Regular planned maintenance for Provider Portal.
Please be sure to subscribe to our e-News to keep informed about upcoming TEQSA events.
A webinar series to help inform the sector about our regulatory work, quality assurance matters and sector risk.
Another 50 illegal academic cheating service websites have been blocked by TEQSA, disrupting the operations of cheating services that target students in Australia.
This recent action brings the total number of websites blocked, under protocols with major internet service providers (ISPs), to 422. A list of the blocked illegal cheating websites is available at teqsa.gov.au.
Academic cheating services allow students to pay someone to complete assessments for them. This undermines the student’s learning and the trust in the qualification they receive. Further, using these services leaves the student vulnerable to blackmail and identity theft.
Blocking illegal academic cheating service websites is part of TEQSA’s multi-pronged approach to protecting the integrity of higher education awards.
In September, TEQSA, as part of the Global Academic Integrity Network, issued an open letter calling on social media and online platforms to take action to stop the advertising of these predatory services.
TEQSA has also worked to understand student attitudes to the issues of academic cheating, generative artificial intelligence and student wellbeing, conducting market research in May 2024.
To support providers in engaging students with these issues, TEQSA has shared the insights gathered from this research on our website. We encourage providers to consider these insights, and those gathered from their own student body, in preparing student communication around academic integrity for 2025.
TEQSA has numerous resources available to support higher education students, academics and professional staff. These resources include:
Full-length recordings are now available of every session from the #TEQSA24 Conference.
Master of Ceremonies, Professor Braden Hill, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students, Equity and Indigenous), Edith Cowan University
Danielle Wood, Chair, Productivity Commission
The Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education
Chair: Dr Sam McAuliffe, Acting Assistant Director, Policy and Research, TEQSA
Panelists:
Chair: Professor Kerri-Lee Krause, Chair, Higher Education Standards Panel
Panelists:
Chair: Dr Mary Russell, Chief Executive Officer, TEQSA
Panelists:
Chair: Professor Braden Hill, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students, Equity and Indigenous), Edith Cowan University
Panelists:
Dr Mary Russell, Chief Executive Officer, TEQSA
Chair: Adrienne Nieuwenhuis, Acting Chief Commissioner, TEQSA
Panelists:
Tony Cook PSM, Secretary, Department of Education and Chair, Implementation Advisory Committee
Professor Braden Hill, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students, Equity and Indigenous), Edith Cowan University
TEQSA has released our updated Cost Recovery Implementation Statement (CRIS), which outlines our fees and charges for regulatory activity from 1 January 2025.
This updated version of the CRIS has changed how the annual Registered Higher Education Provider (RHEP) charge is calculated.
Where it is possible to do so, the RHEP charge will be reduced for smaller providers, while increasing costs for larger providers that are responsible for a greater proportion of TEQSA’s sector-wide compliance activities. This change ensures these compliance activities and updates to our enquiries management and provider liaison approach are fairly recovered.
We expect to send RHEP charge invoices to providers in February 2025.
On 28 November, TEQSA launched the toolkit, Gen AI strategies for Australian higher education: Emerging practice, during a webinar. Thank you to everyone who attended. Since launching, the toolkit has been downloaded more than 4,000 times.
This toolkit is the first resource TEQSA has published which was informed by the Request for information: Addressing the risk of artificial intelligence, issued to all registered providers in June 2024.
To further support providers, TEQSA has published questions and answers from the webinar. These are offered to help providers further understand TEQSA’s rationale and approach to supporting the sector in managing the risk generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) poses to award integrity.
1. What is TEQSA’s position on students using generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) during their studies for preparing work or conducting research?
It is each provider’s responsibility to determine appropriate and permissible use of gen AI within specific disciplines, courses, units or assessment items. Thoughtful integration of gen AI tools can facilitate new avenues for collaboration between students and educators, foster a more interactive learning environment and enhance the student experience.
Providers need to establish consistent, high-level messaging regarding gen AI use in teaching, learning and research. Legitimate differences in approaches to gen AI use across programs, courses or assessment items, need to be clearly communicated to students to avoid confusion.
