Standards

The draft standards identified in the preceding post regarding the LACC accreditation are - 

2. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 

2.1 Definitions 

In this document, unless the context requires otherwise –

active learning involves student engagement in critical analysis of the knowledge they acquire, application of that knowledge to factual situations or scenarios, producing solutions supported by legal arguments, and reflection on the process followed. 

Admission Rules means the LACC Model Admission Rules 2015. 

Admitting Authority means the body responsible for all or any of accrediting, monitoring, reviewing and re-accrediting a law course for the purpose of preparing students for admission to the legal profession. 

AQF means the Australian Qualifications Framework. 

assessment method is the manner by which a student’s learning may be tested and evaluated to be able to award a grade. Examples of different assessment methods include examinations, research essays, reflective notes and vivas, class participation, mooting and mock trials, oral examinations, problem solving exercises and practical tests, submissions and advice. 

CALD means the Council of Australian Law Deans. 

CALD Standards means the CALD Standards for Australian Law Schools. 

communication means the imparting or exchanging of information by oral, visual or verbal (including written) means. 

delivery mode means the manner by which the content of the law course is communicated for teaching, learning and assessment purposes. Delivery may be fully in-person, fully online, a blended combination including in-person and online, or by other modes to facilitate distance education. 

direct interaction occurs when two or more persons are communicating and engaging with one another in real time and can hear and, where available, see each other. 

EFTSL means Equivalent Full Time Student Load. 

element means – (a) in the case of a law school that follows the topics listed for a prescribed area of knowledge set out in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules, one of those topics; or in the case of a law school that follows the topics set out in the guidelines provided for an prescribed area of knowledge set out in that Schedule, a topic included in the law school's curriculum for that area of knowledge. 

in-person means where two or more persons are face-to-face in the physical presence of the others whether on campus or at another location. 

invigilation means supervision whether in-person, online, by technological or other means, or a combination of means, to ensure the academic integrity of the grade  awarded to a student by the assessment method. For example, invigilation may be by using suitable automated supervision software or an examiner observing or supervising a student in the presence of the examiner (whether in-person or online). 

LACC means the Law Admissions Consultative Committee. 

law course means a tertiary academic course in law, whether or not it leads to a degree in law. 

law school includes – (a) an academic unit within a university responsible for conducting a law course  in Australia that leads to a degree or other qualification in law; or another institution conducting a law course  course that leads to a qualification in law, other than a university degree in law, 

online means participation in teaching and learning activities, or assessments, in a virtual or online environment that is connected to, served by, or available through the internet or other telecommunications network. An example is synchronous online learning. 

prescribed area of knowledge means an area of knowledge prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules, the teaching of which may include statutory interpretation as set out in the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation. (Note:  Law Admissions Consultative Committee, Statement on Statutory Interpretation (2009).)

self-accrediting provider means a registered higher education provider that has been authorised under section 45 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) to self-accredit courses of study that lead to a higher education award that the provider offers or confers. 

synchronous online learning means direct interaction between a student, teacher and/or other students in a virtual or online environment. Examples include attending live-stream lectures (but not listening to a pre-recorded lecture), videoconference calls and interactive online chatroom discussions. 

teaching method means the way in which the law school communicates and teaches the content of the law course to students, which may depend on the delivery mode. Examples include lectures, workshops, seminars, tutorials, flipped classrooms, group discussions, group work, problem solving, moots, role-play, programmed sessions and simulations (but not student preparation or self-directed study). 

unit means a subject or unit of study that may be undertaken as part of a law course. 

TEQSA means the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

Interpretation 

Headings are for convenience only, and do not affect interpretation. 

The following rules also apply in interpreting this document, except where the context makes it clear that a rule is not intended to apply. 

(a) A reference to – 

(i) a legislative provision or legislation (including subordinate legislation) is to that provision or legislation as amended, re-enacted or replaced, and includes any subordinate legislation issued under it; (ii) a document (including this document) is to that document or provision as amended, supplemented or replaced; (iii) a person includes any type of entity or body of persons, whether or not it is incorporated or has a separate legal identity, and any executor, administrator or successor in law of that person; and (iv) anything (including a right, obligation or concept) includes each part of it. 

(b) A singular word includes the plural and vice versa. 

(c) If a word or phrase is defined, any other grammatical form of that word or phrase has a corresponding meaning. 

(d) If an example is given of anything (including a right, obligation or concept) such as by saying it includes something else, the example does not limit the scope of the thing. 

(e) In deciding whether a student will have acquired or demonstrated appropriate understanding and competence in relation to an element or area of knowledge, as the case requires, an Admitting Authority will have regard to –

(i) the Level 7 criteria specified in the AQF; (ii) the Threshold Learning Outcomes for the Bachelor of Laws/LLB or Juris Doctor/JD as the case requires; and (iii) any other matter that the Admitting Authority considers relevant. 

PURPOSES OF THE STANDARDS 

The purposes of these Standards are – 

(a) to assist an Admitting Authority, when accrediting, monitoring, reviewing or re- accrediting a law course, to determine whether that law course –

(i) will provide for a student to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in each element of a prescribed area of knowledge; and (ii) will provide a student with the knowledge and skills to meets the requirements of the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation; 

(b) to provide clear, tangible guidance about what evidence is required to satisfy each standard relating to – (i) the delivery of the law course; (ii) the nature of a law course; (iii) the duration of a law course; (iv) the content of a law course; (v) teaching a prescribed area of knowledge; and (vi) assessment of a student's understanding and competence; and 

(c) to provide greater certainty for law schools about the matters which an Admitting Authority will consider relevant when accrediting, monitoring or re-accrediting a law course. 

4. THE STANDARDS 

4.1 The delivery of the law course 

• The law course, or one or more of the units which comprise it, may be delivered fully or partially online. (a) Explanatory note The law school may select the appropriate delivery mode across teaching, learning and assessments, for one or more units or the whole law course. The Admitting Authority may seek information from the law school about the delivery mode offered. 

4.2 The nature of the law course 

• The law course is a tertiary academic course in law, whether or not it leads to a degree in law. 

(a) Explanatory note 

The law course must be "a coherent sequence of units of study leading to the award of a qualification" in law.  This applies when a law course is a single degree and when a law course is part of a combined or double degree, to the law component of that combined or double degree. The qualification must be a degree or another similar qualification in law,  awarded upon successful completion of a tertiary academic course. A law course may be considered for accreditation is “a tertiary academic course … accredited in Australia" for the purposes of these Standards if it is either one of the following - (i) provided by a self-accrediting provider on the National Register of Higher Education Providers; (ii) currently accredited by TEQSA as leading to a regulated higher education award; or (iii) conducted by or on behalf of the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to provide the Admitting Authority with evidence that - the law course leads to a degree or similar qualification in law; and is comprised of a coherent sequence of units of study which form a course designated as a law course; and the law course is – (A) provided by a self-accrediting provider on the National Register of Higher Education Providers; accredited by TEQSA as a course of study leading to a higher education award; or (C) conducted by or on behalf of the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board. 

4.3 The duration of the law course 

• The law course includes the equivalent of at least three years' full-time study of law. 

• Intensive or block delivery should only be used for a prescribed area of knowledge where the law school satisfies the Admitting Authority that it is appropriate in all the circumstances. 

(a) Explanatory note 

The total credit points for the  units in the law course must equal or exceed an EFTSL of 3.0. 

The course may be offered in a full-time, part-time or accelerated mode. 

