Future Directions and Conclusions

  • Jon Yorke
  • Lesley Vidovich
Part of the Policy Implications of Research in Education book series (PIRE, volume 7)


Chapter 11 begins by describing the ongoing evolution of policies on quality and standards in higher education from the period of our data collection in 2013 to the time of publication of this book. We highlight three key implications of our research findings for the future development of quality policy related to learning standards. First, to avoid some of the perverse policy effects outlined in earlier chapters, performance indicators may need to balance disciplinary and generic outcomes as well as qualitative and quantitative assessments. Second, careful consideration needs to be given to ‘intelligent accountability’ including, for example, making comparative rankings confidential to institutions rather than being highly visible and high stakes. Third, sources of inter-national policy learning should be broadened beyond those countries which dominate current international league tables of universities (US and UK), to consider countries such as Brazil which has dropped large scale testing in higher education. Further research agendas prompted by the findings of this research are proffered.


Policy evolution Quality policy development Learning standards 


  1. Adie, L. (2014). The development of shared understandings of assessment policy: Travelling between global and local contexts. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 532–545. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.853101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderman, G. (2009). Defining and measuring academic standards: A British perspective. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(3), 1–14. doi: 10.1787/hemp-21-5ksf24ssz1wc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexiadou, N. (2014). Policy learning and Europeanisation in education: The governance of a field and the transfer of knowledge. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational policy flows in European education: The making and governing of knowledge in the education policy field (pp. 123–140). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Government (2009). Transforming Australia's higher education system. Canberra: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Government. (2013). Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 - Ministerial Direction No. 2 of 2013. F2013L01824. Canberra: Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney General’s Department.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Government (2014). Budget 2014-15: Budget measures – Budget paper No. 2 2014–15. Author. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  7. Australian Government. (2015). Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015. F2015L01639. Canberra: Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney General’s Department.Google Scholar
  8. Australian Learning and Teaching Council (2010). Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project: Final report. Author. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  9. Australian Technology Network. (2013). HE Regulation Review - Don’t take the Q out of TEQSA. Adelaide: Australian Technology Network of Universities.Google Scholar
  10. Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2011.650940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bird, S. M., Cox, D., Farewell, V. T., Goldstein, H., Holt, T., & Smith, P. C. (2005). Performance indicators: Good, bad, and ugly. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(1), 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00333.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 209–220. doi: 10.1080/02602930801955978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bloxham, S., & Price, M. (2015). External examining: Fit for purpose? Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 195–211. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.823931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bloxham, S., Hudson, J., den Outer, B., & Price, M. (2015). External peer review of assessment: An effective approach to verifying standards? Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1069–1082. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1024629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Booth, S. (2015a). Establishing a College of Peers process to support the comparability of standards. Higher Education Compliance and Quality Forum. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  16. Booth, S. (2015b). Proof of concept trial of online peer review tool. Higher Education Compliance and Quality Forum. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  17. Bøyum, S. (2014). Fairness in education – a normative analysis of OECD policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 856–870. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2014.899396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown, R. (2010). Comparability of degree standards? Higher Education Policy Institute. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  19. Burke, J. C. (2005). The three corners of the accountability triangle. Serving all, submitting to none. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education. Balancing public, academic and market demands (pp. 296–324). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Caldwell, A. (2012, January 18). NAPLAN cheating cases on the rise. ABC News. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  21. Chilcott, T. (2011, May 7). Queensland's NAPLAN test cheating shame. The Courier Mail. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  22. Coates, H. (2015, September 23). Quality Indicators website: good effort, needs work. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  23. Denniss, R. (2006). Policy research and organisational demands. In H. Colebatch (Ed.), Beyond the policy cycle (pp. 228–239). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  24. Department of Education (2014a). 2013 Student summary. Australian Government. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  25. Department of Education (2014b). 2013 University Experience Survey National Report. Australian Government. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  26. Department of Education (2014c). Upholding quality: Quality indicators for learning and teaching. Accessed 10 Oct 2014.
  27. Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013). Assuring quality while reducing the higher education regulatory burden. Author. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  28. Enns, C. (2015). Transformation or continuation? A critical analysis of the making of the post-2015 education agenda. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(3), 369–387. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2014.959894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foley, B., & Goldstein, H. (2012). Measuring success: League tables in the public sector. The British Academy. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  30. Frolich, N. (2011). Multi-layered accountability. Performance-based funding of universities. Public Administration, 89(3), 840–859. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01867.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grove, J. (2015, June 12). QAA chief: do not ignore support for peer review. Times Higher Education. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  32. Hare, J. (2015a, November 4). No prizes for promoting teaching quality: Belinda Probert. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  33. Hare, J. (2015b, October 14). QILT website, league tables under fire. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  34. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2008). Counting what is measured or measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions in England. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  35. Higher Education Quality Council (1997). Assessment in higher education and the role of ‘graduateness’. London: Author.Google Scholar
