Body

Executive summary

In 2016, following a request from the Minister for Education and Training, the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP, ‘the Panel’) delivered 14 recommendations to achieve greater transparency in the admissions information for higher education. The Final Admissions Transparency Implementation Plan (‘IWG Implementation Plan’), which was developed by the sector-led Implementation Working Group (IWG), states that by March 2020, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) would undertake a review of the sector’s responses to the Panel’s recommendations.

This report presents TEQSA’s summative evaluation of the sector’s responses against the Panel’s recommendations and the IWG’s Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets (‘Phase Two Information Sets’). TEQSA’s evaluation focussed on the requirements and activities outlined in the IWG’s documents that are relevant to the agency and did not explore outcomes beyond this scope in detail. In undertaking its evaluation, TEQSA adopted a stratified sampling method comprising an evaluation of 64 of the 111 providers that deliver higher education to domestic undergraduate students (28 universities, 36 higher education providers).

Overall, TEQSA found that there have been improvements in the transparency of admissions information, with the majority of sampled providers (92 per cent; 59 out of 64 providers) being found to have engaged with the Panel’s recommendations by implementing changes to their admissions information¹.

• Five providers had achieved a high level of transparency of their admissions information, with only minor issues preventing full implementation of the IWG’s specifications.
• 42 providers had implemented most of the changes with one substantial gap. These include outdated student profiles, missing Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) tables, and incorrect usage of the applicant groups.
• 12 providers provided the requisite admissions information as a separate document on their websites. This was in line with the initial actions in the Implementation Plan due by August 2017 but should have progressed further by the time of the summative evaluation.

Five providers did not have evidence of having implemented any of the recommended changes. Two of these providers had made some effort to update their Tertiary Admission Centre’s (TAC) page, noting that the Implementation Plan states it is acceptable for providers to have admissions information solely on the TAC site, provided it is clearly linked and accessible from the provider’s website.

In addition to the findings above, TEQSA identified several areas for further improvement within the sector. These include:

• Providers needing to ensure that ATAR profiles are up-to-date.
• The types of adjustment factors should be detailed more clearly and consistently.
• Greater quality, consistency, and clarity of admissions information for the four applicant groups (Higher Education Study, Vocational Education and Training, Recent Secondary Education, and Work Life Experience).
• The availability of course level admissions information on credit transfer, recognition of prior learning and advanced credit can be improved.

While the positive changes in the sector in response to the Panel’s recommendations and the IWG’s Implementation Plan are encouraging, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the need for clear and transparent information, with expectations of increased demand from domestic school leavers for tertiary education. Further, there is evidence of different entry options for current and prospective students emerging as providers respond to the changing needs of prospective students completing a disrupted final year of secondary education.

Background

Context

In February 2016, the Minister for Education and Training requested that the Higher Education Standards Panel (‘the Panel’) provide recommendations to improve the transparency, comparability, and accessibility of information about entry pathways to higher education while minimising regulatory impact on providers.

In response, the Panel released a consultation paper on the transparency of higher education admissions processes and subsequently received 82 written submissions. Through the consultation process, the Panel found a diversity of application pathways and admissions processes in Australia’s higher education sector, further increasing the complexities for prospective students as they navigate the admissions and application processes into higher education.

In November 2016, the Panel released its final report, Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions (‘final report’), which set out 14 recommendations. The final report highlighted inconsistencies in the ways in which admission requirements were expressed and the need for coordinated action. The Panel’s key recommendations include the use of common and consistent language to describe ATAR thresholds and other admissions requirements, and the presentation of information on admissions processes using agreed and standardised templates to ensure comparability for prospective students. In response to the Panel’s report, the government accepted the Panel’s recommendations.

TEQSA was asked to undertake a review of the sector’s responses to the Panel’s recommendations.

Admissions Transparency Implementation Plan

A sector-led group, the Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group (IWG), was established to develop a practical response to the Panel’s recommendations. The IWG released the Implementation Plan, which sets out specific actions for higher education providers (‘providers’), TACs, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (the Department), and TEQSA to undertake across three stages from 2017 to 2020.

By adopting a staged approach, this ensured that any transitional arrangements and adjustments would be manageable for providers and prospective students. The Implementation Plan sets out six objectives:

1. Standardised presentation of admissions information
2. Adoption of common admissions terminology
3. Revised ATAR-related thresholds and definitions
4. Tertiary Admission Centres adopt more consistent approaches and reporting and streamline interstate application processes
5. TEQSA monitoring and guidance on admissions transparency
6. New national admissions information platform.

In order to achieve these objectives, the IWG proposed the adoption of agreed information sets on admissions-related information as a key mechanism that sets out the consistent formats and terminology. These are not mandatory and the information sets were designed in a manner to enable appropriate adaptation to suit each provider’s individual needs.

• Whole-of-institution admission information set²: conveys common admission policies and requirements that apply to all (or the vast majority of) courses offered by the provider.
• Program/course admission information set: sets out admission criteria for each course and is different from the whole-of-institution set, including a small amount of comparable data about recent offers and enrolments in the course.

The information sets were designed to support prospective domestic undergraduate students in Australia, including applicants for diploma, advanced diploma, associate degree and bachelor’s degree courses.

In July 2018, the IWG released an updated specification document, Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets (‘Phase Two Information Sets’), for adoption by the end of May 2018. This document sets out the template and types of admissions information that all providers are expected to display on their publications, websites, or the relevant TACs for both the institution and course levels. These requirements are summarised at Figure 1.

Figure 1: Summary of admissions information in the Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets

The two central elements of the information sets are the ATAR tables for courses that use ATAR as an admissions criterion, and student profiles at both the institution and course levels. Providers also need to categorise their admissions information into four background groups that would assist potential applicants to locate the types of information most relevant to their circumstances and past educational experience—Recent Secondary Education (RSE), Higher Education Study (HE), Vocational Education and Training (VET) Study, and Work Life Experience (WLE).

• Recent Secondary Education (RSE): Applicants whose admission is based mostly on secondary education undertaken at school, technical and further education (TAFE) or other VET or higher education provider (Australian or overseas equivalent) within the previous two years.
• Higher Education Study (HE): Applicants whose highest level of study enrolment since leaving secondary education is a higher education course.
• Vocational Education and Training (VET) Study: Applicants whose highest level of study enrolment since leaving secondary education is a VET course.
• Work Life Experience (WLE): Applicants who left secondary education more than two years previously and have not undertaken VET or higher education study since then.

In accordance with the fifth objective of the IWG Implementation Plan, TEQSA carried out a summative evaluation of the sector’s implementation of admissions transparency from September 2019 to December 2019. At this point, it was expected that providers would have fully adopted and integrated the requirements of the Implementation Plan, including those set out in the Phase Two Information Sets.

This report presents TEQSA’s summative evaluation of the sector’s responses against eight of the Panel’s recommendations which are grouped into two themes:

1. Accessibility and transparency of admissions information
2. Comparability of admissions information.

TEQSA’s evaluation focussed on the requirements and activities outlined in the IWG documents that are relevant to the agency and did not explore outcomes beyond this scope.

Summary of TEQSA’s findings against the Panel’s recommendations

Key Theme 1: Accessibility and transparency of admissions information

Admission criteria that is accessible, clear, and transparent allows prospective students to make informed choices regarding their higher education studies. Within the context of this report, ‘transparency’ and ‘accessibility’ specifically pertain to the following Panel recommendations:

Panel Recommendations

Panel Recommendation 1.1

A student-centred approach is critical to the provision of information about admissions.

Panel Recommendation 1.3

Access to clear information relating to admissions requirements and various entry pathways are to be made available to all applicants equally.

Panel Recommendation 4

For each course, the provider should publish information that clearly identifies the basis for determining admission to the course, including whether admission is on the basis of ATAR or an alternative pathway.

Panel Recommendation 5

Where admission to a course is determined in whole or part on the basis of an individual’s ATAR, the provider should publish information that identifies clearly the minimum ATAR admission requirements for the course and the provider’s bonus point arrangements. ATAR acceptance outcomes or thresholds should be reported at the completion of all offer rounds.

TEQSA’s findings

Student-centred approach (Panel Recommendation 1.1)

TEQSA found strong evidence within the sector of a student-centred approach to the provision of admissions information. At an institution level, 78 per cent of the 64 sampled providers had a direct link to an admissions landing page on the homepage of their website. This was recommended by the IWG as a means to ensure prospective students can locate the required information in a direct and intuitive manner. Further, 80 per cent of sampled providers had an accessible student profile at the institution level.

Notwithstanding, there were a few areas identified for further improvement. These include:

• Recognition of the admissions information needs of students with prior study experience (Higher Education or Vocational Education and Training) at the course level. This could be addressed through clear admissions information being made available by providers regarding advanced standing (34 per cent of sampled providers included detail on this), credit transfer (52 per cent of sampled providers had detail on this), and recognition of prior learning (50 per cent of sampled providers included information on this).
• Ensuring that admissions information is included on provider webpages rather than through attached documents (20 per cent of sampled providers relied on the use of standalone PDF documents).