An accelerated mode may include intensives, which are units taught during compressed timeframes outside the usual 12-week semester (i.e. two terms a year) or nine-week trimester (i.e. three terms a year) and might be taught over a winter or summer break, or through block learning models during shorter, but  more frequent, terms. The Admitting Authority may seek further information and data from the law school, for example, in relation to student attendance requirements and whether the intensive or block delivery would enable students to acquire the appropriate level of understanding and competence in the prescribed area/(s) of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

The LACC Statement on Duration of Legal Studies, provides that the requirement for at least three years’ full-time study refers to three calendar years and that – A law course that can be completed in fewer than three years may be accredited … if the relevant law school satisfies the Admitting Authority that the course is, indeed, the equivalent of a three calendar year full- time course undertaken at the relevant law school, in terms of the breadth and depth of its content, the teaching methods to be employed and the assessment criteria and methodology. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to provide the Admitting Authority with evidence - (i) that the credit points allocated for the law course in total are equal to or exceed those required for an EFTSL of 3.0; and (ii) if the course can be completed in less than three calendar years, that the course is, indeed, the equivalent of a three calendar year full-time course undertaken at the relevant law school, in terms of the breadth and depth of its content, the teaching methods employed, and the applicable assessment criteria and methodology. 

A law school can give the Admitting Authority the same evidence about the duration of the course that it provided for the purpose of recently being reviewed externally or being accredited by either a self-accrediting provider or by TEQSA. If the law school chooses to do this, unless the Admitting Authority determines otherwise, it will need to – (i) show that the recent review or accreditation required the law school to satisfy a similar standard to that required by the Admitting Authority; and (ii) set out the relevant standard against which it was recently reviewed or accredited; (iii) set out when the review or accreditation occurred and by whom it was conducted, and (iv) give the Admitting Authority copies of the principal documentary evidence that it provided for the purpose of that review or accreditation. 

4.4 The learning outcomes for the law course

• The statement of learning outcomes for the law course is directed to enabling students to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in the prescribed areas of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

(a) Explanatory note 

TEQSA requires the specified learning outcomes for each course of study to "encompass discipline-related and generic outcomes, including … knowledge and skills required for employment and further study related to the course of study, including those required to be eligible to seek registration to practise where applicable" (emphasis added). 

(b) How can a law school establish that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to – (i) set out any relevant learning outcomes for the law course; and (ii) show how achieving each of these outcomes will demonstrate that a student has acquired and demonstrated appropriate understanding and competence in each of the prescribed areas of knowledge. 

4.5 Content of the law course 

• The law course includes teaching or other instruction in each of the specified elements in each of the prescribed areas of knowledge set out in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules. 

• The law course also meets the requirements of the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation. 

(a) Explanatory note 

A prescribed area of knowledge need not be taught in a  unit bearing the same name as that used for the area in the Admission Rules. Similarly, the elements of an area of knowledge need not be taught in one or unit; they could be taught in several units. 

An Admitting Authority may consider that the number of hours allocated to teaching a prescribed area of knowledge is relevant when determining whether that area is adequately covered. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to - (i) describe where each element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation is taught in the law course. This might be done by way of a matrix or by mapping. Evidence could include the course syllabus, unit descriptions or, by way of examples, lecture outlines or reading guides; and (ii) estimate the total teaching hours allocated to the teaching of each prescribed area of knowledge, and describe the teaching methods having regard to the delivery modes for each prescribed area of knowledge indicating the predominant teaching method and delivery mode and the use of other teaching methods and delivery modes; and (iii) the total teaching hours provided should equate to at least 36 hours for each prescribed area of knowledge. If the estimated number of teaching hours for any prescribed area of knowledge is less than 36 hours because of the teaching method used or student research, demonstrate how the learning outcomes will be achieved in that area. 

4.6 Teaching the law course and active learning 

• Each prescribed area of knowledge and any unit subject relating to statutory interpretation is taught by people qualified to teach that area of knowledge. 

• The law school uses teaching methods which enable each student to acquire the appropriate understanding and competence in each element of every prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

• An Admitting Authority will consider the number of hours provided for active learning and/or direct interaction in a prescribed area of knowledge when considering whether a law course will enable a student to acquire an adequate level of understanding and competence. 

• Each student in the law course has ready access to legal information resources that are sufficient in quantity and quality to enable the student to acquire the appropriate understanding and competence in each element of every prescribed area of knowledge. 

(a) Explanatory note The quality of teaching directly affects a student's acquisition of understanding and competence. Three dominant influences upon the quality of teaching are – (i) the qualifications and experience of the teachers; (ii) the teaching methods employed; and (iii) access to legal information resources, particularly library resources. A student needs to acquire both understanding and competence in each 11(b) element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. Admitting Authorities consider that this will not occur unless the teaching methods demonstrably require active learning. 

Admitting Authorities consider that direct interaction between students and teachers whether in-person or through synchronous online learning remains the primary reliable means of achieving these results. 

How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to satisfy the Admitting Authority that - 

(i) teachers in the program – • meet the AQF requirement that a teacher should have a degree one level higher than that of the course in which the person teaches, or • have equivalent experience in practice or teaching (which may be demonstrated by reference, say, to a person's specialist practice, scholarship, or standing in the academic community or legal profession), or • if a teacher does not fully meet either of the preceding criteria, that person's teaching is guided and overseen by other staff who do meet one or more of those criteria. 

A law school should provide a complete list of teaching staff (continuing, fixed-term and any casual staff employed at the date upon which accreditation or re-accreditation is sought) and their relevant academic qualifications. The Admitting Authority may request further information about the relevant practice or teaching experience of staff who do not have the requisite higher degree.); 

(ii) the methods generally employed in teaching prescribed areas of knowledge across all delivery modes, enable students to acquire appropriate understanding and competence in each element of that area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. (A law school will need to identify and explain any departures from those generally employed methods, in teaching any particular area of knowledge.); and 

(iii) the design of the law course and its program of instruction primarily comprises provides for at least 18 hours of either or both of – face-to-face instruction and active learning; and (B) instruction and learning involving direct interaction between teacher and student, whether in-person or through synchronous online learning, (A) (iv) (v) and enables students to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in each element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

(A law school will need to provide evidence of the extent to which the design of the law course and its program of instruction provides for active learning and/or direct interaction in each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation.); and the law school enables each student to have ready access to legal information resources, in paper or in electronic form; and those resources are sufficient in quantity and quality to enable each student to acquire appropriate understanding and competence in each element of each prescribed area of knowledge. xx It would be relevant for an Admitting Authority to know whether the law school’s library has been independently assessed by the CALD Standards Committee and has been independently determined to have met, in this respect, the CALD Standards. 

A law school can give an Admitting Authority the same evidence about teaching each of the prescribed areas of knowledge and statutory interpretation Statutory Interpretation and about its legal information resources that it provided for the purpose of recently being reviewed externally or accredited by either a self-accrediting provider or by TEQSA. Unless the Admitting Authority determines otherwise, the law school will need to – show that the recent review or accreditation required the law school to satisfy a similar standard to that required by these Standards; and set out the relevant standard against which it was reviewed or accredited; and set out when the review or accreditation occurred and by whom it was conducted; and (iv) give the Admitting Authority copies of the principal documentary evidence that it provided for the purpose of that review or accreditation. 

4.7 Assessing understanding and competence 

• Assessment requirements verify that a student has – (i) acquired appropriate understanding and competence in every prescribed area of knowledge; and acquired the relevant knowledge and skills set out in the LACC 

• The law course requires a student to achieve at least a pass grade before satisfactorily completing any subject or unit in which a prescribed area of knowledge or statutory interpretation  is taught or assessed.  

• An Admitting Authority may consider for each unit that covers a prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation, the allocation of assessments, the assessment methods and whether a sufficient proportion of assessments are conducted by invigilation to ensure the law course provides an appropriate level of quality assurance that a student has been awarded a grade that accurately reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence. 

(a) Explanatory note 

An Admitting Authority must be able to rely on a law school’s minimum requirement for completion - a pass grade - as the conclusive indicator that a student has, in fact, acquired an appropriate level of understanding and competence in every element of a prescribed area of knowledge and has acquired the relevant knowledge and skills set out in the LACC's Statement on Statutory Interpretation. 