  36. Hursh, D. (2008). High-stakes testing and the decline of teaching and learning: The real crisis in education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  37. Hursh, D. (2013). Raising the stakes: High-stakes testing and the attack on public education in New York. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 574–588. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.758829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knight, P. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275–286. doi: 10.1080/03075070220000662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knight, P., & Page, A. (2007). The assessment of 'wicked' competences: Report to the Practice-based Professional Learning Centre. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Krause, K.-L., Scott, G., Aubin, K., Alexander, H., Angelo, T., Campell, S., et al. (2014). Assuring learning and teaching standards through inter-institutional peer review and moderation: Final report of the project. University of Western Sydney. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  41. Lane, B. (2014a, September 10). Christopher Pyne winds up unpopular qualifications council. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  42. Lane, B. (2014b, December 04). Nicoll, Hawke walk. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  43. Lane, B. (2014c, September 03). Spotlight on TEQSA over provider quality checks. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  44. Lane, B. (2014d, November 26). TEQSA to retain its quality control power in amended reform bill. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  45. Lee Dow, K., & Braithwaite, V. (2013). Review of higher education regulation. Australian Government. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  46. Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129–147. doi: 10.1080/17508481003731026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Massaro, V. (2010). Cui bono? The relevance and impact of quality assurance. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(1), 17–26. doi: 10.1080/13600800903440527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  49. McGaw, B. (2008). The role of the OECD in international comparative studies of achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 223–243. doi: 10.1080/09695940802417384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moodie, G. (2011, June 1). Drawbacks in proposed performance indicators. The Australian. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  51. Newstead, S., & Dennis, I. (1994). Examiners examined: The reliability of exam marking in psychology. The Psychologist, 7, 216–219.Google Scholar
  52. Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2008). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  53. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. doi: 10.1080/02680930500108718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013). AHELO feasibility study report: Volume 3 - Further insights. Author. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  55. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Accessed 10 Oct 2014.
  56. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2015). OECD supports the assessment of learning outcomes in higher education. Author. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  57. Ozga, J., & Jones, R. (2006). Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer. Journal of Education Policy, 21(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1080/02680930500391462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2012). Recognition scheme for subject benchmark statements. Author. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  59. Rizvi, F. (2014). Encountering education in the global: The selected works of Fazal Rizvi. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  60. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Rubenson, K. (2008). OECD education policies and world hegemony. In R. Mahon & S. McBride (Eds.), The OECD and transnational governance (pp. 242–259). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  62. Rust, C. (2014, November 13). Are UK degree standards comparable? Times Higher Education. Accessed 11 May 2016.
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwartzman, S. (2010). The national assessment of courses in Brazil. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 293–312). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shavelson, R. (2010). Measuring college learning responsibly: Accountability in a new era. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Spies-Butcher, B. (2012). Markets with equity? Lessons from Australia’s Third Way response to neoliberalism. In D. Cahill, F. J. B. Stilwell, & L. Edwards (Eds.), Neoliberalism: Beyond the free market (pp. 204–227). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  68. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2014). Future directions for TEQSA’s regulatory processes: Consultation summary report. Australian Government Tertiary Quality and Standards Agency. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  69. Universities Australia (2013). Universities Australia submission to the Review of Higher Education Regulation. Universities Australia. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  70. Vidovich, L. (2006). ‘Traveling ‘policy: Contesting ‘global’ policy trends in educational accountability. In A. Colic-Peisker, F. Tilbury, & B. McNamara (Eds.), TASA 2006 Conference Proceedings. Perth: The Australian Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  71. 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: Emerald Insight.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wall, A. F., Hursh, D., & Rodgers, J. W. (2014). Assessment for whom: Repositioning higher education assessment as an ethical and value-focused social practice. Research & Practice in Assessment, 9, 5–17.Google Scholar
  73. Watty, K., Freeman, M., Howieson, B., Hancock, P., O’Connell, B., de Lange, P., et al. (2014). Social moderation, assessment and assuring standards for accounting graduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 461–478. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.848336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  75. Yorke, D. M. (2008). Grading student achievement in higher education: Signals and shortcomings. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Yorke
    • 1
  • Lesley Vidovich
    • 2
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  2. 2.The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations