Tertiary Education Quality And Standards Agency Research Articles

Two sides of the same coin: a taxonomy of academic integrity and impropriety using intellectual virtues and vices

While the integrity of academic work has always been vitally important, since the establishment of the International Center for Academic Integrity in 1992 increasing attention has been paid to the area. The term academic integrity now explicitly appears in policy and in job titles or offices tasked with either detection, training, or both. Equally, regulatory, quality and standards agencies, such as Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the UK, and the Australian Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) have mobilised around academic integrity with frameworks, lexicons, charters and networks that offer national guidance and promote shared action and understanding. However, despite efforts to interrogate and standardise the use of the term ‘academic integrity’ from those working and researching in the field, it is often used inconsistently and frequently conflated with its opposite – academic misconduct – in practice. Our aim, in this paper, is to acknowledge a lack of clarity around the term ‘academic integrity’ and to address this ambiguity by offering a taxonomy of academic integrity. We will arrive at the taxonomy of academic integrity through philosophical conceptual analysis and making use of pre-existing philosophical work in virtue (and vice) epistemology. The outcome of this analysis will be a taxonomy of academic integrity that represents the various concepts related to it in an organised way, classified into distinct groups, along with a graphic to aid understanding.

Illusions of accountability: the tertiary education quality and standards agency’s regulation of sexual violence in Australian university settings

ABSTRACT The issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment in Australian university settings has received heightened attention in recent years. Despite efforts to strengthen institutional responses, national survey data suggests that efforts by the Australian university sector and the national higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), have failed to reduce the incidence of sexual assault and sexual harassment, increase student awareness of university policies, improve reporting rates, enhance complainant satisfaction with university responses, or achieve institutional accountability and transparency in the management and prevention of campus-based sexual violence. These institutional and regulatory failings adversely impact on Australian university students’ right to education. Drawing on my doctoral research, this article examines the role of TEQSA in oversighting university efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment following the release of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s landmark 2017 Change the Course report. Reflecting on the agency’s regulatory interventions over the past six years, the article suggests that any ongoing role for TEQSA in relation to campus-based sexual violence needs to be carefully considered.

Do academic integrity policies within foundation studies programmes adopt an educative perspective for supporting students?

ABSTRACT Academic integrity lies ‘at the core of the reputation of Australia’s world class higher education sector’ (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), 2020). This pilot study analyses the dominant approach (punitive or educative) of academic integrity policies by selected institutions within the Australian state of Victoria who offer a Foundation Studies Programme (FSP). This pilot study indicates a punitive approach is most commonly adopted. There is a scarcity of research within this field. An increasing prevalence of academic integrity breaches has been reported in the Australian and global education sector. It is therefore of paramount importance that we focus on supporting learners to understand and act with academic integrity. A literature review of qualitative data enabled patterns, or ‘themes’, to be identified. A deductive thematic analysis was conducted at the semantic (explicit) level to compare the approach taken at different institutions.

Revisiting Higher Education Business Models and Academic Performance Metrics Times

Performance metrics for academics in higher education have been changing and becoming more refined; focusing on income generation such as grants, high impact publications or the completion of a higher degree by research that the government awards funding. Government funding is often restrictive and highly competitive. Definitions of research active started to dictate workload models and allocations of teaching duties. The updated Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) threshold standard now requires at least one supervisor of a higher degree by research student to be research active. 
 
 However, the entry of private higher education providers into the education sector created many challenges. Private higher education providers in many cases do not receive government funding and focus on popular degrees. This allows for a highly profitable institution. Although, it represents a significant shift between a higher education that strives for research objectives to a sole focus on educating the massive for a profit. 
 
 Performance metrics, the employment modern awards, enterprise agreements currently do not reflect a teaching-only (intensive) institute. Restricting employers to classifications with inherent duties and pay scale that are simply not reflective of an employee's value or worth.
 
 This paper examines the disparity between duties, expectations and limitations of employment, the education minimum standards and makes recommendations on how they can co-exist better. One subject model discussed, has full-time staff become business owners of a degree enabling them to share in the profit in a franchise-education model.