Invigilation of assessments provides an extra level of quality assurance that the grades awarded to students accurately reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence, particularly in an online learning environment. 

(b)  How can a law school establish that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to - (i) provide evidence that it requires, and that students are made aware, that all elements of each prescribed area of knowledge and all of the law school's teaching or other instruction in statutory interpretation are assessable; and (ii) provide evidence that its methods of assessment methods in each  unit in which a prescribed area of knowledge is taught confirm that a student has attained an appropriate understanding and competence in that area; and (iii) provide evidence that its methods of assessment methods confirm that a student has achieved all of the outcomes specified in the LACC's Statement on Statutory Interpretation; and (iv) provide evidence that at least 50% of assessments for each unit that covers a prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation is conducted by invigilation; and (v) if grade descriptors apply to prescribed areas of knowledge, set out the descriptor for a pass grade; and (vi) explain the process it uses to satisfy itself that grades awarded accurately reflect the level of student attainment.

Law Teaching Standards

The Admissions Committee of the Legal Services Council (Council) and the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) Consultation paper on proposed revisions to the Accreditation Standards for Australian Law Courses notes 

The Council is a statutory body that oversees the operation of the Legal Profession Uniform Law in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. 

The Council’s Admissions Committee develops the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules and provides advice to the Council about admissions matters. 

The LACC is a national group that reports to the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. The LACC’s main role is to forge consensus on admission and admission-related matters nationally, between the bodies represented by its members. The Council provides the LACC with secretariat support. 

The Admissions Committee and the LACC work closely together to facilitate national consistency in admissions matters. 

About this consultation 

LACC first published the Accreditation Standards for Australian Law Courses (Standards) in July 2018. The Standards set important minimum standards for the accreditation of law courses. The Standards also seek to give law schools greater certainty about the matters which an admitting authority will consider relevant when accrediting, monitoring or re-accrediting a law course. In late 2023, the Committees became aware of some emerging issues in relation to the accreditation of law courses, partly arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committees resolved to undertake an initial targeted consultation to explore how these issues might be addressed. Key issues under exploration included how the Standards might be enhanced to respond to the prevalence of virtual or online delivery and given the emergence of new digital technologies. The initial consultation also explored other matters, such as the use of intensives or block delivery models. 

Having considered the range of views expressed in initial consultation submissions in late 2024, the Committees have developed draft revised Standards (Draft Revised Standards) for public consultation. The Draft Revised Standards are attached (Attachment A). 

Relevant overarching policy considerations 

In developing the Draft Revised Standards, the Committees have given particular consideration to the desirability of minimum standards for the accreditation of law courses across Australia which are fit for purpose in the context of widespread online or blended delivery and other developments in contemporary Australian legal education, so as to further national consistency. 

Other policy considerations the Committees have taken into account include: • the legislative objective of regulation which is efficient, effective, targeted and proportionate and the development of accreditation policies and procedures which are consistent, uniform and transparent across Australia • recognition of the broader national higher education regulatory landscape and higher education policy settings, including the role of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and its regulatory and enforcement powers • the importance of innovation in the design and delivery of law courses to achieve enhanced student learning outcomes • equity, accessibility, diversity and inclusion for students to be able to attain a legal qualification and enter the legal profession, and • potential implementation impacts on law course providers. 

Proposed revisions to the Standards 

The Committees propose revisions to update, clarify and streamline the Standards in relation to the delivery of law courses, and support effective online learning with respect to teaching hours and the introduction of new requirements for active learning and invigilated assessments. The proposed revisions would also introduce additional guidance for intensives and block learning models and make other minor changes. The Committees propose a transitional period, as set out below. 

Online delivery of law courses 

The Committees are aware of the growth in the number of law courses being delivered online and are concerned to ensure that the Standards support online delivery which is appropriate and effective in achieving student learning outcomes. 

The proposed revisions to the Standards reflect the existing position that law courses may be delivered fully in-person, fully online or via a blended delivery model. In this context, the Committees propose new requirements to support the effectiveness of online delivery, including by setting minimum standards for active learning and student engagement (set out in the next section).  

This approach aligns with the national regulation of tertiary education providers which, to promote innovation, flexibility and focus on learning design and delivery outcomes across providers, does not prescribe types of delivery modes. It also recognises that policy at the national level acknowledges online learning as a legitimate way to promote equity, access and inclusion in higher education. 

The Committees have heard initial consultation feedback about the importance of ensuring that certain cohorts of students, such as women, First Nations people, those living in regional, rural, remote and very remote (RRRR) areas and those from neurodiverse backgrounds or with a disability, have improved access to legal education by law courses being offered fully or partially online. This enhances diversity of representation across the legal profession and in RRRR areas seeking to attract lawyers. The Committees recognise the role of the Standards in supporting these objectives, while maintaining appropriate minimum standards in relation to law courses. 

The relevant changes in the Draft Revised Standards are as follows: • new clause 4.1 (The delivery of the law course) • adjusted and new definitions at clause 2.1 for “online”, “delivery mode”, “in-person” and “synchronous online learning”, as well as the deletion of the “face-to-face” definition, and • ancillary adjustments to clause 4.6 (Teaching of the law course and active learning) to extend current Standards to apply to the range of delivery modes possible for online learning. 

The revised definitions have been developed taking into account initial consultation feedback about the need for: • clearer definitions to respond to the widespread online delivery of law courses • clearer delineation between synchronous and other online learning, and having regard to consistency with the national regulation of tertiary education providers • a definition for “delivery mode” that does not limit the types of delivery modes permitted when tertiary education providers offer a course of study • updating the definition of “online” by removing references to technological hardware given the emergence of laptops, tablets, wearables and the possible development of other new types of hardware, and • removal of the “face-to-face” definition, as it was creating some confusion. Instead, the Committees propose that the definition of “in-person” will continue to apply with slight modification. 

Teaching hours, active learning and student engagement 

The Committees propose revisions in response to initial stakeholder feedback that the Standards: • be brought up-to-date by clarifying that teaching may be delivered not just in-person, but also through online or blended delivery modes, and • provide an indicative range of possible ways in which teaching may occur through the introduction of a definition for “teaching method”. 

Consistent with the clarifications for online learning, the Draft Revised Standards propose revisions at clause 4.5 (Content of the law course) and the introduction of new definitions at clause 2.1 for “delivery mode” and “teaching method” to provide clearer guidance as to what may count towards the 36 hours of teaching for each Priestley 11 subject. 

To support effective online delivery, the Committees also propose to make updates to the Standards in relation to active learning and student engagement. The Committees propose these revisions in response to initial stakeholder feedback that active learning and student engagement in an online learning environment is best supported by synchronous online learning, and that the Draft Revised Standards can best achieve consistency in accreditation by setting a threshold number of hours to promote active student learning and engagement that would apply across all delivery modes. 

The Draft Revised Standards propose revisions to clause 4.6 (Teaching the law course) by transferring commentary, with minor modification, about “active learning” to a new definition at clause 2.1 and by updating the definition of “direct interaction” to ensure it is appropriate for an online teaching and learning environment. 

The minor modifications to the definition of “active learning” remove the reference to “test” (so there is no confusion with assessments) and includes a reference to factual “scenarios”. The introduction of a new proposed requirement at clause 4.6 would allow an admitting authority to consider the number of hours provided by a law school for a student’s active learning and engagement in a Priestley 11 subject when considering whether a law course will enable a student to acquire an adequate level of understanding and competence. 

The Committees consider the provision of a minimum number of 18 hours for active learning and/or direct interaction, whether the student’s participation is in-person or through synchronous online learning, sets an appropriate balance between active and other learning. A minimum 18 hours is proposed as this would equate to 50% of the student experience with respect to the 36 hours of teaching for a Priestley 11 subject. 

Invigilated assessments 

In relation to assessments, the Committees received feedback in the initial stakeholder consultation that: • universities should continue to have flexibility to allow for best practice innovation in assessment design and to select the assessment method that best achieves the desired learning outcomes, and • it would be appropriate for a requirement to be imposed that at least 50% or half of all assessments for a Priestley 11 subject must be conducted by a form of invigilated assessment. 

This seeks to provide a sufficient level of assurance that a student has been appropriately awarded their grades and law degree. 

The Draft Revised Standards introduce a new requirement at clause 4.7 (Assessing understanding and competence) and new definitions for “assessment method” and “invigilation” at clause 2.1. 

The introduction of a new requirement at clause 4.7 would allow an admitting authority to consider for each unit of the law course that covers a Priestley 11 subject and statutory interpretation, the allocation of assessments, the assessment methods and whether a sufficient proportion of those assessments are conducted by invigilation (whether an online invigilated exam or another type of invigilated assessment). This will allow the admitting authority to ensure the law course provides an appropriate level of quality assurance that a student has been awarded a grade that accurately reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence. 

The Draft Revised Standards impose a new requirement at clause 4.7(b) that at least 50% of assessments for a unit covering a Priestley 11 subject and statutory interpretation be conducted by a form of invigilated assessment. The new requirement does not require any specific method of invigilated assessment to allow law schools flexibility to use a method of assessment that would best achieve the intended learning outcomes and suit the delivery mode. 

The introduction of a new definition for “assessment method” seeks to respond to initial stakeholder feedback that it would be helpful to include examples of the types of assessments that law schools may use in addition to examinations. 

The introduction of a new definition for “invigilation” seeks to confirm that supervision of an assessment applies to all types of delivery modes, including when an assessment is conducted in-person or online. 

Intensives and block learning models 

The Committees received initial stakeholder feedback that it would enhance national consistency of accreditation if there was additional guidance in the Standards about the use of intensives and block delivery and what is needed for a law course to be considered “intensive”. 

While the Committees are aware of two law schools that have already introduced block delivery of a whole law course, other stakeholders have expressed reservations about the appropriateness of intensive or block delivery models for Priestley 11 subjects. 

To respond to the initial stakeholder feedback, the Committees propose to update the Standards to include additional guidance that intensive or block delivery should only be used for Priestley 11 subjects where the law school satisfies the admitting authority that it is appropriate in all the circumstances. To support this, it is proposed that the Standards also provide commentary that an admitting authority may seek further information and data from a law school, and that the Standards include more information about the nature of accelerated modes of delivery, of which intensive or block learning models are a type. 

The proposed additional guidance acknowledges the practices of the Victorian and New South Wales admitting authorities which have already considered or are in the process of considering the offerings of the two law schools that have already introduced block delivery models for a whole law course. 

By making these amendments to the Standards, it is intended that law schools may make a case for delivery in accelerated mode (intensive or block delivery) by satisfying the admitting authority that it is appropriate in all the circumstances for Priestley 11 subjects to be delivered in the proposed way. It is also intended that law schools that adopt intensive or block delivery of Priestley 11 subjects would still need to meet the at least three-year (or equivalent) requirement for the duration of the law course and the proposed new minimum requirement for active learning and student engagement discussed above. It may be open to the admitting authority to consider whether a reduced number of teaching hours would be permissible for a Priestley 11 subject. The Draft Revised Standards propose amendments at clause 4.3 (The duration of the law course) in response to the initial stakeholder feedback. 

Other minor revisions 

The Draft Revised Standards propose other minor revisions to update, clarify and streamline in response to initial stakeholder feedback. These include: • a new definition of “law course” at clause 2.1 that draws from the drafting in the Uniform Law Admission Rules12 and further commentary in the explanatory note at clause 4.2(a) to clarify the requirement for a coherent sequence of units applies to a law course that is a single degree and, for a combined or double degree, to the law component of the combined or double degree • a new definition of “unit” at clause 2.1 that is consistent with the TEQSA definition13 and accompanying revisions throughout the Draft Revised Standards, for example at clauses 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5, and • updates to the definition of “prescribed areas of knowledge” at clause 2.1 and elsewhere to include statutory interpretation. 

Regulatory landscape 

The LACC Standards operate alongside the Australian Law School Standards,14 developed by the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD), as well as the broader national regulation of the higher education sector by TEQSA. 

When developing the Draft Revised Standards, the Committees have been mindful of TEQSA’s resourcing,  role and regulatory powers in maintaining academic integrity in the tertiary education sector, and TEQSA having particular focus on responding to commercial contract cheating services and the emergence of generative AI. The Committees have also considered what universities and law schools are required to do to meet the TEQSA academic integrity requirements. Each university is required to have an up-to-date academic integrity policy and procedures that respond to contract cheating and generative AI, and to comply with the TEQSA re-accreditation process, regular TEQSA audits, and respond to enquiries or participate in other initiatives. 

To support universities adapt and respond to contract cheating and generative AI, TEQSA has published extensive resources, guidance and best practice materials about how universities can maintain academic integrity with respect to these technological developments. Anyone, including universities, students and members of the public, can report an alleged contract cheating service to TEQSA. Regarding generative AI, TEQSA encourages universities to take the approach that “assessment and learning experiences equip students to participate ethically and actively in a society where AI is ubiquitous”. 

The Committees are mindful not to include requirements in the Standards that would replicate these aspects of TEQSA’s work. This aligns with the intended application of the Standards, that they complement and not duplicate the standards of CALD and TEQSA. 

Proposed implementation timing 

The Committees anticipate working towards a publication date in the second half of 2025, although this may depend on the nature of the feedback received through the consultation process. 

The Committees propose there be a staggered two-year implementation period to facilitate transition. 

During this period: 

• The final revised Standards will be published one year before the date of commencement. 

• In the year following commencement, the final revised Standards will apply to: o all applications for accreditation and re-accreditation, and o all other accredited law courses. It is anticipated that each admitting authority will communicate with law schools which are in this category. 

Authenticity

'Authentic assessment: from panacea to criticality' by Tim Fawns, Margaret Bearman, Phillip Dawson, Juuso Henrik Nieminen, Kevin Ashford-Rowe and Keith Willey in (2024) Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education comments 

 Authentic assessment contrasts with ‘traditional’ forms of assessment in ways that appear to be significant and, largely, positive. However, authentic assessment is often invested with superpowers, including the ability to: surmount academic integrity concerns (Sotiriadou et al. 2020); make assessment more inclusive (Nieminen 2024); and ensure relevancy to future personal, social and professional contexts (Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, and Brown 2014; Villarroel et al. 2018; Ajjawi et al. 2020; McArthur 2023). This view finds its way into assessment policies and teaching and learning resources that uncritically blend authenticity with inclusion, integrity or preparation of graduates for the future (e.g. University of Reading 2023; University of Oxford 2024). In this paper, we argue that the promotion of authentic assessment as an answer to a broad range of complex problems unhelpfully positions it as a panacea. 

 

Authentic assessment is often positioned as the ‘silver bullet’ solution for critical, urgent and widespread challenges in our current higher education environment (Ajjawi et al. 2023). While literature supports some potential benefits of authentic assessment in relation to challenges of cheating, inclusion, and the application and future relevance of learning, in principle (Ashford-Rowe, Herrington, and Brown 2014; Villarroel et al. 2018; Sokhanvar, Salehi, and Sokhanvar 2021), there is very limited evidence of how, and the extent to which, authentic assessment actually does this in practice, or the relationship between authenticity and these other concerns (Ajjawi et al. 2023). Indeed, the review by Villarroel et al. (2018) showed that the vast majority of authentic assessment studies do not feature a clear model or practical guidelines for authentic assessment. 

