expand valid and reliable student experience
measures
The measure of student satisfaction may not be reliable to assess overall
educational quality compared to indicators of student academic achievement
such as student attainment of generic skills, retention, progression and com-
pletions that are reported in the literature (McKensie & Schweitser, 2001;
Tait & Entwistle, 1996; Tangney et al., 2004).
Any effort to use student satisfaction measure to reward institutions has
to be valid and reliable and capture the current trends in student experience
in higher education. Predictors of student satisfaction include course design,
quality of teaching, reliable information and communication technology and
online learning, relevant support structures and quality management of
student assessments (Shah & Nair, 2011). While the course experience
questionnaire instrument has been used for more than three decades, it is
important to review the instrument so that the total student experience (Harvey
et al., 1992) can be measured including satisfaction with teaching, course out-
comes, learning support, opportunities for online and work-integrated learning,
range and accessibility of support services and campus experience.
Challenge four. Academic rigour should advantage all students
Studies undertaken by Ashby (2004), Krause et al. (2005), Rickinson and
Rutherford (1996) and Yorke and Longden (2007) provide evidence of a
positive relationship between student academic performance and retention. A
correlation between student achievement in high schools and university
retention rates has also been demonstrated by these researchers. These nd-
ings suggest a challenge in implementing the governments access and
equity agenda.
Academic rigour should not limit educational access and opportunity for
non-traditional students or mandate particular outcomes without considering
the means of assisting students to achieve higher levels of learning (Wasley
et al., 1997). Schnee (2008) advocates for a conception of rigour for non-
traditional students that involves deep, critical, inquiry-based learning to
push these students to new levels of academic accomplishment. Ensuring
rigour is an attainable goal requires sufcient scaffolding for students to
reach high standards, well-funded support services and resources and new
approaches to teaching.
Increase in the student population could result in high staffstudent
ratios, which may have signicant impact on student experience and
possibly high attrition rates. Academic rigour and standards-based quality
assurance must ensure that traditional and non-traditional students are facili-
tated to engage in learning and to develop generic skills such as critical
thinking and self-directed learning during their course (Crebert et al., 2004).
Quality in Higher Education 275
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

Conclusion
This article has outlined current and forthcoming changes in Australian
higher education and the challenges faced by the Australian universities in
improving quality outcomes and maintaining high academic standards in the
context of decline in public funding and growth of student numbers. The
key challenge facing universities is improving quality outcomes while facili-
tating the participation of students from diverse backgrounds who, in some
cases, are unprepared for tertiary education. The university sector in Austra-
lia has experienced inequity in performance-based funding in the past, with
lite universities gaining the largest proportion of the reward while having
the lowest participation of students from equity groups.
The new quality assurance framework has to ensure that universities are
able to meet the governments aspiration for increased access with appropriate
funding to support diverse students and equitable performance-based funding
to reward institutions meeting the targets. The academic standards-based qual-
ity framework needs to recognise student diversity in higher education and
reconceptualise quality measures to include student diversity and retention.
Support services must be adequately funded to assist students who are unpre-
pared for tertiary education to succeed. Sustainable funding and planning at
national and institutional levels and equitable reward systems will improve the
provision of higher education and lead to improved outcomes in equity and
quality.
References
Ashby, A., 2004, Monitoring student retention in the Open University, Journal of
Open and Distance Learning, 19(1), pp. 6577.
Astin, A.W., 1990, Assessment as a tool for institutional renewal and reform,
American Association for Higher Education Assessment Forum, Accreditation
and Renewal, Washington, DC, pp. 1933.
Benjamin, R. & Chun, M., 2009, Returning to Learning in an Age of Assessment:
A synopsis of the argument, introducing the rationale of the collegiate learning
assessment (New York, NY, Council for Aid to Education).
BIS, 2009, Higher Ambitions: The future of universities in a knowledge economy.
Available online at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-ambitions (accessed 5
December 2010).
Bologna Declaration, 1999, Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Educa-
tion. Available online at: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/
documents/MDC/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf (accessed 22 July 2011).
Coaldrake, P., 2005, Let an umpire decide: the governments latest university rank-
ing system aims to improve teaching standards, but these critics claim it is more
likely to retard real progress, The Australian, 17August.
Cohen, M.A. & Brawer, B.F., 2003, The American Community College (4th edn)
(San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Commonwealth of Australia, 2008, Review of Australian Higher Education: Final
report. Available online at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/
Documents/PDF/Higher%20Education%20Review_one%20document_02.pdf
(accessed 5 December 2010).
276 M. Shah et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