Additionally, if students are required to use gen AI, providers need to be mindful of the potential to disadvantage those who cannot afford multiple gen AI subscriptions.
2. Is TEQSA able to provide general advice to Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and higher education providers who might not have a culture of adjusting and amending their assessment design?
Regularly reviewing and renewing their suite of assessments enables providers to safeguard the fairness and validity of their approach and the integrity of awards. Providers with robust and responsive mitigation processes will be best placed to adapt to the impact of new or evolving risk.
To keep up to date with industry requirements and protect the integrity of awards, providers must genuinely engage with the risks and opportunities gen AI technology poses to their course offerings. This includes adjusting and amending assessment types that are identified as high risk and updating learning outcomes to ensure students are developing industry-relevant knowledge and capabilities.
The toolkit reflects emerging practice in assessment security and transformation in its Practice section, providing examples of how some institutions are assuring that students meet the learning outcomes and required capabilities for their award.
3. Are there any concerns with using gen AI tools for assessment marking purposes?
TEQSA’s request for information did not specifically include information relating to institutional use of gen AI for marking.
The extent to which providers choose to engage with gen AI – including as a tool to assist with marking – is an institutional decision, which reflects their strategic goals and stance towards this technology.
Where providers incorporate gen AI technology into assessment or administrative processes, they need to ensure they are aligned to institutional and legislative requirements regarding data security, privacy and protection of intellectual property.
If, following a comprehensive risk assessment, a provider decides to make gen AI permissible for marking purposes, they need to ensure this decision is reflected in relevant policies, and that quality assurance and oversight measures are in place.
Clear messaging around specific instances of when and how gen AI may be used, such as marking or administrative functions, must be communicated to all staff and students.
4. Were international comparisons undertaken in preparation of the published resource?
TEQSA did not undertake international comparisons when compiling the toolkit. The aim of the toolkit is to highlight emerging practices within the Australian higher education sector and share examples of the different ways providers are integrating gen AI into their operations. However, TEQSA continues to engage with its international counterparts to share knowledge and exchange information to inform our own work.
5. Does the toolkit provide advice on how to adapt to ongoing technological advancements?
To maintain both their institutional momentum for reform and the relevance of their courses, providers need to commit to staying abreast of gen AI’s rapid development. This includes, conducting periodic reviews to assess whether processes are keeping pace with the opportunities and risks presented by ongoing technological advancements.
Given the broad applicability of gen AI technologies, providers will need to critically review the integrity of the full breadth of their course offerings and delivery modes. The way each provider achieves this will be guided by their institutional strategy and have regard to their existing processes for managing risk.
To assist providers, the toolkit presents examples of different approaches which have been taken to embrace the opportunities and mitigate the risks gen AI poses to assessment security and award integrity.
6. Institutions seem to be restrained in their adoption of gen AI. In TEQSA’s opinion, are we falling behind industry in the delayed uptake?
With the increasing integration of gen AI tools in various professions, graduates will need to be equipped with the knowledge to effectively and ethically use this technology in their future careers. Additionally, as more industries adopt the use of gen AI tools, professional accreditation bodies may adapt their requirements. Maintaining effective bilateral communication and staying abreast of industry requirements will help providers update their courses and learning outcomes to ensure the skills and knowledge their graduates are developing align with industry expectations.
The toolkit offers examples of providers’ strategies to engage with industry in its People section, and examples of assessment, unit and course revision measures in its Practice section.
7. How is TEQSA’s work relating to gen AI affected by the Senate’s Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence’s final report, which was published recently?
There have been two recent parliamentary inquiries relating to gen AI’s impact:
The former is more relevant, being focussed on education, and includes specific commendations and recommendations for TEQSA. As the Australian government is still considering its response to the recommendations it would be premature for TEQSA to comment further.
We continue to engage closely with our colleagues across government to ensure alignment of priority areas and effective coordination to address key issues associated with the safe and responsible adoption of gen AI technologies in education.
8. What is TEQSA’s view on programmatic assessment to assess student learning?
Many of the traditional forms of assessments which have been used as proxy evidence of student learning can now be successfully and quickly produced by gen AI. Therefore, it is important for providers to review their current teaching and assessment practices and, where necessary, transform their assessment regimes to ensure students have demonstrated attainment of the skills and knowledge reflected by their award.