We have concerns that the label ‘authentic assessment’ is sometimes applied without sufficient interrogation of how aspirations of authenticity relate to broader contexts and purposes of assessment. This worry has a historical basis: higher education discourse has seen a range of panacea concepts come and go. Successive educational technologies – including print, radio, television, online, tablets, MOOCs, and now artificial intelligence (AI) – have been associated with ‘magical thinking’ around their capacity to solve complex educational problems (Cuban and Jandrić 2015), with promises of what should happen greatly outstripping the reality of what does happen (Selwyn 2013). Pedagogical innovations – such as student-centredness, constructive alignment, and active learning – have been suggested in response to problems of student learning, engagement and motivation (e.g. Freeman et al. 2014). Even higher education itself is commonly portrayed as a panacea for various global issues such as poverty and unemployment (see, e.g. Ostrowicka 2022). In each case, a concept or label covers over the need for nuanced negotiation and integration of new approaches into particular contexts. Similarly, where the label ‘authentic assessment’ is treated as sufficient explanation for what is actually a complex approach to assessment design and implementation, it can become a distraction (Arnold and Croxford 2024) or even a thought-terminating cliché (Lifton 1961) that hampers important conversations and considerations of the tensions between multiple purposes and practicalities. 

 

In this paper, we examine the relationship between authenticity in assessment and three ‘problems’ it is often purported to address: preparing graduates for their futures; cheating; and inclusion. We have chosen these challenges because of their complexity, their significance, and the primacy of authentic assessment as a solution within current educational discourse. In our discussions, we consider how authenticity can be used as a principle alongside or within more targeted approaches to different assessment purposes. We argue that, if we think beyond authentic assessment as a form of assessment to conceive of authenticity as just one aspect to thoughtfully and judiciously consider within the design, we can more clearly see and address real problems and purposes of assessment and higher education more broadly.

Ethics

“Just teach them the law!”: the ethics of value inculcation within legal education' by Alex Green in (2023) 57(3) The Law Teacher comments 

 To what extent should law teachers be permitted to advance controversial ethical, moral or political views as part of the LLB curriculum? This short paper grapples with that question by defending the ethical permissibility of such behaviour subject to the important proviso that it does not cause students “pedagogical harm”. In reaching this conclusion, three alternative views are considered and dismissed, each of which seeks either to eliminate value inculcation entirely or to restrict its scope to the moral-political values currently immanent within established law. The approach taken is argumentative, drawing upon analytical philosophy, with each contested and contestable view being presented in propositional form. Ultimately, it is concluded that value inculcation cannot be avoided within legal education and that, given this fact, the question becomes which values law teachers have a responsibility to advance. It is contended that this judgement, fraught though it might be for various reasons, is best left to individual teachers and that, for this reason among others, a permissive “no-harm” approach to value inculcation best justifies current pedagogical practices.

Feedback

'What’s the use of being nice? Characteristics of feedback comments that students intend to use in improving their work' by David Playfoot, Ruth Horry and Aimee E Pink in (2024) Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education comments 

Feedback is an integral part of the learning process for students (Hyland 2013). Providing feedback on student work is time-consuming for teaching staff (Gibbs and Simpson 2004) and a lot of effort is expended in trying to provide high-quality feedback (e.g. Pitt and Norton 2017; Brooks et al. 2021). In spite of this, students in the UK rate feedback as one of the aspects of their university experience with which they are the least satisfied on the National Student Survey (Bell and Brooks 2017). It should be noted that the fact that students are the least satisfied with this aspect of their course does not indicate that the majority of students are dissatisfied just that satisfaction scores are lower than for other areas. Similar patterns are also seen in the Course Experience Questionnaire used to gauge student satisfaction in Australia (Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching 2023). Research has also shown that students often do not act upon the feedback that they are given because they do not consider it to be useful (McGrath, Taylor, and Pychyl 2011). As a consequence, a key goal of research in recent years has been to examine what affects the likelihood that feedback comments are perceived positively by the students that receive them. The current paper outlines three studies which have attempted to determine the characteristics of comments that students believe that they would use to further develop their work. 

The existing literature considers a variety of factors that may contribute to feedback being useful. There are already several excellent reviews and meta-analyses related to feedback practices (e.g. Wiliam 2018; Wisniewski, Zierer, and Hattie  2019; Van der Kleij and Lipnevich 2021; Winstone and Nash 2023). Despite this, there is still no clear consensus as to the characteristics of effective feedback – the effect sizes revealed by the meta-analyses are widely variable from paper to paper (Wiliam 2018). Part of the problem is likely to be that assessment and feedback practices are heavily constrained by the policies of the university in which a study is conducted, by the principles of assessment and programme design, and by individual differences between the students who receive the feedback (Price, Handley, and Millar 2011; Evans 2013; Ajjawi et al. 2022). This has led to claims that there can be no overarching ‘gold standard’ of feedback because the contextual factors are so influential (Krause-Jensen 2010). Nevertheless, we argue that there are likely to be underlying principles that apply to effective feedback; the implementation of these principles may be moderated by institutional influences or specific student populations, but they will provide a good foundation on which to build. In what follows, we outline the key characteristics of effective feedback identified in the literature and investigated in our own studies. To simplify our discussions, we will consider potential characteristics of feedback under umbrella categories, offering examples of the way that these categories have been operationalised in previous studies. 

The first broad category can be referred to as ‘usability’ which subsumes feedback which is clear (Hattie and Timperley 2007; Ferguson 2011; Price, Handley, and Millar 2011; Li and De Luca 2012; Fong et al. 2018) and constructive (Lizzio and Wilson 2008; Dawson et al. 2019; Henderson et al. 2019). Ferguson’s (2011) study, for example, surveyed 566 students at an Australian university and reported that good feedback should be clear and unambiguous as well as having an explicit connection to the marking criteria for the assignment. Dawson et al. (2019) study identified that clarity and constructiveness (and indeed ‘usability’) were key themes among their 400 student participants. This is not surprising – for feedback to be effective, it must be acted upon (Boud and Molloy 2013); and in order to act upon it, the student must understand what they are supposed to do, and it must be actionable (Ryan et al. 2021). In a similar vein, adopting the Transparency in Learning and Teaching framework (TILT e.g. Winkelmes 2023) has been shown to result in improvements across a variety of metrics of the student experience. TILT aims to make communication between students and teachers clear, and can be applied to all aspects of teaching practice (see https://tilthighered.com/tiltexamplesandresources for examples). Transparency as to why students are undertaking tasks and how their work is to be graded, has been shown to improve student perceptions of assignments and feedback, as well as improving the quality of the work (Winkelmes et al. 2015). 

Both clarity and constructiveness were therefore characteristics of effective feedback that we considered in the current study. In addition, we included ‘helpfulness’ in our examination of feedback. This was motivated by the fact that large-scale student satisfaction metrics used to rank universities in the UK (the National Student Survey) ask final-year undergraduates to indicate whether the feedback that they received during their courses was helpful. Helpfulness could be considered as conceptually similar to constructiveness or usability, but to our knowledge there is no empirical evidence to support or refute this interpretation as it pertains to student perceptions of assignment feedback. We sought to gain this evidence as part of the current study. 

A second umbrella category of feedback characteristics can be referred to as ‘niceness’. A large body of research has identified that students prefer to receive feedback that is supportive (Xu and Carless 017; Carless and Winstone 2023), encouraging (Abramowitz, O’Leary, and Rosén 1987; Lizzio and Wilson 2008), motivating (Henderson et al.  2019) and has a positive tone (Winstone et al. 2016; Dawson et al.  2019). Tone, in this case, refers to whether the feedback is framed in a positive or a negative manner. Dawson et al. (2019) demonstrated that feedback that appears overly critical can demotivate students and is unlikely to be used, while Winstone et al. (2016) reported that positively framed feedback is more likely to be acted upon. All of these characteristics of feedback reflect the fact that receiving comments on assignments can have an emotional impact on students (Weaver 2006; Parker and Winstone 2016). Ultimately, students will be less likely to engage with feedback that makes them feel demotivated (Ball et al. 2009) and thus the feedback will not achieve the desired effect. 