Entry pathways (Panel Recommendations 1.3 and 4)

TEQSA evaluated the availability of admissions information across four student background groups: recent secondary education (RSE), prior higher education study (HE), prior vocational education and training (VET) study, and work and life experience (WLE).

• Overall, TEQSA found that 84 per cent of sampled providers and 75 per cent of sampled courses had admissions information for prospective students in the RSE group. This group had the highest level of admissions information compared to other student background groups.
• At an institution level, the majority of sampled providers included admissions information for students in the prior higher education study (80 per cent), prior VET study (81 per cent) and work and life experience (67 per cent) categories.

TEQSA found that there is scope for improvement within the sector to provide admissions information at the course level in the prior HE study, prior VET study, and WLE student background groups at a course level. In each of these categories, the proportion of sampled courses with admissions information were 62 per cent, 56 per cent and 61 per cent, respectively.

ATAR information (Panel Recommendation 5)

In terms of publishing information on admissions pathways, minimum ATAR requirements and adjustment factors,, 57 per cent of courses that used ATAR scores as the basis for admission, used the ATAR template provided by the IWG. This template sets out information on the highest, median and lowest scores for students admitted in a previous intake. TEQSA found instances where intake information was outdated (this applied to approximately a third of sampled providers), and encourages the sector to ensure the currency of their ATAR and student profile information.

TEQSA identified considerable room for improvement by the sector in setting out ATAR adjustment factors, with this detail only being available in the published course information for 6 per cent of sampled courses.

Key Theme 2: Comparability of admissions information

One of the key intended outputs of the admissions transparency project was to have admissions information that is comparable across providers and courses. The following Panel recommendations relate specifically to the theme of comparability:

Panel Recommendations

Panel Recommendation 2.1

Make information on admissions policies available in a comparable format so that individuals can make better informed choices about providers and courses of study.

Panel Recommendation 3

Common language around admissions processes should be adopted by all higher education providers.

Panel Recommendation 8

A template should be adopted by higher education providers to publish institution level information in a standardised format about their admissions processes, which would be made available to prospective students on the national higher education admissions information platform.

Panel Recommendation 9

A template should be adopted for higher education providers to publish study area information in a standardised format about their admissions processes, which would be available to prospective students on the national higher education admissions information platform.

TEQSA’s findings

The adoption of common language around admissions processes and using the IWG templates to present admissions information serve to enhance the comparability of admissions information across providers and courses. This allows prospective students and parents to make an informed choice about further study.

Templates and comparability (Panel Recommendations 2.1, 3, 8 and 9)

TEQSA found that 73 per cent of providers (47 out of 64) had attempted to meet the second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan, which requires the adoption of the full information sets and the agreed set of common terms in their admissions information³. Of these 47 providers:

• Five providers had achieved a high level of transparency of admissions information, with only minor issues preventing full implementation of the IWG’s specifications.
• 42 providers had implemented most of the changes with one substantial gap. The gaps include outdated student profiles, missing ATAR tables, and incorrect usage of the applicant groups.

The remaining 12 providers only provided the requisite admissions information as a separate document on their websites. While this was in line with the first stage of the Implementation Plan (due by August 2017), the providers had not proceeded to make updates consistent with the second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan by two years later.

TEQSA found that five providers did not have evidence of having implemented any of the IWG’s recommended changes, however two of these providers had made some effort to update their respective TAC page. The Implementation Plan states that it is acceptable for providers to have admissions information solely on the relevant TAC site, provided it is clearly linked and accessible from the provider’s website.

Noting that the analysis above is at an institution level, there is much work still to be done by providers to ensure that their course level admissions information is standardised and consistent. TEQSA encourages providers to continuously review their admissions information to ensure it is up-to-date and consistent.

In summary, TEQSA’s recommended areas for further improvement include:

• Ensuring available course level information for various student background groups.
• Providing clear course level admissions information on credit transfer, recognition of prior learning and advanced credit.
• Ensuring the currency of ATAR profiles where applicable.
• Providing clear detail on ATAR adjustment factors.

Summary

TEQSA has found that the majority of sampled providers have endeavoured to improve the transparency of their publicly available admissions information by engaging with the Panel’s recommendations and implementing changes to their admissions information. However, TEQSA's evaluation shows that there is much further opportunity to enhance the transparency, accessibility, and comparability of admissions information at the course level.

TEQSA has identified several areas for further improvement within the sector. These include:

• The need for current ATAR profiles and ATAR information.
• The need for greater consistency in admissions information around adjustment factors (where applicable), especially at the course level.
• Greater quality, consistency and clarity of admissions information for the four applicant groups (Higher Education Study, Vocational Education and Training, Recent Secondary Education, and Work Life Experience).
• Greater accessibility and transparency of course level admissions information on credit transfer, recognition of prior learning, and advanced credit.