There is no single form of assessment that can enable students to both demonstrate achievement of all their learning outcomes and support them in developing skills to ethically and effectively use gen AI. Similarly, no single tool or technology can guarantee assessment security. Providers must therefore look at how the different methods of assessment across a course can be used holistically, with the inclusion of highly resourced and authentic assessments at key points over the course of a degree.
Providers are encouraged to revisit the principles and propositions contained in the document Assessment Reform for the Age of Artificial Intelligence and consider the most effective way to prioritise assessment security at key moments of a student’s program.
9. Do you think institutions need a dedicated role responsible for gen AI, to drive initiatives, monitor developments and keep up with rapid changes?
Given the huge diversity in the size and scale of Australian higher education providers, there will be range of institutional strategies to manage gen AI responsibilities based on operational requirements, constraints and opportunities.
To establish, implement and monitor an institution-wide approach to gen AI it is important that staff have clarity about roles and responsibilities with clearly defined oversight mechanisms at the appropriate level of delegated authority. If no person or group is formally tasked, as part of their official workload, to implement, monitor and document proposed changes, providers may fail to implement the necessary actions required to maintain award integrity and provide assurances that students have met their learning outcomes.
10. What is the role of Communities of Practice in integrating gen AI into teaching practices?
Communities of Practice (CoP) are an effective way to utilise internal and external expertise and create opportunities for staff to exchange knowledge and practical approaches to teaching and learning. Although CoPs do not directly affect institution-wide decision making and strategy, they are an excellent way to foster collaboration and support a culture of academic integrity.
Providers should encourage staff to interact across their institutions to share information as well as joining external networks such as the Australasian Academic Integrity Network.
11. Why does the toolkit seem to focus more on gen AI risks rather than opportunities?
TEQSA acknowledges that gen AI tools offer both opportunities and risks to providers’ course offerings and operations. However, as the national regulator TEQSA’s purpose is to deliver quality assurance that protects the interests of students and the reputation and standing of Australian higher education. With that in mind, the aim of the toolkit is to support providers in improving their processes and approaches to teaching and learning.
By mitigating the risks gen AI poses to the security of existing assessment types and teaching students to be effective and ethical users of these tools, providers can have assurance that their students have met their learning outcomes and attained the relevant skills needed for their chosen profession.
12. Are you able to provide information on how many providers still rely on gen AI detection software, given that it is problematic and outdated?
While TEQSA’s analysis of submissions included providers’ use of detection tools, any quantifying information would only represent a snapshot in time and would not account for the accompanying measures to protect award integrity. TEQSA’s position is to understand and collaborate with the sector on utilising gen AI technology ethically while protecting award integrity.
Providers who choose to use gen AI detection software, as one of their risk mitigation strategies, need to be mindful that these tools alone do not provide sufficient assessment security. By installing a ‘humanise’ plugin or writing the appropriate prompt, gen AI created content can be manipulated to bypass detection tools, making it difficult to identify. Additionally, providers need to be aware of, and seek to mitigate, the risks of false positives and unintended bias associated with AI detection software.
The toolkit provides details on assessment security and transformation in its Practice section.
13. How can TEQSA and the sector provide agility in their responses to gen AI to ensure that students are not left behind?
Frequent monitoring and shortened cycles for the review of course offerings, assessments, and teaching and learning approaches, will allow providers to prioritise risks and inform the staged roll out of intervention strategies. A robust policy framework with responsive processes will assist providers in maintaining institutional momentum to offer students enhanced teaching and learning experiences relevant to their chosen field.
It is also important to understand student and staff expectations, requirements and concerns about the use of this technology. Active participation of staff and students in advisory committees or working groups ensures that their perspectives are considered in decisions about gen AI that impact them.
14. Will there be a way to capture continual learning or evaluation of the effectiveness of measures arising from the toolkit?