In the current work, we asked participants to rate real feedback comments (received by other students in previous academic years) for clarity, constructiveness, helpfulness, encouragement, supportiveness, motivational value and tone to explore the interrelation of these characteristics. Previous studies have considered these factors but not all at the same time and hence it is possible that they are not distinct. Understanding the interrelations between these perceptions might help to understand some of the inconsistencies of previous findings and meta-analyses. Further, as outlined briefly above, there are multiple factors that may influence the effectiveness of a feedback comment. In all cases, though, the effectiveness of a feedback comment is contingent on the recipient engaging with the feedback and acting upon it. For this reason, we asked our participants to rate their ‘intention to use’ each of the feedback comments, imagining that they had received them on their own work. Previous studies have examined student preferences relating to feedback or changes in attainment following feedback (Winstone and Nash 2023). We argue that what students prefer is important information for instructors, but that preference does not guarantee that feedback will foster improvement in future assignments (Jonsson 2013). For example, feedback which is effusive is likely to be well-received but will not be likely to include the necessary information to allow the student to capitalise on what they did well or to correct what they did not (Holmes and Papageorgiou 2009). Thus, knowing the characteristics of feedback comments which are likely to be acted upon is key.

edTech

'Edtech in Higher Education: Empirical Findings from the Project ‘Universities and Unicorns: Building Digital Assets in the Higher Education Industry’ by Janja Komljenovic, Morten Hansen, Sam Sellar and Kean Birch (published by the Centre for Global Higher Education, Department of Education, University of Oxford comments 

Higher education (HE) is by now thoroughly digitalised. Universities use a variety of digital products and services to support their operations. The educational technology (EdTech) industry has been expanding in the past decade, while investors have become important actors in the field. This report offers findings from the ESRC-funded research project ‘Universities and Unicorns: Building Digital Assets in the Higher Education Industry’ (UU), which investigated new forms of value in digitalised HE as the sector engages with EdTech providers. ... 

The project was conducted between 1 January 2021 and 30 June 2023. It investigated new forms of value in digital and digitalised higher education (HE) as the sector engages with educational technology (EdTech) providers. The project was especially interested in digital user data and data operations. We followed three groups of actors: universities, EdTech start-up companies, and investors in EdTech. 

Our study of universities focused on understanding their: digitalisation strategies and practices; digital ecosystems and collaborations with EdTech companies; attitudes towards and experiences with EdTech companies; user data operations and data outputs; and key challenges with digitalisation. 

Our study of EdTech start-up companies focused on understanding: development of products and services; business models and strategies; how products are datafied and their data operations; how user data is made valuable; experiences and relations with universities; experiences and relations with investors; and challenges they are facing in their work and growth. 

Our study of investors focused on understanding: their views of HE and the future of the sector; the role that EdTech should play in this future; their beliefs about the value of user data; their investment theses, strategies and activities; and their experiences and relations with the EdTech and HE sectors. xx Understanding EdTech relationally, and bringing these groups together, allowed us to gain particular insights into the digitalisation of HE and its political economy. We aimed to trace the flow of ideas, strategies, and actions between these actors and to understand how and why the EdTech industry is developing as it is. 

Our conceptual approach centred on rentiership and assetisation. The global economy is increasingly characterized by rentiership: the move from creating value via producing and selling commodities in the market to extracting value via controlling access to assets. In the digital economy, rentiership is often exercised by controlling digital platforms and pursuing revenues associated with platforms, such as collecting and monetising digital data extracted via these platforms. Users became valuable through their engagement with the platform and are made visible through various user metrics. Emerging work on assetisation in education argues that this is a productive way to understand the impact of the privatisation, financialisation, and digitalisation of public education. However, the rise of assetisation does not mean that HE is no longer a public good or subject to commodification. Instead, it adds new complex forms of value creation and governance to the sector. We should note that this research project was conducted before the release of ChatGPT into public use. Therefore, this report does not make reference to the turbulent discussions about generative AI and its potential usage and impacts in HE. Finally, we note that this report offers an empirical description of key themes and dynamics identified in our study. More in-depth and theorised analyses of project findings are being published in journal articles and book chapters, all of which are openly accessible. The Appendix includes a list of publications.  ...

In this section, we briefly summarise key overall findings, which are analysed in more detail in academic publications, i.e. journal articles and book chapters (see Appendix). The following findings are relevant to our case studies and might be different in other contexts. 

Takeaway #1: Big Tech and legacy software are prominent in digitalising higher education 

Big Tech infrastructure and platforms, legacy software, and EdTech incumbents dominate university digital ecosystems. It is challenging for the EdTech start-up industry to enter HE markets. Digital products and services offered by new companies represent a small proportion of digitalisation work at universities. EdTech companies primarily target individuals as customers, enterprises for staff development and training, and lower levels of education (i.e. schooling rather than HE). 

Takeaway #2: EdTech in HE is less advanced than imagined 

There is a discrepancy between the promises of the EdTech industry regarding the quality and impact of digital products and services and the perception of university customers. Many university actors, as well as a few EdTech companies, argued that the current quality of EdTech products is generally low compared to other sectors. 

Takeaway #3: Making user data valuable is difficult 

Collecting, cleaning, sorting, processing, and analysing digital user data demands significant human, technological, and financial resources. It is difficult to make user data analysis useful and valuable, such that universities are willing to pay higher fees for data-driven products. Most EdTech companies that we analysed struggle with monetising user data. There is also less user data analysis currently in the sector than imagined by the EdTech industry in its public discourse. The omnipresent belief in the value of user data among all actors is disjunctive with the realities of data practices, which are mostly simple or non-existent. Most university users are sceptical about learning analytics. 

Takeaway #4: User data analytics in HE are not well-developed 

EdTech companies attempt to make their digital products valuable by incorporating user data analytics into their core products. However, currently, these analytics are simple and remain at the level of basic descriptive feedback loops for the user. Nevertheless, there is a clear trend in which EdTech companies are continuing their attempts to construct new metrics, scores, and analytics to monetise data, with efforts to convince customers of the value of these analytics.  

Takeaway #5: Datafication in HE happens at universities 

Universities are in the driving seat of their institutional datafication. Universities are establishing data warehouses, and many aim to collect all user data produced by external digital platforms in order to organise and analyse it for pedagogical and business purposes. However, universities currently lack the capacity to analyse, interpret and act on data. Universities need to establish frameworks for action based on data and acquire the requisite personnel and skills to do so. Universities should ensure that data outputs (e.g. analytics, metrics, scores) are truly representative of what is measured and build confidence in their communities regarding data-driven decision-making. 

Takeaway #6: Digitalisation and datafication create work and costs for universities 

Digitalisation and EdTech promise to bring efficiency and cost savings for universities, but in reality, university actors feel that digitalisation and data operations create more work and higher costs. In addition, new staff profiles and skills are needed, including data scientists, vendor managers, cloud engineers, as well as more learning technologists. 

Takeaway #7: Good EdTech does not challenge core university values and practices 

University actors find technology useful in general and are interested in technological innovation in relation to their work. However, there are two instances where university actors are sceptical towards EdTech. First, when companies' business models are exploitative and extractive. Second, when digital products interfere with the university's core values and practices, such as by challenging professional judgement or academic freedom. Intentions to automate the teaching process or provide behavioural nudges are often received with scepticism. Most university actors feel that user data collection should be limited, and data outputs, including analytics, should be restricted and carefully evaluated. 