Appendix A: Summative Evaluation Assessment Methodology

Scope of assessment

The Higher Education Standards Panel made 14 recommendations in its final report relevant to TEQSA’s regulatory functions. The scope of TEQSA’s summative evaluation included an assessment of providers’ engagement with Recommendations 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the final report; data was specifically collected by TEQSA for the purposes of this assessment.

A further five of the 14 recommendations (1.2, 1.5, 11, 12 and 14) were not within the scope of the summative evaluation.

• Recommendation 1.2 – Higher education providers exercise autonomy over their admissions policies, consistent with the requirements set out in the Higher Education Standards Framework.
• Recommendation 1.5 – Higher education providers are to be held accountable for public claims against their stated admissions policies.
• Recommendation 11 – TEQSA should have an active role in monitoring compliance with guidance to the sector on transparency in higher education admissions, complementing the regular cycle of assessing applications for provider re-registration.
• Recommendation 12 – TEQSA should draft a Guidance Note to providers, canvassing best practice in providing clear information on admissions processes.
• Recommendation 14 – Further consideration should be given to assessing the factors and approaches that contribute to student success, completion and attrition rates in higher education.

The above five recommendations, while not within the scope of TEQSA’s summative evaluation, have been addressed by the agency through the course of separate activities.

• TEQSA published a report on admissions transparency in June 2017 – Characteristics of Australian higher education providers and their relation to first-year student attrition.
• The providers’ updates on their progress of implementing the Panel’s recommendations were shared by the Department with TEQSA.
• TEQSA released a Good Practice Note, Improving retention and completion of students in Australian higher education. The document identified innovative and effective approaches used by providers to improve retention and completion rates.

Sampling

The IWG determined that the focus of the admissions transparency project would be on prospective domestic undergraduate students, including applicants for diploma, advanced diploma, associate degree and bachelor degree courses. This meant that 119 out of 178 registered higher education providers at the time were in scope.

A stratified sample of 64 providers was selected to achieve a representative geographical spread, by ensuring providers across each state and territory’s metropolitan and regional areas were included. To create a representative sample of provider types, the sample included providers with dual accreditation, university-affiliated colleges, single discipline and religious providers. This approach also ensured diversity in student demographics. As shown in Figure 1, 67 per cent of universities and 47 per cent of higher education providers in scope were included in the sample; providers across all states were included in the sample, and providers across regional and metropolitan areas were represented.

Figure 2. Percentage of in-scope providers included in the sample by provider type, geographical location, and state (%)

The evaluation also included admissions information presented at course level. Of the 114 courses evaluated, 20 were diploma courses, two associate degrees and 92 bachelor degrees. The courses selected spanned liberal arts, humanities, fine arts, science, law, business, languages, information technology, music, education, theology, medicine, hospitality, accounting and more. To ensure a representative sample of courses, a variety of admissions options such as auditions, folios, interviews, minimum ATARs and subject prerequisites and combinations of these were selected.

Data gathering

The Panel’s recommendations and the Phase Two Information Sets formed the framework for TEQSA’s summative assessment. In terms of the four applicant background groups described by the IWG (RSE, HE, VET, WLE), TEQSA has conducted its evaluation on an assumption that providers should include entry information relating to all four groups. TEQSA recognises that this may not reflect the practices of providers for all courses. TEQSA conducted desktop evaluations of provider websites and TAC sites (as necessary); for each provider, institution level information and two selected courses were assessed against the relevant IWG recommendations and the IWG’s Implementation Plan. If providers offered fewer than five undergraduate courses, only one course was assessed. The resulting data was entered into a purpose-built section of TEQSA’s database to maintain quality and consistency of data collection and evaluation. Data collection commenced on Monday 2 September 2019 and concluded on Tuesday 24 December 2019. An additional 24 assessments were performed during January 2020 of providers who had implemented changes as a result of their initial evaluation.

At the institution level, 130 data points were collected, while 104 data points were collected at each individual course level. The qualitative data analysis includes hyperlinks, assessment comments and screenshot documentation.

Notes

1. The analysis presented in this section considers improvements made by providers at either the first stage or second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan.
2. For the purposes of brevity, ‘whole-of-institution' will henceforth be referred to as ‘provider level’ or ‘institution level’.
3. NB: This analysis is limited to a consideration of providers that implemented improvements consistent with the second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan. The analysis presented in the Executive Summary, by contrast, included improvements made by providers at either the first stage or second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan.

Body

Developed for TEQSA by La Trobe University’s Dr Katherine Seaton, this resource outlines how academics can identify contract cheating in symbol dense fields, and includes an investigations checklist and questions for investigators.