Improving assessment accountability in initial teacher education programs through benchmarking

PurposeIn Australia, political imperatives that drive the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) call for a new understanding of assessment at the tertiary level. Assessment strategies are under the microscope to provide accountability but are increasingly called to measure a wider set of attributes considered important in equipping graduates to meet 21st century opportunities and challenges. This paper reports on a shared benchmarking exercise between two universities to ensure the current assessment strategies in their undergraduate early childhood programs meet such requirements.Design/methodology/approachData were collected using qualitative methodology and conceptualised using an interpretivist frame that enabled the collaborative groups to socially construct the meaning of assessment and identify what was specific, unique and different across the two programs. A cross-case analysis enabled a robust examination of the data.FindingsFindings identified key structural and procedural differences between the two benchmarked university programs in terms of cohort size, university policies around assessment points, the use of exams and the choices surrounding professional experience placements.Practical implicationsImplications of the research note the complexity of contextual factors such as university policies on assessment and the impact these have on the quality of assessment.Originality/valueThis paper is unique in that it used the conceptual framework for self-evaluation from TEQSA and followed their six key phases of benchmarking.

Developing and evaluating nationwide expert-delivered academic integrity workshops for the higher education sector in Australia

ABSTRACT In 2019, the Australian higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), commissioned a team of academic integrity experts to design and facilitate a series of national workshops, with the aim of increasing academic integrity knowledge and building a culture of integrity across the higher education sector. As a team, we investigated whether these three-hour workshops would make a measurable difference to workshop participants’ awareness of academic integrity issues and their confidence in their own institutions’ practices. Three hundred and forty-two (342) workshop participants (representing 75.7% of attendees) completed pre-workshop and post-workshop surveys regarding their awareness of academic integrity issues and their confidence in their institutions’ academic integrity practices. Results from the post-workshop surveys showed that the participants expressed significantly increased awareness about the Model Statement of Commitment to Academic Integrity, Australian and international academic integrity research, and ways to promote academic integrity. In addition, the participants expressed increased confidence in their institutions’ risk-mitigation strategies and staff members’ ability to detect contract cheating. However, these results were moderated by institution size and institution type (university vs. independent higher education provider). The evaluation data indicates that even a short staff development workshop can make a difference to participants’ understanding and knowledge of academic integrity. We conclude that this type of focused and evidence-based professional development can make an important contribution to the development of a culture of academic integrity across the higher education sector, and can provide participants with avenues for subsequent professional development and institutional policy improvement.

Deconstructing health and physical education teacher education: a mapping and analysis of programme structure and content in Australia

ABSTRACT Background: In Australia, Initial Teacher Education Institutions (ITEIs) provide undergraduate Health and Physical (HPE) programmes that meet a number of regulatory requirements, including those of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). In addition, ITEIs must also ensure programme alignment with state/territory-based jurisdictional requirements. While historically varied philosophies and practices have shaped HPE teacher education nationally, ITEIs are thus operating in an increasingly regulated environment. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to report research that has critically examined the structure and content of ITEI undergraduate programmes in Australia that prepare teachers for HPE in secondary schools. Analysis at programme and unit levels was undertaken to explore programme variance, ITEI priorities and consideration of the implications that programme structure and content has for graduate secondary HPE teachers and their employers. The paper seeks to contribute to wider debates about the role of teacher education in shaping HPE curriculum futures and the challenges faced by ITEIs to navigate increasing government regulation. Methods: An audit and document analysis of 15 Australian ITEIs identified programme structures and specific units of study for the preparation of secondary HPE teachers. These programme structures were compared to those of an ITEI in Western Australia (WA), similarly preparing secondary teachers of HPE, and undertaking internal programme renewal. The WA ITEI’s programme nomenclature and elements therefore provided the reference point for analysis of variation across programmes nationally. Findings: Findings show that graduate secondary HPE teachers in Australia are variously prepared, with ITEI programme structures ranging in nomenclature, breadth of content, positioning of units and the amount and placement of school-based practicums. ITEIs variously meet state, territory and federal accountability and accreditation requirements in preparing secondary HPE teachers. Programme variations may mean that graduate secondary HPE teachers have differing perspectives on HPE curriculum and pedagogy. Schools employing graduate teachers cannot assume all graduate teachers have a common outlook on or backgrounds in HPE, while meeting the graduate standards. Conclusions: The significant variation between programme structure and content at the 15 ITEIs preparing teachers for HPE in secondary schools indicates that in a heavily regulated sector, ITEIs in Australia remain critical players in shaping HPE practices across Australian schools. Further research is needed to appropriately ascertain the impact of ITEI programme variation on HPE teachers’ values and professional practice.