Takeaway #8: The aims of EdTech require greater clarity 

The key aims of EdTech are understood to be personalisation, automation, enhanced student engagement, and greater institutional efficiency. However, there are discrepancies between university, EdTech, and investor actors in terms of how they understand these objectives and, consequently, how they will be achieved. Each of these aims needs clarification, including recognising the plurality of dimensions to each objective. 

Takeaway #9: Future imaginaries of tech companies and universities 

The future imaginaries of HE and EdTech are constructed by the EdTech industry and policy actors. There are discrepancies between investors, EdTech companies, and universities in relation to what EdTech should do and how it should shape the future of HE. Universities should drive these discussions and determine their futures and the role of technology in creating these futures. 

Takeaway #10: Democratic data governance 

Universities should do more to inform students and staff about the digital products and services they routinely use. Universities should also continuously provide transparent information to students and staff about user data collected from them and what is being done with this data within their universities and externally. Students and staff should have the choice to participate or not in user data collection and processing. Students and staff should be included in the governance of EdTech and user data at their institutions. 

Takeaway #11: There is a plurality of assetisation processes in EdTech 

EdTech companies establish a variety of processes to control and charge for access to their assets. These include mediating content, organising and mediating teaching interventions, and digitalising and mediating credentials. Typical moats that EdTech companies build are lock-in, network effects, and integration of products into everyday individual practices.

Teaching

The 'Enhancing teaching quality to support student learning and success in Australian higher education: Eight options for reform' report by Sophie Arkoudis, Chi Baik, Wendy Larcombe, Gwilym Croucher, Raoul Mulder and Chris Ziguras 

presents the findings from research and analysis conducted by the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE), with input from representatives of the Department of Education (DoE), over a six-week period from August-October 2023. The aim of the commissioned research was to identify and evaluate options to enhance teaching quality in Australian higher education. The findings and policy options identified in the Australian Universities Accord (AUA) Panel’s Interim Report formed the basis for the research and analysis provided by the CSHE. In particular, the Interim report signalled that the Panel was keen to identify ways to encourage the sector to pursue systemic excellence in learning and teaching. The report further highlighted that learning and teaching for both domestic and international students is sometimes falling short of students’ expectations. 

The focus of this project was therefore on identifying sector-level reforms to strengthen the quality of teaching. 

The research questions addressed by the project were:

1. How should best practice in learning and teaching be identified and promoted across Australia’s expanding HE system? 

2. How can we ensure the higher education teaching workforce is able to deliver for the new system, in both size and capability? 

3. How can best practice, innovation and collaboration in teaching and learning be encouraged? 

4. How can learning and teaching quality be better measured?

The CSHE conducted an extensive review of the Australian and international literature on mechanisms that aim to promote and monitor effective learning and teaching in higher education was conducted. We worked in partnership with the DoE and in consultation with the Panel to develop options to support enhanced teaching quality in a rapidly changing higher education landscape. We also consulted with leading experts in higher education teaching and learning, digital education and quality measurement. This process of working with the DoE and consulting with the Panel member has culminated in the eight options discussed in this report. We emphasize that these options are presented for consideration and do not represent the recommendations of the CSHE authors to the Panel. 

While the report discusses several options, the first two have the potential to facilitate systemic change within the sector. These are the establishment of a National Centre for Higher Education Advancement (Option 1) and a Professional Standards Framework to guide higher education teaching (Option 2). These two options provide a framework for institutional uplift in relation to the peer review of teaching and professional development initiatives (Options 3 and 4). Building on evidence for effective student learning in Australian HE and sharing best practice resources are the focus of Options 5 and 6. The last options (Options 7 and 8) discuss possible new measures of teaching quality for the sector, including an option to explore the development of an Australian Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

The summary overview of options is

Issue 1: How to coordinate and support initiatives to enhance the quality of teaching and learning across Australia’s expanding HE system 

Option 1. Establish a national Centre for Higher Education Advancement 

Since the closure of the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) in 2016, Australia has not had a national body coordinating and driving initiatives to improve quality in Higher Education (HE). This puts Australia out of step with international best practice. It also means that government and sector- led initiatives to advance quality teaching and learning in HE lack national coordination, amplification and impact. 

Johnson et al.’s (2023) submission in response to the AUA Discussion Paper, and earlier research by James et al. (2015), recommend development of a new national body in Australia – that we provisionally call the National Centre for Higher Education Advancement (NCHEA) – to address emerging challenges to quality in higher education and to build on current sector-wide strengths and opportunities. 

The existence of such a body – representing the diversity of HE teaching staff – is a key enabler for implementation of a number of the Options proposed in this work package. The NCHEA could be funded in part by institutional subscriptions/contributions. 

Issue 2: Addressing the job security, career advancement and professional esteem issues that inhibit development of teaching excellence and innovation in Australian HE. 

Option 2. Adopt a national Professional Standards Framework to guide HE teaching staff. Currently, Australia does not have a national statement of the expected teaching-related knowledge, skills, experience and values of HE teaching staff at progressive levels of expertise and responsibility. This contributes to the under-valuing of teaching knowledge and skills and undermines the status of teaching-focussed roles in HE. International experience indicates that a voluntary Professional Standards Framework (PSF) for HE teaching benefits individual staff by enabling them to demonstrate expected teaching-specific expertise and plan professional development; it also enables HEIs to signal the value they accord to quality teaching and learning. A working group would need to be commissioned to consult and advise on implementation options for development and monitoring of a PSF in Australia. The NCHEA (proposed in Option 1) would be an ideal mechanism to foster engagement with the PSF and monitor its impacts. 

Issue 3: Maintaining minimum standards in teaching and learning in an expanding HE system 

Option 3. Initiatives to increase the quality and uptake of Peer Review of Teaching. 

In Australian HE, student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are the current prevailing measure of teaching quality. This is despite a wealth of evidence demonstrating that SETs are not an appropriate measure of either teaching effectiveness (student learning gains), or teaching competency (teacher knowledge and skills) (see, e.g. Boring, Ottoboni & Stark, 2016; Carpenter & Tauber, 2020; Uttl, White & Gonzalez, 2017). 

In place of SETs, Peer Review of Teaching (PRT) should be established as the preferred measure of HE teaching effectiveness and teacher capability in Australian HE. PRT typically involves review of a teacher’s ‘teaching portfolio’ (evidence of understanding and application of effective teaching and learning principles) alongside classroom observations (to evidence effective teaching practices) and, ideally, evidence of students’ learning gains (teaching effectiveness) (see Schweig, 2019). 

In Australia, while PRT is widely practised across the compulsory education sector, its adoption in HE policy and practice is unsupported nationally, meaning that its uptake is piecemeal and reliant on institutional policies and champions. Two initiatives are explored to improve the quality and uptake of PRT in Australian HE. They would achieve synergies if delivered in tandem. 

Initiative 1. Develop and pilot a scheme for national accreditation of Higher Education Institutions’ PRT programs. 

Initiative 2. Commission a national project to synthesise and disseminate research findings on effective, efficient and ethical means of evaluating HE teaching effectiveness and teacher competency. 

Issue 4: Enhancing the professional development of HE staff in teaching 

Option 4. Initiatives to improve the teaching-related professional development of existing and future HE teaching staff 

Induction, initial training, mentoring, supervision and professional development of the teaching- related capabilities of HE staff are currently a matter for institutions – often devolved to faculties or departments and addressed at varying levels of commitment, resourcing and expertise. This means that the quality of professional development and support for teaching staff varies widely within and across institutions. 

To achieve the aims of the Accord process and deliver on the government’s ambitions for equitable, inclusive and flexible (online, hybrid) learning across an integrated HE ecosystem, the sector will need to ensure that all current and newly-appointed HE staff have access to high-quality professional development that enables them to establish and continually improve their teaching-related knowledge, skills and competencies. 

We outline five potential initiatives to address the professional development needs of the HE workforce. 

• Initiative 1. Mandate minimum teaching qualifications for HE teaching staff, with an initial focus on newly-appointed academic staff (taking up ongoing roles). 