Body

The circumstances

Providers have obligations under TEQSA’s legislative framework to monitor students’ progress within or between units of study. The purpose is to identify students who are at risk of not progressing. This could be an anticipated risk or an observed risk. This enables providers to intervene early, and provide targeted support to these students, if required.

While most providers adequately monitor student performance, we have observed some instances where there is lack of early identification and engagement with students at risk of unsatisfactory progress, and lack of or inadequate support to meet the needs of students.

Many students at risk of not progressing, who do not receive early support, are at higher risk of experiencing disconnection from learning. This has led to some students discontinuing their studies.

It is particularly relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic where face-to-face on campus delivery has been suspended, that providers have robust systems in place to monitor student engagement in their tuition activities, identify students at risk of not progressing, and intervene early to provide appropriate and tailored support.

Our role

Both the HES Framework and National Code 2018 require providers to have systems to monitor student progress and engagement, and promptly support students at risk of not progressing. This includes: 

• HES Framework Standards 1.3.3-1.3.6 which require providers to conduct early assessment of student progress, detect students at risk of poor progress and provide early feedback on student performance, and provide targeted support programs to students at risk of unsatisfactory progress.
• Standard 8 of the National Code 2018 which sets out that providers must safeguard the integrity of Australia’s migration laws by monitoring student progress, identify at risk students and support overseas students to complete their course within the required duration and fulfil their visa requirements for course attendance and course progress. 

Compliance with these standards ensures that students have every opportunity to succeed in their studies.

Our focus

In 2021, TEQSA considered concerns about several providers’ practices for international students, and their ability to detect non-engaging students or students at academic risk of not progressing in their course of study, in order to provide these students with support.

Our review of these matters identified the following issues:

• inadequate policies and procedures for monitoring student progress and engagement in tuition activities
• lack of staff training on how to monitor and identify early a non-engaging student
• failure to follow through on the implementation of intervention strategies for at risk students.

Our review also identified concerns with the application of student admission policies and recognition of prior learning protocols, which may result in providers admitting international students who are not appropriately qualified and applying of credit without an adequate basis. 

In the course of these assessments, we conducted detailed analysis of large volumes of information submitted by the providers and cross-referenced these with enrolment data on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS). 

We paid close attention to providers’ documented policies and procedures to determine whether they met the requirements of the legislative framework, whether these policies and procedures were being applied consistently, and whether they were operating as intended.

Our assessments identified non-compliance with a number of obligations under the ESOS Act and National Code 2018 which have serious implications for international students and the integrity of awards offered. In these cases, we are taking firm regulatory action to protect students and the integrity and reputation of the sector.

What providers can do

We encourage providers to:

• have policies and procedures that support early detection of non-engaging students and students at risk of not progressing, with strategies to support students to meet course requirements throughout their course
• consider best practice when setting institutional policy for detecting unsatisfactory progress, for example applying ‘failure of 50% or more of enrolled units in a study period’, to ensure early detection and intervention
• ensure staff and students understand their responsibilities and are notified of any updates/changes to relevant policies
• monitor and track student engagement throughout a course of study using a variety of means such as assessment submissions, participation in class and frequency of access to the learning management system
• ensure staff are trained in identifying non-engaging students and students at risk of not progressing and are aware of strategies to support students
• have regular check points with students, such as at the beginning or mid semester 
• ensure progress monitoring procedures are regularly reviewed, benchmarked, and improved, to identify which policies are effective in achieving their intent and inform decision-making in relation to what, if anything, needs adjusting
• if things go wrong, ensure a prompt, comprehensive, and documented response
• maintain accurate and comprehensive records about students at risk
• accurately report student non-progression status on PRISMS
• report on student admissions, progression and retention rates to the academic and governing boards regularly throughout the academic year.

Resources

• Guidance note: Monitoring and analysis of student performance
• TEQSA Compliance Report 2021

Body

The compliance report provides details of TEQSA's compliance activities in 2021 and key learnings for providers.

The PDF version of the document is available above. An HTML version will be available shortly.

Case studies

These case studies, contained within the Compliance Report, contain useful information for registered provider's about TEQSA's approach and expectations.

• Case Study: Identifying students at academic risk
• Case Study: Professional accreditation
• Case Study: Wages underpayment

Body

1. Academic integrity in the creative arts: a special case

The creative arts encompasses many fields of study and practice, including:

• performing arts, such as dance, drama, and theatre
• media arts, such as film and screen-based works
• interactive works, such as digital games and experimental art
• music, including composition, recording, and performance
• visual arts, such as painting, photography, design, sculpture, and mixed media
• literature, such as literary fiction and children’s literature.

