Body

Introduction

Background

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) risk assessments of registered higher education providers are a key component of TEQSA’s risk-based approach to assuring higher education standards. The Risk Assessment Framework (RAF) outlines the key steps and components of the risk assessment process, and provides detailed supporting information on the risk indicators used. Information on how risk assessments form part of TEQSA’s approach to quality assurance can be found in the paper Our approach to quality assurance and regulation.  

Under the ESOS Act, TEQSA regulates a number of ELICOS and Foundation Program providers that are not registered higher education providers. TEQSA’s approach established under the RAF also applies to these providers, but with a tailored set of risk indicators and information requirements. 

TEQSA is committed to continuing to refine the RAF over time, with experience of applying the RAF in its assessment processes, feedback from providers and through consultation with peak bodies. TEQSA will also continue to expand available information on the RAF and other processes through the TEQSA website.

Information sources 

TEQSA works closely with the Department of Education (Department) to access data for providers that already report data to existing collections in order to minimise reporting burden and remove any overlap in reporting through data sharing arrangements with other agencies.

TEQSA sources data through the Tertiary Collection of Student Information (TCSI) system and through the HELP Information Technology System (HITS).

TEQSA has reduced its annual reporting requirements since 2012 and is continuing to work with the Department and other stakeholders to further reduce reporting burden, while maintaining its capacity to assure standards under a risk-based approach.

Overview

Purpose of risk assessments    

TEQSA’s risk assessments provide a snapshot of providers across the sector to help prioritise TEQSA’s focus in undertaking its assurance activities. They assist TEQSA to give effect to its principles of reflecting risk, proportionality and necessity, as outlined under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act). They also inform risk-based regulation of providers under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act).

Through the RAF and use of risk assessments, TEQSA aims to:

• reduce burden on the sector by using risk assessments to inform a differentiated approach to evidence and reporting requirements in assessment processes (e.g. for renewal of registration and course accreditation applications)
• strengthen the protection of students’ interests and the sector’s reputation by monitoring key aspects of providers’ operations during registration periods
• support TEQSA case managers and providers to engage in early discussion about emergent issues prior to any scheduled assessment process
• support quality improvement activities through the sharing of information with providers about potential risks and good practices in the sector.

TEQSA’s risk assessments do not draw conclusions about compliance with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 or the ESOS Act and National Code¹, but rather identify potential risks of non-compliance. In other words, risk assessments may identify ‘leads’ that warrant closer consideration by TEQSA case managers, but do not confirm that there is necessarily a problem. 

The purpose of the RAF is not to identify all institutional risk or to replace or replicate a provider’s own risk management. The RAF focuses on key risks across the sector that can be readily measured on a regular basis. TEQSA’s assessment processes, such as a renewal of registration, involve a deeper assessment of evidence to determine compliance with the Standards.

Approach

The RAF enables a consistent, structured and systematic approach to assessing risk across all providers. This is achieved by using a standard format and set of risk indicators across areas of institutional practice and outcomes that are central to all providers.

TEQSA recognises, however, the breadth of diversity in the sector and the importance of provider context in assessing potential risks. TEQSA also recognises that innovation often involves a degree of risk taking and does not consider risk as necessarily negative or that all risk must be controlled or eliminated. To support this in practice, TEQSA’s approach allows for expert judgement and consideration of providers’ history, context and own risk management within the risk assessment process. Dialogue between TEQSA’s case managers and providers about potential risks also enables TEQSA to better understand where risks may reflect strategic decisions taken by the provider for innovation and growth, and where risk controls are in place. TEQSA will look for evidence that the provider’s risk-taking is well managed, for example, through evidence of careful planning and using of pilots of the proposed innovation.

TEQSA’s risk assessments are predominantly focused at the institutional level, but may also consider risks relating to specific aspects of a provider’s operations, such as particular cohorts of students and/or areas of course offerings.