• Initiative 2. Establish a dedicated program to support PhD ‘teaching fellowship’ positions that offer doctoral candidates training, experience and certification in university teaching alongside their research training. 

• Initiative 3. Create a mechanism for certification (quality assurance) of institutional and sector-based professional development programs for HE teaching. 

• Initiative 4. Investigate creation of a portable professional development entitlement for sessional staff. 

• Initiative 5. Require all HEIs to report to TEQSA on the implementation, uptake and effectiveness of their strategies and programs designed to ensure that all teaching staff have access to relevant, high-quality teaching-related professional development opportunities. 

Issue 5: Facilitating dissemination and take-up of best practice in HE teaching and learning 

Option 5. Enable identification and uptake of ‘what works’ to improve student learning in Australian HE. 

Available research into best practice teaching and learning approaches in Australian HE needs to be updated to take account of the rapid changes currently taking place in HE, including advances in educational technology and generative artificial intelligence, wider participation of students from all walks of life, and changing patterns of student engagement. That new research also needs to be translated into policy and practice via accessible implementation guides and tools that enable strategies to be readily adapted for different institutional contexts and missions. We propose two initiatives that have an uptake strategy hard-wired into the project design to ensure that research findings on evidence-based best practice are actually translated into practice and benefits for students. 

Initiative 1. Commission a repository of ‘what works’ evidence for effective student learning in Australian HE, curated by a panel of experts and embedded within teaching networks and communities of practice. A model for the proposed repository and network is the Best Practices Repository initiative of the US-based Healthy Minds Network (https://healthymindsnetwork.org/best-practices-repository/). 

Initiative 2. Pilot a ‘Student Success Project’ that: a) analyses available data to identify institutions with better- and poorer- than-expected outcomes for equity-bearing students, b) appoints a Panel of Experts (POE) to explore factors driving student success in the high-performing institutions, and c) enables the POE to mentor leaders and staff from ‘under-performing’ institutions to take-up the learnings from more successful HEIs. Participation in the mentoring program could be monitored by TEQSA, consequent on the HESF (Threshold Standards) requirement that HEIs’ learning and teaching programs ‘create equivalent opportunities for academic success regardless of students’ backgrounds’ (HESF, 2021, 2.2.1). This initiative is based on the work of the US Foundation for Student Success (FSS) Project. 

Option 6. Share best practice educational resources through discipline-based learning and teaching repositories, housed in Centres of Excellence for learning and teaching. 

We currently lack the infrastructure, protocols, conventions and rewards that are needed to facilitate and encourage sharing and reuse of educational content materials in HE. This results in sector-wide inefficiencies and inconsistency in the quality of students’ educational experiences. 

Internationally, sharing of educational resources through digital repositories has become a widespread practice over the past decade, aimed at advancing student learning and promoting global access to higher education. Missing from that landscape of open access resources are quality- assured, research informed and student-centred learning materials designed in and for Australian HE institutions, aligned with AQF standards and course-specific intended learning outcomes, and reflecting Australian social, geographic, environmental and economic contexts. 

To meet that need, we endorse Austin’s (2023) proposal to establish collaborative, discipline-specific Centres of Excellence (COEs) for creating and sharing educational resources through purpose-built digital repositories (2023, p. 4). Each COE would have a home institution that hosts the learning repository and acts as a ‘hub’ for cross-institutional collaboration. 

In addition, the NCHEA would be tasked with co-ordinating and supporting the COEs and distilling lessons from the early trial phase of the project to inform subsequent roll-out of further COEs. 

Issue 6: Improving metrics and data which measure learning and teaching quality 

Option 7. Consider an Australian Higher Education Teaching Quality Framework. 

Australia does not currently have a national measure of learning and teaching quality in Higher Education (HE), notwithstanding the fact that Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are required to report a wealth of data about students to the Department of Education. Is it possible to develop a comprehensive measure of learning and teaching quality in Australian HE using available data? International experience suggests any attempt to develop a national indicator of learning and teaching quality in HEIs needs to carefully consider the intended policy aims, availability of appropriate indicators and the potential for unforeseen consequences. 

With that caution in mind, we suggest that an Australian Framework’s aim could be to make transparent to government, students and the public who contribute to the funding of the HE system how and whether those funds are effectively expended in the advancement of student learning and attainment for students from all walks of life. With that purpose in mind, a Learning and Teaching Quality Framework could draw on data about institutional decision-making that reveal the value HEIs place on student learning, and whether HEIs’ learning and teaching programs ‘create equivalent opportunities for academic success regardless of students’ backgrounds’ (HESF, 2021, 2.2.1). 

We outline 7 dimensions of such a framework: 1. Institutional investment in learning and teaching programs 2. Diversity of the student cohort 3. Student academic attainment and attainment gaps for equity-bearing students 4. Employment outcomes, fee costs and education value gaps for equity-bearing students [optional] 5. Institutional expenditure on staffing of teaching mission 6. Teaching staff skills, experience and diversity 7. Teaching staff professional development 

This Framework would impose a minimal additional administrative burden on HEIs, beyond the routine data collection and reporting they currently do. 

Option 8. Consider new metrics for measuring learning and teaching quality in Australian HE Are there new measures that could usefully be implemented at a national level to inform and drive quality improvement in HE learning and teaching? This paper considers options for new metrics within and beyond the current Student Experience Survey (SES). 

New indicators within the SES: 

Education research identifies various student-side factors that influence learning and are modifiable by institutions (see, e.g. Yorke, 2016; Zimmerman & Kitsantis 2007; Pintrich 2004; Pintrich et al. 1993; Kuh, 2009). Among those, the three that we would identify for potential inclusion in the SES are: • Commitment to learning (Learning behaviours self-assessment) – e.g. How often did you skip classes this semester? • Confidence as a learner (academic self-efficacy) – e.g. rates of agreement with statements such as: I believe I am a capable student. • Learning and teaching climate (perceived climate) – e.g. rates of agreement with statements such as: My institution … cares about students and their learning. 

New indicators beyond the SES: 

Initiative 1. A Survey of HE Teaching Staff. 

Other industries’ efforts to drive quality improvement at a system level commonly include staff surveys – e.g. Your Voice in Health – WA Health https://www.health.wa.gov.au/Reports-and- publications/Your-Voice-in-Health-survey. The fact that the voice of teaching staff is currently absent from measures of educational quality in Australian HE is a sign of the endemic under-valuing of the knowledge, skills and expertise of teaching staff. To address that gap, we propose development of a national survey of HE teaching staff (sessional and continuing) asking them to reflect on factors impacting teaching and learning in their unit/course – including the quality of: • Learning environments, curriculum and teaching resources; • Teacher induction, skills development and mentoring programs and opportunities; • The support they receive from colleagues and supervisors; • Students’ preparedness and engagement, and their academic and wellbeing needs; and • The climate for learning and teaching at their institution – including the extent to which teaching staff feel valued, recognised and rewarded. 

Such a survey would assist the sector to identify the extent to which teaching staff feel equipped, supported, rewarded, trusted, and able to work flexibly alongside experienced colleagues. That is, it would identify opportunities to improve the working conditions of staff, which inform the learning conditions of students. 

Initiative 2. Expert peer evaluations of educational quality. 

A second initiative to improve program and teaching quality is to make expert, external evaluations of learning programs and institutional learning strategies (expert benchmarking) more widely available. While external benchmarking of student attainment and course quality is often practised within disciplines to assure and enhance quality, it is possible to conduct elements of an external quality review at the institutional level with a ‘lighter touch’, as is current practice in Scotland (see the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, 2023, p.110). External peer review of institutional teaching policies and programming would need to be undertaken by appropriately qualified, skilled and knowledgeable HE educators. Such a group could be recruited, trained and certified by the new National Centre for HE Advancement (Option 1)