Given the speed of technological innovation institutional strategies can quickly become outdated. Providers need to ensure their review and evaluation cycles are frequent enough to keep pace with the ongoing developments of gen AI and other emerging technologies. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of measures to mitigate risks to course and assessment offerings, and teaching and learning practices is good governance and a requirement under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021.
Providers need to periodically examine whether their processes are keeping pace with the evolving opportunities and risks presented by ongoing developments of gen AI technologies. Staying up to date with gen AI advances will help ensure awards are legitimately conferred, and meet the expectations and needs of students, industry and employers.
The TEQSA Commission has confirmed the registration of the Australian College of Theology (ACT) in the Australian University category.
The decision followed consultation with state and territory ministers responsible for higher education following a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in October 2024.
The Tribunal's decision noted that TEQSA needed to consult with the responsible state and territory ministers in accordance with Section 39 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act).
In making its decision, TEQSA noted that the Tribunal had formed the view that ACT met the requirements for registration as an Australian University, and State and Territory Ministers did not oppose the change in provider status.
The Australian College of Theology was founded in 1891 and was granted self-accrediting authority in 2010 and gained University College status in 2022. It has approximately 3,000 students enrolled in courses in Theology, Ministry and Christian Studies.
"Following the Tribunal's ruling and in accordance with the TEQSA Act, TEQSA consulted with all state and territory ministers with responsibilities for higher education.
"Having given consideration to feedback from the relevant Ministers, the TEQSA Commission confirmed the decision to register the Australian College of Theology in the Australian University category on 20 December 2024."
"On behalf of the TEQSA Commission, I congratulate the Australian College of Theology on achieving registration as the nation's 44th university."
TEQSA has developed the below answers to frequently asked questions regarding its role in relation to Vice-Chancellor salaries, appointments and oversight following recent media coverage of these issues.
Universities are complex organisations, and leaders of these institutions reflect a diverse range of skills and backgrounds. Given the important role of universities within their communities and public interest in university leadership, TEQSA places high importance on the quality of university leadership, in particular the effectiveness of governing bodies and ensuring the fitness and propriety of those in charge.
TEQSA will update this page if more questions regarding this topic are raised with the agency.
Vice-Chancellors are appointed by, and responsible to, the university’s governing body, usually known as the university council or senate.
The university’s governing body has governance responsibility for the Vice-Chancellor’s performance in the role, including salary, ongoing monitoring and management of performance, identifying and addressing potential conflicts of interest and other matters that would impact on effective performance in the role.
As part of our regulatory and quality assurance activities, TEQSA can seek specific evidence that the governing body has such policies, processes, controls and ongoing oversight in place.
The act of establishment for each university sets out the requirements for its governing body.
In accordance with the TEQSA Act, the requirement to be a Fit and Proper Person applies to all people who make decisions that affect the whole, or a substantial part of, the provider’s affairs, such as the Vice-Chancellor, Chancellor, senior executives and members of the governing body.
In assessing whether a person is fit and proper, TEQSA considers the person’s character and ability, as well as the likelihood that the person will comply with (or reasonably assist compliance with) the obligations under the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework. These matters are set out in further detail in a legislative instrument (the Fit and Proper Person Determination) made under the TEQSA Act.
TEQSA is in the process of updating the Fit and Proper Person Determination to align with those that apply to the vocational education and training sector, following consultation in 2024.
TEQSA supports the implementation of priority action 5 from the Australian Universities Accord.
TEQSA is presently developing new guidance and reporting requirements regarding provider workplace obligations and is also engaging with work being led by the Department of Education to establish the Expert Council on University Governance.
The below regulatory guidance materials contain more information about TEQSA’s approach to corporate governance and determining the fitness and propriety of a person.
TEQSA has been advised that Commonwealth, State and Territory government Education and Skills Ministers have agreed to make the Undergraduate Certificate a permanent qualification in the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).
The Undergraduate Certificate was previously due to sunset on 30 June 2025.
The decision means TEQSA will be able to accredit Undergraduate Certificate courses beyond 30 June 2025.
Over the coming weeks TEQSA will contact providers who have accredited Undergraduate Certificates requiring renewal.
Gen AI strategies for Australian higher education: Emerging practice