TEQSA’s approach to risk assessments is informed by the ISO Risk Management Standards, while adapted for TEQSA’s regulatory context and purpose.

Risk assessment process

Overview

TEQSA undertakes an annual cycle of risk assessments of all providers, following TEQSA’s PIR and acquisition of data from existing annual national collections where available.

TEQSA may choose to update a risk assessment outside of the annual cycle in response to emerging information. An overview of key steps in TEQSA’s risk assessment process is reflected in Figure 1 below and further outlined in the following sections.

Figure 1 – Key steps in risk assessment process

Steps in the assessment

Key steps in the risk assessment process, as reflected in the figure above, are:

1. Risk assessment

• TEQSA gathers existing information from various sources, mainly TCSI and HITS, national survey data, findings from TEQSA assessment processes, and information from the previous TEQSA risk assessment cycles
• TEQSA considers the history and context of the provider, its approach to delivery, and findings from previous assessment processes (positive and adverse)
• TEQSA undertakes an analysis of risk indicators, guided by risk indicator thresholds, trends, and other relevant context
• TEQSA undertakes a holistic evaluation of the history, context and indicator analysis to determine overall risk ratings, with explanatory notes where significant risk is identified.

2. Dialogue with provider 

• TEQSA will usually share a risk assessment with all providers each year, except for newly registered providers that have insufficient data to conduct a risk assessment
• each provider will have the opportunity to respond to its risk assessment which may lead to adjustments in the risk assessment
• if significant risks are identified, the TEQSA case manager will invite the provider to discuss the risk assessment and provide any broader context and information on its strategies and any risk controls in place. 

3. Next steps

• the finalised risk assessment is used to inform the scope of scheduled assessment processes (e.g. renewal of registration application processes) and, in some cases, may lead to further interaction with a provider ahead of an assessment process
• in cases where a provider has ongoing regulatory matters, the distribution of the risk assessment will be coordinated with TEQSA’s regulatory decisions to ensure consistency across all findings.

What the process involves for providers

It is optional for providers to respond to TEQSA’s annual risk assessments, unless specifically requested by TEQSA.

TEQSA undertakes the necessary data calculations and analysis to prepare risk assessments. TEQSA will issue a risk assessment to all providers.  A provider will receive a risk assessment with an invitation to comment. The provider may choose to provide additional information. If TEQSA considers it necessary to take further steps as a result of a final risk assessment, a meeting with the provider will be organised to discuss the providers risk assessment. 

A provider will receive a copy of its latest risk assessment where there is a forthcoming renewal of registration process.

Key components of risk assessments

Overview

An overview of the key components of a risk assessment is reflected in Figure 2 below and further detailed in the following sections. 

Figure 2 – Key areas considered in risk assessment

Overall risk evaluation

TEQSA makes an overall evaluation against: ‘Risk to Students’ and ‘Risk to Financial Position’. The evaluation uses a high, moderate or low rating (represented with traffic light colours). This is a qualitative expert judgement taking into consideration the provider’s context, history and standing, and analysis of risk indicators.

Where an overall evaluation is not able to be established due to lack of information or track record, conflicting information, or unreliable data, the overall rating may be suspended, or a rating of ‘No Confidence in Data’ applied.

Four key risk areas

TEQSA focuses on four key areas in risk assessments to support the overall evaluation:

1. regulatory history and standing
2. students (load, experience and outcomes)
3. academic staff profile
4. financial viability and sustainability.

Considered together, these areas provide coverage across key aspects of providers’ operations and all contribute to a view of potential risks to academic standards. In particular, the role of regulatory history in the risk assessment highlights any risks to academic standards identified through previous TEQSA assessment processes. This may include, for example, findings relating to:

• quality assurance processes in a past renewal of registration process
• admission practices in a past renewal of course accreditation process
• professional accreditation status through a material change notification.

The other key risk areas are informed through the assessment of a set of risk indicators.

