Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA)

AUQA Audits - Cycle 2

AUQA Cycle 2 will commence in 2008.

The main similarities to Cycle 1 are:

• A fitness for purpose audit against institutional/agency objectives (recognising diversity of self-accrediting institutions [SAIs] and consistency between agencies).
• An emphasis on quality enhancement/improvement.
• Use of the ADRI framework (Approach, Deployment, Results, Improvement).
• Audit reports containing commendations, affirmations and recommendations.
• Acknowledgement of the benefit and importance of self-review.
• Avoidance of ranking systems.
• Attention to international activities.
• Good practices shared through mechanisms such as AUQA's Good Practice Database.
• Approximately six-year audit cycle for SAIs.

The main differences from Cycle 1 are:

1.    Update

• "Closing the loop" on recommendations and affirmations from Cycle 1 audits.

Audits will consider whether the recommendations and affirmations in the last AUQA audit report have been implemented, and the areas of commendation maintained.  A sample of these will be selected by AUQA and checked.  It is expected that the necessary evidence will be contained in existing institutional implementation plans (although additional evidence could be requested).

• Overview of main quality assurance procedures, with emphasis on changes since Cycle 1.

AUQA will seek evidence of the increasing effectiveness of the institution's quality assurance and improvement system/framework since Cycle 1.  Areas for consideration in describing institutional systems will be provided to guide development of the Performance Portfolio.  (Some will already have been covered in the progress report).

• Streamline (and attempt to reduce) documentation.

There will be a maximum allowance of 15,000 words, excluding tables.

 

2.    Standards, Benchmarking and Outcomes

• The fitness for purpose approach will explicitly encompass standards, performance and outcomes, guided by consideration of academic risk and its management.

AUQA have produced a Framework for Standards, Evidence and Outcomes and a Framework for Risk Assessment.

• Greater emphasis on institutional standards and performance outcomes, with attention to benchmarking activities and their effect on standards and outcomes.

• Audits will investigate how academic standards are determined, applied, maintained, monitored and met.

Evidence of setting, maintaining and reviewing institutional academic standards and outcomes (e.g. relating student progress, student achievement, graduate attributes, research achievements) will be expected, together with evidence of the institution's comparative national and international performance, and that professional accreditation requirements are being met.  AUQA will take cognisance of a number of issues in attempting to assess standards, including the nature of comparators; the use of direct and indirect measures; and variations between different fields.

AUQA will seek evidence of the achievement of and performance against academic objectives, including the use of targets, performance indicators, specified outcomes and trend data.  Evidence of the relation between processes and outcomes will be emphasised, both in the Performance Portfolio and within AUQA audit reports.

These issues will be addressed in relation to the themes selected.  Depending on the selected themes, research performance (including the RQF), teaching performance (e.g. GDS/CEQ, LTPF) and other aspects of institutional assessment (e.g. IAF) measures may be considered, while recognising that priority measures and targets should be established by each institution in line with its own objectives.

As relevant to the themes selected, the audit will investigate:

• How are standards in these areas determined and updated?  What input is there from internal and external stakeholders?
• What processes are in place to assure consistent implementation of the standards across the institution?
• How are outcomes monitored?
• How are standards compared nationally and internationally?  What explicit benchmarking has there been to compare standards?  How frequently does this occur?
• What is the result of national and/or international comparisons of outcomes or content?
• How is this information used to improve and update standards?  How frequently does this occur?

In considering the nature and use of each institution's benchmarking activities, the audits will recognise that different forms of benchmarking (and other means of comparing information and performance) are used in the sector.

• Greater use of external reference points such as relevant legislation and national codes.

Audits will maintain a fitness for purpose approach as it is essential to recognise and reinforce the diversity and differentiation of objectives across the sector. However, external reference points, including the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes, each auditee’s enabling legislation, and other recognised national and international standards / guidelines and good practice principles as appropriate to the themes being audited, will be used more explicitly during audits. External reference points may provide the minimum requirements against which the institution may report the level of its performance, and reference to compliance with relevant provisions will be included in audit reports.  For SAIs, other external reference points specified by them and/or relevant to the identified audit themes will also be used.

External reference points may include:

• AVCC - Provision of Education to International Students: Code of Practice and Guidelines for Australian Universities

• AVCC - Universities and their Students: Principles for Provision of Education by Australian Universities

• AVCC - Policy Guidelines on Cross-Sector Qualifications Linkages

• Professional accreditation

• MCEETYA National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes

• MCEETYA Good Practice Principles for Credit Transfer and Articulation from VET to Higher Education

• Australian Qualifications Framework National Principles and Operational Guidelines for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) [RPL National Principles]

• Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (The ESOS Act) and associated Code (The National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students [the National Code]).

• Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA)

• UNESCO/OECD Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education

• ENQA Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area

• Evidence of the relation between processes and outcomes will be sought.

AUQA will be looking for evidence that institutions have considered the purpose and intentions of the relevant external reference points and taken appropriate and effective action.

3.    Audit Depth

• Identification of two thematic areas for detailed attention, determined in consultation with the auditee and taking into consideration areas of academic risk and their management; Cycle 1 outcomes; findings of the latest IAF report; and areas of particular importance to the institution.  The themes will be selected one year in advance of the scheduled audit visit.
  
  [For 2007 and 2008 all universities with transnational operations will have their international activities audited.  It is anticipated that this will apply to all universities in Cycle 2.]

4.    Audit Reports

• Recommendations and affirmations in audit reports, identifying areas requiring action, will be prioritised on a three- or four-point scale (e.g. high, medium, low) as advice to the auditee.

5.    Agencies

• Agencies will be audited in 2010.