Are Degree-Awarding Institutions Doing Enough to Support the Implementation of Quality Assurance in Transnational Higher Education Partnerships?

As transnational education grows in complexity, it is imperative degree-awarding institutions develop ways to ensure the quality of their offshore provision. Although agencies, such as the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the United Kingdom and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) in Australia, safeguard standards through guidelines and reviews, it is vital degree-awarding institutions consider their own actions in the pursuit of academic quality. Although codes of conduct can guide quality assurance, this article suggests these documents are not enough to ensure quality education occurs. Offering a study of two Chinese–British transnational partnerships, this article identifies two key challenges that can affect the implementation of quality assurance at the operational level: time and cultural difference. The findings suggest that senior managers at degree-awarding institutions should consider how their structures and policies encourage and support the implementation of quality assurance at the operational level.

Building capacity through delivery model redesign; A university mental health and general practice service case report

Despite most young people rating their health positively, significant morbidity is attributable to mental health conditions and risk taking behaviour during these formative years (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014). There is a lack of research of Australian university associated general practices despite the youth-centricity of such practices (Staunton Smith, 2018). For universities looking to improve services there is little Australian-centric literature on what makes an ideal service. In 2010, a white paper ‘Considerations for Integration of Counseling and Health Services on College and University Campuses’ (ACHA, 2010) recognised the lack of knowledge of integrated medical and counselling services at colleges and universities and called for research to understand motivations and mechanics of such mergers (ACHA, 2010). Further to striving to provide best-evidenced models of care for students, Australian universities and their health services should be aware of monitoring by the Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Wellbeing and safety are incorporated within the Learning and Environment domain of the HES framework and include; avenues and contacts for support for students if needed; availability of specific types of personal support services; and, ensuring that support services offered reflect the needs of student cohorts (Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, 2018). Minor framework adjustments followed the release of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s ‘National report on sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities’ urged universities to audit their counselling services (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017). With this background in mind, this Show Case report describes an initiative undertaken by Swinburne University Health Service to service redesign towards an expanded and alternative service delivery model.

Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Distance Education Programs in Vietnam: Rationale and Future Directions