Work produced during a course of study in the creative arts may differ from assessment in other disciplines in the following ways:

1. It is non-text-based: work may consist of a performance, video recording, digital or interactive work, music composition, audio recording, or physical artefact.
2. It is creative: works demonstrate individual authorship, incorporating original and subjective elements.

While breaches of academic integrity, such as plagiarism and contract-cheating, can occur in the creative arts, defining academic integrity, and detecting breaches of integrity in creative arts works is complex because:

• Creative practice occurs within established artistic traditions and networks of influence. Creative works may adapt, reference, or integrate elements of pre-existing creative works as a legitimate form of creativity.
• The distinction between copying, inspiration, and coincidence in a creative work can be contested, as demonstrated by the frequency of copyright and plagiarism disputes in this area:
  • In 2013, the song ‘Blurred Lines’ was the subject of a copyright dispute. Songwriters Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke were successfully sued for infringement by the estate of Marvin Gaye, who argued that the song intentionally copied Gaye’s song ‘Gotta Give It Up’.
  • Visual artist Damien Hirst has been publicly accused of plagiarism by multiple artists who argue that Hirst’s works show overwhelming similarities of subject matter, technique, and style to their own.
• Creative works are not typically produced under examination conditions: they are usually the result of a lengthy creative process in which the creator engages with various research materials, sources, and often collaborators.
• Common understandings of appropriate uses of non-text content, such as video, audio, and images, can be shaped by external influences such as social media and not aligned with academic, industry, and legal practices.
• Expectations and requirements surrounding the use of existing materials can vary by task, medium, and discipline (e.g. performing, remixing or composing a musical work).
• Creative works can consist of multiple elements (e.g. a film includes a script and a soundtrack).
• Attribution practices for non-text materials (e.g. a music score or performed work) are medium- and discipline-specific, and can be unfamiliar to students.
• While similarity detection tools for non-text works exist (e.g. Shazam for recorded music, Google Image Search, and YouTube Content ID for video), these are not integrated into learning management systems.
• Similarity detection tools rely on matching submitted content to online databases of content. Databases may be incomplete, or tools may be unable to match content due to manipulation of the submitted work.

2. Academic integrity as authentic learning

Integrity, and ethical conduct more broadly, is crucial for creative arts practitioners.

Academic integrity practices of attribution and citation help to develop awareness of ownership and permitted use, which connects to the following ethical, legal, and practical considerations in the creative arts:

• Copyright constitutes a legal framework for ownership and usage. Relevant areas to the creative arts include moral rights; fair dealing; assigning and licensing rights; fees and ownership; and rights specific to particular media, such as artistic works, dramatic works, musical works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings.
  See: Australia Copyright Council, Arts Law Centre of Australia
• Creative Commons provides a standardised set of copyright licenses and tools that allow creators to grant a range of copyright permissions for creative works.
  See: Creative Commons
• Currently, Australia does not offer legal protection for traditional cultural heritage. The Australia Council for the Arts has developed protocols that outline ethical conduct when engaging with Indigenous cultural material, peoples, and communities.
  See: Protocols for using First Nations Cultural and Intellectual Property In The Arts
• The terms of use defined by online media platforms, including video and audio streaming services, social media, and hosting platforms, constitute a further area for consideration in the sharing, distribution, and (re)use of creative works.

3. Embedding academic integrity in the curriculum

Blythman, Orr, and Mullin (2007)¹ recognise that there can be “confusion over rules of acceptability” when it comes to using the work of others in creative practice.

Popular misconceptions over authorship and permitted use, combined with wide availability of online media and numerous types of non-text content, contribute to this confusion.

This can be addressed by embedding discussions of academic integrity, and ethical conduct in the creative arts more broadly, within creative arts curricula. Strategies include:

• Exploring and defining concepts such as authorship, originality, remix, homage, and pastiche.
• Analysing works which creatively adapt, re-use, and build on pre-existing work, e.g. Roy Lichtenstein’s Drowning Girl.
• Discussing public plagiarism and copyright disputes relevant to the discipline, including legal and ethical perspectives, evidence, and outcomes, e.g. George Harrison’s ‘My Sweet Lord’.
• Exploring the purpose of an artist’s statement, exegesis, or reflection in relation to creative works.
• Providing detailed guidance on discipline-specific practices for citation and attribution.
• Clearly indicating resources and materials that may, or may not, be used within an assessment, and reasons why.
• Integrating real-world industry practices into assessments, e.g. compiling a cue sheet to record all songs and compositions used in a film or television production, in line with APRA AMCOS guidelines.
• Discussing ethical and legal concepts in using and attributing non-text materials, including online materials and social media content, e.g. moral rights, procedures for obtaining and recording permission, public domain, fair dealing.
• Reviewing social media platforms’ terms of use, in relation to content ownership and usage rights for both uploaders and other users, e.g. TikTok’s Intellectual Property Policy, YouTube’s Copyright and Fair Use Policies, Instagram’s Intellectual Property FAQ.