Risk indicators

Risk indicators have been identified giving consideration to data availability (on an annual basis), applicability across the sector, and to different provider circumstances. The indicators, with descriptions and links to the Standards, are set out at Appendix 1. Supporting technical information on the indicators is provided at Appendix 2. The indicators are rated using a traffic light system.

A combination of input and output/outcome indicators are used, recognising that relying solely on output/ outcome indicators would mean a focus on the detection of confirmed failure, but not prevention. A combination of indicators also provides a more holistic view of a provider’s operations noting the limitations of individual indicators.

The assessment of indicators using student data includes a specific focus on any onshore and offshore international student populations (where possible). This allows a view of organisation-wide risk, as well as risk to these cohorts of students. An integrated approach of this kind is consistent with the considerable overlap between the ESOS Act and National Code, and the TEQSA Act and Threshold Standards.

Risk thresholds

In assessing risk indicators, TEQSA considers a set of risk thresholds, while taking into account provider context and risk controls (where information is available).

TEQSA has adopted a systematic approach to developing its risk thresholds, which includes consideration of the following dimensions:

1. Reference material

Documentation such as past regulatory and quality assurance reports, and providers’ risk management and strategic plans, can provide views on common issues such as attrition and student-staff-ratio.

2. Statistical analysis of the sector

Status quo and trends in the sector can shed light on the discriminating power of a risk threshold.

3. Experience from previous risk cycles

TEQSA’s experience of applying the risk thresholds can help to ascertain their efficacy.

4. The nature of indicators

Consideration of the different nature of indicators can inform whether the indicators lend themselves to a more absolute setting of risk thresholds or whether more emphasis is given to levels that vary from sector trends. For example, if the sector average attrition rate was significantly increasing, TEQSA may take a view that this does not alter the level considered to indicate a risk to standards.

These dimensions are evaluated holistically, based on available information, and there is no single consideration that would automatically overrule others. Professional judgement is used, with regard to the specificities of each indicator, in determining the levels which may represent potential risk.

Further information about TEQSA’s approach to determining risk thresholds is made available on its website and will be updated as needed. The risk thresholds themselves are held confidentially within TEQSA. Risk thresholds are considered in the context of other information and are not the sole determinant of risk ratings.

In the risk assessment and in any communication with the provider, TEQSA will explain the basis for an overall moderate or high risk rating in the context of the provider’s particular circumstances.

Risk controls 

As noted earlier, if a risk assessment identifies potential concerns that may warrant further consideration by TEQSA, a provider is invited to comment on the assessment, on a voluntary basis. The provider may comment on the factual accuracy underpinning the observations, provide relevant information about risk controls that it has in place in relation to the potential risks identified, or any other information that the provider considers relevant.

TEQSA’s consideration of the provider’s response may lead to an adjustment of the risk assessment. Examples of evidence and context that may lead to adjustments of risk ratings are available in a published information sheet on TEQSA’s website, and may be updated from time to time.

Noting that innovation often involves a degree of risk, a provider may choose to demonstrate that the level of risk is acceptable in its circumstances.

Outcomes of risk assessments

Actions in response to risk assessments

A final risk assessment will typically identify action in line with the following:

No action	If no significant risks are identified overall, or risks are already known to TEQSA with a response already in place (such as additional reporting requirements), then TEQSA will not take any action in response to the risk assessment. The risk assessment will continue to be updated annually.
Recommendation	TEQSA may recommend that the provider closely monitor identified risks and/or put in place appropriate controls or improvement strategies. A recommendation arising from a risk assessment does not constitute a formal condition on registration.
Request for information	TEQSA may identify risks that require further consideration by TEQSA. In such cases, TEQSA may seek additional information from the provider so that TEQSA may determine if further action is necessary. Requests for information may also be used to monitor identified risks between risk assessment cycles.
Regulatory action (e.g. compliance assessment or conditions)	If TEQSA identifies significant risks, it may determine that regulatory action is necessary outside a scheduled assessment process. This may include, for example, undertaking a compliance assessment to satisfy TEQSA that the provider continues to comply with the Threshold Standards, or imposing formal conditions on registration.
To be considered in scheduled assessment process	If the provider has a scheduled assessment process (e.g. re-registration), TEQSA may indicate that risks identified in the risk assessment will be considered further in that process rather than identify additional action at that time.