Distance and online education are popular training modes in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and open education. Accreditation is one of the approaches that many countries across the world have implemented to assure the quality of higher education, including distance learning programs. This study investigates the rationale and future directions for quality assurance and accreditation of distance education programs in Vietnam. First, the paper presents concepts of distance education, and quality assurance and accreditation of distance education. Second, the research reviews experiences of implementing quality assurance and accreditation for distance education from several countries in the world. Next, the paper analyses the rationale for conducting accreditation of distance education programs in our country. Finally, the study proposes three groups of recommendations for the national quality assurance organization, accreditation agencies and higher education institutions to be able to implement the quality assurance and accreditation of distance education in Vietnam successfully.
 Keywords
 Quality assurance; Accreditation; Distance education; Online learning; Higher education
 References
 [1] UNESCO, Distance education in Asia and the Pacific: country papers, Volume III (Singapore - Vietnam), 2009. www.unesco.org/education/pdf/53-23c.pdf.[2] UNESCO, Open and distance learning: trends, policy and strategy considerations, 2002. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001284/128463e.pdf.[3] Owusu-Boampong, A. & Holmberg, C., Distance education in European higher education – the potential, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, International Council for Open and Distance Education and Study Portals B.V, 2015.[4] Australian University, Distance learning Australia, 2018. http://www.australianuniversities.com.au/distance-learning/.[5] Darojat, O., Nilson, M. & Kaufman, D., Quality assurance in Asian open and distance learning: policies and implementation, Journal of Learning for Development, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2015) 1. [6] Jung, I. & Latchem, C., Quality assurance and accreditation in distance education and e-learning: models, policies and research, Routledge, London, 2012.[7] Wang, Qi., Quality assurance - best practices for assessing online programs, International Journal on Elearning, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2006) 265. [8] Friedman, J., 10 facts about accreditation in online degree programs, U.S.News & World Report, February 9, 2017. https://www.usnews.com.[9] U.S. Department of Education., Accrediting agencies recognized for distance education and correspondence education, 2018. https://www2.ed.gov. [10] The Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-learning (ACODE), Benchmarks for technology enhanced learning, ACODE, Canberra, 2014.[11] Bollaert, L., NVAO’s accreditation of online education in a nutshell, 2015. https://www.nvao.net.[12] Henderikx, P. & Ubachs, G., Quality assurance and accreditation of online and distance higher education, 2017. https://www.unic.ac.cy.[13] Stella A. & Gnanam, A., Quality assurance in distance education: The challenges to be addressed, Higher Education, Vol. 47, No. 2 (2004) 143.[14] Malaysian Qualification Agency (MQA), Code of practices for open and distance learning, MQA, Kuala Lumpur, 2013.[15] COL, DEMP & UNESCO, Quality assurance toolkit for distance higher education institutions and programmes, COL, Vancouver, 2009.[16] Vietnamnet, Mở đào tạo từ xa sẽ không cần cấp phép, 2017. http://vietnamnet.vn. [17] Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), Quality assurance of online learning: discussion paper, TEQSA, Melbourne, 2017. [18] Nhân dân Điện tử, Phát triển đào tạo từ xa đúng hướng, 2017. http://www.nhandan.com.vn.[19] Nguyễn Hữu Cương, Một số kết quả đạt được của kiểm định chất lượng giáo dục đại học Việt Nam và hướng triển khai trong tương lai, Tạp chí Quản lý giáo dục, Tập 9 Số 8 (2017) 7.[20] Cục QLCL - Bộ GD-ĐT, Danh sách các CSGD đại học; các trường cao đẳng, trung cấp sư phạm, đã hoàn thành báo cáo tự đánh giá, được kiểm định, 2018 (dữ liệu cập nhật đến ngày 31/8/2018).[21] Cục QLCL - Bộ GD-ĐT, Danh sách các chương trình đào tạo được đánh giá/công nhận, 2018 (dữ liệu cập nhật đến ngày 31/8/2018).

The legislative requirements for measuring quality in transnational education: Understanding divergence while maintaining standards

Australian universities have been actively engaged in transnational education since the 1990s. The challenges of assuring quality have seen a changing regulatory framework increasingly designed to ensure equivalence of standards wherever a course of study is offered and however it is delivered. Transnational Higher Education has grown significantly and the issues that flow from operating across jurisdictions, cultures and contexts have been addressed primarily by institutions themselves in complying with regulation. This article identifies how the Australian quality agency TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) has revised its Standards Framework to support divergence appropriate to local culture and context, while assuring quality provision across the student life cycle. It concludes that the maturity of the quality agency may not yet reflect the provision of transnational education in practice. The article identifies a need for significant further research so that theory and practice can reflect opportunities to better serve students in a mature quality environment.

Can a systematic assessment moderation process assure the quality and integrity of assessment practice while supporting the professional development of casual academics?