4. Institutional academic integrity policy and the creative arts

An increasing number of disciplines outside the creative arts are employing creative and non-text assessments (e.g. podcasts, videos, and interactive media) as digital production tools become more available.

Institutions therefore must develop academic integrity policy that relates to creative arts disciplines as well as creative assessment types. An inclusive policy might:

• Develop a culture of awareness for academic integrity in creative non-text works, e.g. designing institutional resources relating to usage permissions and attribution, for instructors and for students.
• Ensure academic integrity training integrates non-text examples and case studies, including creative assessment types.
• Consider and define academic integrity concepts such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and contract cheating, beyond written contexts.
• Reinforce the relevance of academic integrity to copyright, creative practice, and professional practice beyond educational contexts.

5. Designing assessment for academic integrity

Major creative works produced during a course of study are not assessed against a correct or model response, but use complex criteria that may include creativity and originality, demonstration of discipline-specific techniques, and critical awareness.

Potential strategies for designing creative arts assessment with academic integrity in mind include:

• Scaffolding assessments to include the drafting and ideation process, e.g. written proposal, work-in-progress presentation, and submission/performance of final work.
• Integrating a complementary assessment such as an artist’s statement, exegesis, or reflection incorporating: discussion of the creative process including aims, influences, and research undertaken; statement of authorship; written transcription of creative elements, if relevant (e.g. script, transcript, or score); disclosure and acknowledgement of resources, personnel, materials, and works informing the final creative work.
• Including a viva voce, demonstration, or presentation on the finished creative work, allowing assessors to clarify required details and to determine originality of ideas and techniques.
• Constraining assessment parameters (e.g. limiting technique, topic, or form) to reduce the opportunity to appropriate existing creative works.
• Requiring students to explicitly relate creative practice to their individual circumstances, background, creative aims, and learning goals.

Notes

1. Blythman, Margo, Orr, Susan, and Mullin, Joan. (2007). Reaching a consensus: plagiarism in non-text based media. London College of Communication, University of the Arts London.

Body

The circumstances

In 2021 TEQSA investigated several concerns relating to courses that require professional accreditation. These included instances where providers were delivering courses that were not accredited by the relevant professional accreditation bodies and delivering courses in breach of conditions imposed on the course accreditation.

This is a significant concern for TEQSA as the absence or loss of course professional accreditation may prevent a student from progressing in a course or practising in their chosen profession upon graduation.

Our role

Professional accreditation of courses is specifically referenced in the HES Framework:

• Standard 1.4.2c requires that the learning outcomes of a course of study include knowledge and skills required to be eligible to seek registration to practice where applicable
• Standard 3.1.5 requires that courses are professionally accredited by relevant bodies if such accreditation is required for graduates to be eligible to practise
• Paragraph 6.2.1i requires providers to have credible business continuity plans and adequately resourced financial and tuition safeguards to mitigate disadvantage to students who are unable to progress in a course of study due to unexpected changes such as the loss of professional accreditation
• Standards 7.1.1, 7.1.2 and 7.1.5 require that the representation of a course is accurate and not misleading, for example, not describing a course as accredited for the purpose of professional registration until such accreditation has been obtained.

In addition, section 29(1) of the TEQSA Act requires providers to notify TEQSA of an event that happens or is likely to happen that will significantly affect the provider’s ability to meet the HES Framework. The loss of, or failure to obtain, professional accreditation would trigger this notification requirement, as the provider is no longer compliant with the HES Framework and there is a heightened risk to students and possible reputational damage.

The cases

When TEQSA becomes aware that a course does not have, or loses, professional accreditation, we actively engage with the provider. The level of engagement varies according to the willingness and capability of providers to identify risks to their higher education operations and demonstrate that material risks are managed and mitigated effectively.