Links with scheduled assessment processes

A risk assessment is one input to inform the scope of evidence required in renewal of registration or course accreditation processes.

If a provider is evaluated as low risk overall in relation to Risk to Students and Risk to Financial Position (and satisfies other criteria), then the application and assessment process focuses on reduced core evidence requirements. If a provider is evaluated as presenting a high or moderate risk overall in relation to Risk to Students and/or Risk to Financial Position, then the scope of the assessment process may be expanded. In exceptional circumstances, an expansion may be considered necessary where a provider is evaluated as low risk overall, but a significant trend or specific issue is identified. TEQSA case managers determine the scope and discuss requirements with the providers.

Further information about TEQSA’s approach to tailored renewal of registration and course accreditation processes is available on the TEQSA website.

It should be noted that, as scheduled assessment processes are more in-depth and consider wider evidence, it is possible for a scheduled assessment to identify compliance issues that had not previously been identified as potential risks in a TEQSA risk assessment.

Administration

Privacy and confidentiality

Given the potential sensitivity of risk assessments and associated documents, provider risk assessments are treated confidentially by TEQSA. Risk assessments and associated documents relating to individual providers are not publically released by TEQSA or shared with other providers. Similarly, a TEQSA risk assessment is to be treated confidentially by the provider, noting that the provider may not publish a risk assessment or make it available to any person other than those employed by the provider. TEQSA may share risk assessments with other government agencies (refer to ‘Information Sharing’).

While TEQSA has certain statutory obligations of confidentiality, pursuant to Division 2 of Part 10 of the TEQSA Act, providers should note that TEQSA also operates within a public accountability framework. This includes obligations:

• to provide information to Ministers, the Parliament or Parliamentary Committees
• under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Auditor-General Act 1997, and the Ombudsman Act 1976
• to provide reasons for TEQSA’s decisions, or details about TEQSA’s activities, including in the context of court or tribunal proceedings.

If TEQSA receives a request to provide an applicant’s confidential information, TEQSA will endeavour to consult the applicant, and to provide the applicant with an opportunity to make submissions on whether TEQSA should release the information. However, in certain cases this course of action may not be possible.

Freedom of information

TEQSA is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). TEQSA will respond to requests for access in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act.

Further details on freedom of information

Information sharing 

A key function of TEQSA’s establishment as the national higher education quality assurance agency includes disseminating information about higher education providers and their awards. This function is specified in paragraph 134 (1) (e) of the TEQSA Act, which notes that TEQSA may collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information relating to higher education providers, regulated higher education awards and for quality assurance practice and improvement in higher education.

To provide a broad overview on risks in the higher education sector and to share information on good practices, TEQSA may publish high-level sector analyses. Any analysis that is published will be at a high level only and will not contain any provider level risk information. Information on risks in the sector and good practices may also be shared through information sheets on TEQSA’s website and presentations at TEQSA provider roundtables.

TEQSA may share risk assessments, or components of risk assessments, with other Commonwealth agencies (e.g. Australian Skills Quality Authority and the Department of Education and Training) where there is an established need and where it reduces the reporting or compliance burden on providers. Any sharing of risk assessments with other Commonwealth agencies will be established under appropriate arrangements (eg Memoranda of Understanding or Information Sharing Protocols) with the relevant agency.

In considering any requests to share risk assessments or their components, TEQSA will give due regard to all confidentiality provisions through which the agency obtained this information from a provider. This means that risk assessments would not contain identifying personal information on individual members of organisations, their staff or students.

Appendix 1 and 2

• PDF (167 KB) (please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au if you have any problems accessing the document)

 

¹ National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018.

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