Higher Education Quality Policy And Learning Standards: Transition And Stasis?

Author(s):

Jon Yorke (submitting) Lesley Vidovich (presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 03 A, Quality Assurance in Higher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

17:15-18:45

Room:

102.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Buratin Khampirat

Contribution

Drawing on empirical research conducted by the authors in Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA), this paper takes the position that the development of higher education quality policy, especially in the domain of learning standards, in these countries has, at various times, exhibited elements of both transition and stasis. At a national level in each of these countries, higher education quality policies have gradually moved away from quality assurance conceived in more process orientated terms. This transition has shifted policy development towards a conception of quality as defined by student achievement of defined outcomes established in learning standards, which describe what a graduate should know and be able to do (Sadler, 2012). These transitions are part of an increasing focus on learning standards and their national and international comparability in a rapidly changing globalised world, as exemplified by initiatives such as the OECD’s Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) project (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2014).

Within the dynamic global educational landscape, technologies of accountability that focus on quantitative comparison (Lingard, 2011) have become dominant within an educational paradigm powerfully shaped by neoliberal interests (Ball, 2012). However, whilst these policy transitions have raised tensions and precipitated substantial contestation, at the same time there has been stasis, or, at best, limited progress towards being able to make valid and reliable quantitative comparisons of complex learning that is characteristic of higher education (Rust, 2014). Comparative measures of learning inevitably depend on the specification of learning standards, but the literature identifies a number of persistent issues regarding their definition and use. In short, the consistent assessment of students’ achievement of learning against defined standards represents a considerable challenge (Bloxham & Price, 2013; Sadler, 2014). In particular, reliable quantitative comparison of students’ achievement of learning standards remains a holy grail (Massaro, 2013) in quality assurance. This tension between transition and stasis has been, we argue, especially problematic for the academic endeavour.

Consistent with contemporary approaches to higher education policy analysis (Vidovich, 2013), this study draws on the theoretical frameworks of critical theory and poststructuralism to enable a comprehensive approach to policy analysis. Critical theory facilitated an examination of the way policy processes served to advance or maintain hegemonic power structures. The theoretical lens of poststructuralism focused attention on the complex and dynamic power relationships between actors at all levels, with particular attention paid to power circulating at local (micro) levels within institutions. Specifically, the aim of this paper is to examine areas of transition and stasis in quality policy development relating to learning standards in Australia, the UK and the USA, and to raise issues of potential wider relevance.

Method

Within the Australian setting, a ‘policy trajectory’ approach was used to analyse the evolving ‘ensemble’ of quality policy texts relating to learning standards released by the Australian Government between 2009 and 2013. Four policy ‘contexts’ were examined, comprising: policy influences; texts; practices/effects; and longer term outcomes. These contexts were examined at national and institutional levels of policy processes. The ‘national’ level comprised the Australian Government and other non-Government national groups within Australia. The ‘institutional’ level spanned four ‘types’ of public and private institution, selected to represent the hierarchy and diversity of the Australian higher education sector. This study also sought to compare quality policy processes relating to learning standards in higher education settings beyond Australia. In view of the historically strong policy flows from the UK and USA to Australia, perspectives from selected policy actors in these settings were included alongside the Australian policy trajectory study. To facilitate comparison, data gathered from settings beyond Australia were collected and analysed in a similar way to that undertaken within the Australian setting, although research conducted in the UK and USA did not constitute policy trajectory studies in their own right. Interviews were conducted with 35 participants between 2012 and 2013. These included government policy elite members, institutional leaders, policy researchers, and leaders of national projects within the domain of learning standards. A total of 33 hours and 29 minutes of interview data was collected (median interview length 62 minutes).All interviews were fully transcribed, and subjected to thematic data analysis (Yin, 2011), using NVivo software (version 10).

Expected Outcomes

The findings of this research revealed the theme of transition and stasis in tension. Participants from Australia, the UK and USA identified a number of pressures on quality/learning standards policy development that emerged in association with the rise of league tables and quantitative comparison (e.g. proposed standardised independent tests of learning standards to publicly compare institutional quality within Australia, or the OECD AHELO project which sought to compare standards across participating nations). These pressures were, in part, seen to emanate from similar policy transitions in the school sector, such as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) in the USA. However, participants also pointed to the broad consensus that there had been a long-standing failure to adequately assure learning standards consistently across higher education sectors, and raised concerns that perverse unintended consequences (e.g. soft marking to boost perceived quality, falsifying institutional data, curricular narrowing) would become more prevalent if the stakes were raised. In particular, participants pointed to the backlash against quantitative comparisons of student learning standards in higher education, as these were seen to be overly reductive, and open to manipulation (e.g. by ‘teaching to the test’). More broadly, participants identified an increasing disconnect between quality policies and teaching/assessment practices at an institutional level. In summary, these transitions, combined with a number of enduring problems with learning standards have led to a period of contestation, instability, and even policy U-turns. In Australia there are more recent signs that collaborative qualitative approaches to the comparison of standards are emerging, although the dominant discourse in a global setting remains the presage for quantitative comparison. These collaborative approaches appear to be of vital importance (Higher Education Quality Council, 1997; Rust, 2014; Sadler, 2012) if learning standards and teaching practices are to avoid being the Achilles’ heel (Knight, 2002) of quality.

References

Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York, NY: Routledge. Bloxham, S., & Price, M. (2013). External examining: Fit for purpose? Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.823931 Higher Education Quality Council. (1997). Assessment in higher education and the role of ‘graduateness’. London, England: Author. Knight, P. (2002). The Achilles' heel of quality: The assessment of student learning. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 107-115. doi: 10.1080/13538320220127506 Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355-382. doi: 10.1007/s13384-011-0041-9 Massaro, V. (2013). TEQSA and the holy grail of outcomes-based quality assessment. In S. Marginson (Ed.), Tertiary Education Policy in Australia (pp. 49-57). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education. No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). Testing student and university performance globally: OECD’s AHELO. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from www.oecd.org/edu/ahelo Rust, C. (2014, November 13). Are UK degree standards comparable? Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/2016838.article Sadler, D. R. (2012). Assuring academic achievement standards: From moderation to calibration. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 5-19. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2012.714742 Sadler, D. R. (2014). The futility of attempting to codify academic achievement standards. Higher Education, 67(3), 273-288. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9649-1 Vidovich, L. (2013). Policy research in higher education: Theories and methods for globalising times? In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Volume 9) (pp. 21-39). Bingley, England: Emerald Insight. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Author Information

Jon Yorke (submitting)

Curtin University

Curtin Teaching and Learning

Perth

Lesley Vidovich (presenting)

The University of Western Australia

Education

Perth

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.