• Case 1: The provider informed TEQSA through a material change notification that a course they were offering was provisionally re-accredited with conditions by the professional accreditation body. The provider subsequently informed TEQSA that, after addressing the concerns set out in the conditions, the course had been granted full accreditation. No students were disadvantaged and TEQSA did not take further action.
• Case 2: TEQSA was informed by a professional accrediting body that it had conducted a re-accreditation assessment of a suite of courses and one course had not been re-accredited. The provider had not informed TEQSA of this outcome. TEQSA engaged with the provider and it submitted a material change notification with information about course assurance arrangements for affected students, including transfers to other providers and refund of fees. TEQSA was satisfied the provider had suitable arrangements in place and did not take further action.
• Case 3: TEQSA became aware that a provider was delivering a course that required, but did not have, professional accreditation, with students graduating or about to graduate. TEQSA engaged with the provider intensively, because of our significant concerns about the impact on affected students. The provider voluntarily suspended all new admissions into the course while the application for professional accreditation was resolved. TEQSA asked for detailed arrangements to mitigate any disadvantage for all affected students. In response, the provider submitted a tailored solution for each student, including transfer to another provider, coverage of tuition fees if extra study was required, refund of costs for lost units and financial support where necessary. TEQSA was satisfied suitable arrangements had been put in place and did not take further action. 

What providers can do

Providers should have robust governance processes in place to ensure that courses of study have the required professional accreditation and are not misrepresented. This includes:

• robust course development and review processes to ensure the course design meets the relevant professional body requirements
• periodic external referencing and other benchmarking activities
• the risk register clearly identifies the risk to reputation and the potential disadvantage to students if professional accreditation of a course is not obtained or is lost
• adequately resourced financial and tuition safeguards are in place to mitigate disadvantage to students if professional accreditation is not obtained or is lost 
• all representations of a course in respect to professional accreditation are accurate and not misleading, particularly for those courses that require professional accreditation for graduates to practise. Where professional accreditation is pending, students should be clearly informed of this status and understand the impact if professional accreditation is not successfully obtained
• regular and transparent communication with professional accreditation bodies to keep abreast of any changes to requirements and ensure continued compliance
• if the status of professional accreditation changes, fully inform affected students of the potential impact on their studies and future employment outcomes.

TEQSA Compliance Report 2021

Body

The concern

Throughout 2021, TEQSA continued to work closely with the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) on the issue of large-scale underpayment of staff by a number of Australian universities. While the FWO is the lead agency responsible for investigating breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009, this is a key issue for TEQSA. In particular, the historic and widespread underpayment of casual academic staff by many universities goes to the reputation of the sector, and of individual providers, in terms of upholding the quality of teaching, learning and the student experience.

In respect to TEQSA’s remit, these practices put providers at risk of non-compliance with the HES Framework, principally:

• Standard 6.2.1a which requires governing bodies ensure that the entity ‘comply with the requirements of the legislation under which the provider is established, recognised or incorporated, any other legislative requirements’ (for instance, national workplace laws)
• Standard 6.2.1e which requires governing bodies ensure that risks to higher education operations have been identified and material risks are being managed and mitigated effectively
• Standard 3.2.5 which requires that teaching staff are accessible to students seeking individual assistance with their studies, at a level consistent with the learning needs of the student cohort
• Section 5.2 which requires providers take action to mitigate foreseeable risks to academic and research integrity.

TEQSA’s response

Since our first engagement with providers in relation to underpayments in August 2020, we have engaged closely with 15 universities who were either named in the media, self-reported to the FWO, or provided information to TEQSA as part of the material change notification obligation. The purpose of our engagement was to understand the extent of the issue and identify any underlying issues, and what the relevant universities were doing to address the non-compliance and ensure ongoing compliance.

We observed that the response to the underpayment issue has been mixed.

Some universities have been proactive in addressing the issue, including engaging external professionals to undertake a comprehensive review of payroll practices and provide advice on the interpretation and application of relevant enterprise agreements and legislation, as well as implementing contemporaneous record-keeping systems.

On the other hand, a number of universities either do not appear to recognise the seriousness of the issue or are not responding in the way TEQSA would expect of a well governed and well managed quality higher education provider. For example, some providers have undertaken only limited, internal reviews of identified problem areas.

In responding to this issue, TEQSA expects to see that providers:

• have undertaken a comprehensive review of payroll, time and record-keeping practices
• have clear steps in place to mitigate and manage identified risks
• have rectified any instances of underpayments and demonstrated how underlying issues will be addressed
• are embedding ongoing monitoring to ensure continued compliance with workplace laws and reporting to the audit and risk committee
• are cooperating fully with the FWO in its investigations. We also expect providers to notify TEQSA under their material change obligations if they identify material issues through their review process.

TEQSA and the FWO shared these observations with provider peak body representatives in a webinar in September 2021. This was followed by a plenary session with Universities Australia. TEQSA continues to work closely with the FWO in 2022, meeting bi-monthly and sharing information, where the law permits, to ensure a coordinated regulatory response.

• TEQSA Compliance Report 2021