Commonwealth of Australia, 2009a, Selected Higher Education Statistics. Available
online at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/
Publications/Pages/Home.aspx (accessed 5 December 2010).
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009b, Transforming Australias Higher Education
System. Available online at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/highereducation/Pages/
TransformingAustraliasHESystem.aspx (accessed 5 December 2010).
Craven, G., 2010, Taking the toxic out of TEQSA, The Australian, 23
June.
Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C. & Cragnolini, V., 2004, Developing
generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: gradu-
ates perceptions, Higher Education Research and Development, 23(2), pp.
14765.
Cunnane, S., 2010, Obama: education is the economic issue of our time, The
Chronicle, 11 August.
Davis, G., 2009, Fix school performance or poor wont get into uni, The Austra-
lian, 22 July.
Ellis, K., 2008, Rebuilding student support services in our universities, Media
Release. Available online at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Ellis/Media/
Releases/Pages/Article_081130_ 112847.aspx (accessed 22 March 2011).
Gallagher, M., 2010, The Accountability for Quality Agency in Higher Education:
Group of eight. Available online at: http://www.go8.edu.au/government-a-
business/go8-policy-a-analysis/2010/238-the-accountability-for-quality-agenda-in-
higher-education (accessed 5 December 2010).
Gardner, M., 2010, From mass to universal higher education, Campus Review, 19
July.
Grebennikov, L. & Shah, M., 2008, Engaging employers with the university: skills
needed and changes expected by industries, Proceedings of the Australian Uni-
versities Community Engagement Alliance Conference, Queensland, Australia,
911, July.
Grebennikov, L. & Skaines, I., 2008, University of Western Sydney students at
risk: prole and opportunities for change, Journal of Institutional Research, 14
(10), pp. 5870.
Hare, J., 2010, Top unis warn on loss of quality, The Australian, 23 November.
Harvey, L., Burrows, A. & Green, D., 1992, Total Student Experience: A First
Report of the QHE National Survey of Staff and Students Views of the Impor-
tant Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Higher Education. Birmingham, QHE.
Harvey, L. & Green, D., 1993, Dening quality, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 18(1), pp. 933.
Henkel, M., 2005, Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environ-
ment, Higher Education, 49, pp. 15976.
James, R., 2010, Greater transparency is required, The Australian, 14 July.
James, R., McInnis, C. & Devlin, M., 2002, Assessing learning in Australian uni-
versities, Centre for the Study for Higher Education for the Australian Univer-
sities Teaching Committee. Available online at: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/
assessinglearning/docs/AssessingLearning.pdf (accessed 22 July 2011).
Keohane, O.N., 2006, Higher Ground: Ethics and leadership in a modern univer-
sity (Durham, NC, Duke University Press).
Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R. & Mclnnis, C., 2005, The rst year experience
in Australian universities: ndings from a decade of national studies. Available
online at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resou
rces/proles/rst_year_experience.htm (accessed 5 December 2010).
Quality in Higher Education 277
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4

Lane, B., 2010, Quality conict deemed unlikely, The Australian, 29 September.
McKensie, K. & Schweitser, R., 2001, Who succeeds at university? Factors pre-
dicting academic performance in rst year Australian university students,
Higher Education Research and Development, 20, pp. 2132.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2006, Educa-
tion at a glance. Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3746,
en_2649_39263238_37328564_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed 22 July 2011).
Parker, S., 2009, Polytechnics could help lift participation, The Australian, 12
August.
Phillippe, A.K. & Sullivan, G.L., 2006, National Prole of Community Colleges:
Trends and Statistics (4th edn) (Washington, DC, Community Colleges Press).
Rickinson, B. & Rutherford, D., 1996, Systematic monitoring of the adjustment to
university of undergraduate: a strategy for reducing withdrawal rates, British
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(2), pp. 21325.
Schnee, E., 2008, In the real world no one drops their standard for you: academic
rigour in a college worker education program, Equity & Excellence in Educa-
tion, 41(1), pp. 6280.
Shah, M. & Nair, S., 2011, Trends in the quality of the student experience: an
international perspective based on studies in three universities, paper presented
at the International Engineering and Technology Education Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, January.
Shah, M., Wilson, M. & Nair, S., 2010, The Australian higher education quality
assurance framework: its success, deciencies and way forward, paper pre-
sented at the Australian Associations for Institutional Research conference, Mel-
bourne, Australia, November.
Tait, H. & Entwistle, N.J., 1996, Identifying students at risk through ineffective
study strategies, Higher Education, 31, pp. 97116.
Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F. & Boone, A., 2004, High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success, Journal of
Personality, 72, pp. 271322.
Trounson, A., 2008, Land of the rare go for the poor who dream of university,
The Australian, 10 December.
Trounson, A., 2010a, Funding shortfall jeopardises participation target, The
Australian, 9 February.
Trounson, A., 2010b, Tertiary agency talks to resume, The Australian, 24
December.
Wasley, P., Hampel, R. & Clark, R., 1997, Kids and School Reform (San Francisco,
CA, Jossey-Bass).
Yorke, M. & Longden, B., 2007, The rst-year experience in higher education in
the UK, Report on Phase 1 of a project funded by the Higher Education Acad-
emy. Available online at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/FYEsurvey.htm (accessed
5 December 2010).
278 M. Shah et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
M
a
s
s
e
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
y
]

a
t

0
1
:
4
3

1
6

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
4