There has been a threefold increase in the employment of casual academics in Australian universities within the last 20 years, to the extent that most teaching and marking is now undertaken by casual academics, also known as sessional staff. Yet, casualised teaching and assessment has been considered a risk to student engagement and success, and casual academics report a lack of professional development and increased feelings of marginalisation within the academy. Concurrently, the quality assurance of teaching and assessment in higher education has become a central focus of the government-funded regulatory organisation, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Situated within this context, we report on an assessment moderation process that could support casual academics’ contextualised professional development, generate a sense of connectedness and collegiality and fulfil the requirements of TEQSA. Such processes may ensure that workforce growth in the higher education system supports a robust quality assurance and regulatory framework.

Partners or opponents: the engagement of students in a compliance driven quality assessment

The Australian government recently established a national regulator with responsibilities of registration and accreditation of all kinds of higher education providers including universities. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) subsumes the functions of the previous Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) with legislative powers to place sanctions on institutions for non-compliance. One of the key changes in relation to quality assurance and external reviews is a shift of focus from an improvement-led audit to a compliance driven assessment using externally set standards and risk based reviews. The new quality and regulatory framework introduced by the government is extensively based on the review of documentation and institutional performance on various metrics to identify compliance or non-compliance against standards and analysis of risk using risk indicators. Unfortunately, unlike the previous AUQA audit, TEQSA's quality assessment does not engage students in the review process as a way to identify areas of good practice and areas needing improvement. This paper argues the need for the national regulator to engage students in the review process rather than assessing the quality of student experience solely based on paper trail and documentation review. Failure to engage students in the assessment of quality raises questions on the role of students in external review, and whether the national regulator is established to serve the purpose of the government only in advancing quality and or transforming student learning and enhancing their experience.

The Australian higher education quality assurance framework

The Australian government initiated a review of higher education in 2008. One of the outcomes of the review was the formation of a national regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), with responsibilities to: register all higher education providers, accredit the courses of the non self-accrediting providers, assure quality against externally set standards and reduce risk by monitoring institutional performance on various measures. One of the key changes in Australian higher education quality assurance is the shift from a ‘fitness-for-purpose’ approach to quality assurance to a compliance-driven approach using an externally developed set of standards monitored by the national regulator, which has legislated powers to place sanctions on universities and other providers for non-compliance. This article outlines the new framework introduced by the government and analyses its limitations in assuring and improving quality in core and support areas. It cautions universities against being dominated by TEQSA's compliance agenda. Rather, it encourages the development and maintenance of shared governance principles and strong internal quality improvement processes along with the establishment of an outcomes focus, which will stand the test of external compliance auditing while allowing the institution to pursue its own educational objectives. The article is based on the authors’ experience and reflection on external, improvement-led quality audits in Australia over the past decade compared with the present compliance-oriented audits now required for institutional registration and ongoing accreditation.

Over the Threshold—Setting Minimum Learning Outcomes (Benchmarks) for Undergraduate Geography Majors in Australian Universities

The Australian federal government is preparing a new higher education quality assurance framework under the leadership of the recently established Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Groundwork for this framework included a major national demonstration project to develop outcome-based graduate standards in a selected range of disciplines. This paper describes this project, focusing on the process by which threshold learning outcomes for Australian Bachelors level graduates majoring in Geography were determined; setting out outcomes of the work and pointing to some of the issues and implications flowing from the project.

Notes on the Emerging Accreditation Regimes in Australia and New Zealand

<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; line-height: normal; mso-layout-grid-align: none;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">In recent years, new higher education regulatory regimes have emerged in both New Zealand and Australia. In Australia, the new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) employs a risk management approach while New Zealand Quality Agency (NZQA) has adopted an evaluative approach. In practice, these varying approaches create real differences in the ways in which the regulatory regimes are applied. This paper considers one discreet but critical element of these new regulatory regimes, academic staff qualifications, as an example of the difference between the risk management and evaluative regulatory approaches. Unsurprisingly, the application of academic staff qualifications requirements is particularly an issue whenever a higher education provider seeks to deliver a new course of study. In order to do so, a higher education provider must seek regulatory approval, in both countries this is known as accreditation.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><br /><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></div>

Proclaimed graduate attributes of Australian universities: patterns, problems and prospects

PurposeGraduate attributes are about to be policed by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) in Australia. All universities proclaim them on their public web sites. The aim of this paper is to determine whether distinct patterns or clusters are apparent in the declared graduate attributes declared by Australian universities on their web sites.Design/methodology/approachWork by scholars in the field of graduate attribute building is discussed, with particular reference to the tension between disciplinarity and attribute building and the relative failure of techniques so far espoused to demonstrate student attainment of graduate attributes. Some promising approaches to the serious problems of building and demonstrating graduate attributes are captured, and some recommendations for addressing the urgent and serious issues confronting the sector are put forward.FindingsGraduate attributes of each university are publicly available and these can be related to discussions of employer satisfaction and university value systems. An inspection of the top five attributes for each cluster of universities reveals significant cross cluster variation.Research limitations/implicationsContent analysis of web sites is a crude instrument for gauging the real importance universities attach to their graduate attributes, even at the level of their discourse. Further research is needed on the isomorphism and decoupling going on with graduate attributes and employer expectations of universities.Social implicationsThere are grounds for hope that universities have not completely forgotten their role in society in favour of their competitive market gameplays.Originality/valueThis is the first paper to display graduate attributes as ranked by clusters of Australian universities and by the whole sector; it is the first paper to link the accreditation risk from TEQSA with the relative vacuity of GA embedding processes to date.

Australian teacher education reforms: reinforcing the problem or providing a solution?

Educational reform represents a long-term focus of Australian governments. National policy documents have emphasised quality education for all and improved teacher quality for over 30 years. The gaps in achievement among various groups of learners represent a problem for an education system seeking to achieve national quality benchmarks, standardised levels of teacher quality and common outcome for all Australian learners. The national response to address this condition includes a set of initiatives to standardise teacher quality. This paper includes descriptions of selected national quality initiatives: the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and Education Services Australia (ESA). Their inclusion provides the reader with an opportunity better to understand these initiatives. The paper concludes with a discussion of some potential scenarios resulting from the implementation of these quality initiatives in an effort to standardise the quality of teacher education across Australia.

Re-spect, Peer Review, and then there is Audit (Provocation.1.)

In 2009, on recommendation of a major review of higher education, the Australian Government announced its plans for a new, empowered regulatory authority. The review panel had remarked, among many other points, that current processes of the Australian Universities Quality Agency, AUQA, were ‘not sufficiently rigorous’ for the demanding, globally competitive future. Australia’s new Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) was confirmed and development activity is flowing into 2011. At January, Interim Advisory Arrangements are in place, and controversial invitation-only consultation meetings have commenced. TEQSA is charged to achieve a new regulatory approach – it is to integrate regulation and quality assurance (and 'standards') through risk assessment and ongoing monitoring by 'a national agency with teeth and escalating sanctions'. What baseline standards is a vexed issue, plus the length of the watchdog's teeth. The Minister says audit will be proportional to risk – low risk providers (universities?) will not be 'unnecessarily burdened'. TEQSA will subsume AUQA and will extend in due course to vocational education quality and standards. The Government’s emphasis on bringing together sectors separated by the traditions of educators (more than needs and intentions of individuals and industries), is a strategic and productivity breakthrough for Australians, and a gauntlet for educators. This paper, updated from the SSRN 2009 version, considers why a sharp shift from AUQA peer-based collegiate review of quality of university performance suddenly appeared vital. It also opens questions about 'risk' facets of peer review in academic practice.

Applying Standards to Tertiary-Level History: Policy, Challenges and the After Standards Project

This paper discusses the challenges of applying standards to the teaching of tertiary-level history. It gives a critical overview of the emerging standards process in Australia, re-emphasising the importance of disciplinary input in producing a workable and acceptable regulatory framework under the aegis of Australia’s recently-established Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). To this end, it argues for the importance of building capacity within the history discipline both to engage with policy makers in coming months, and to take an active role in defining and implementing national standards for tertiary history. It suggests the potential of grassroots initiatives such as the After Standards project to assist historians in meeting this challenge.This article has been peer-reviewed