University of South Australia

1. Mission and goals

The University of South Australia’s mission is "to advance, disseminate and preserve knowledge through the provision of a teaching, learning and research environment which fosters excellence in scholarship, innovation and social responsibility." This mission is reflected in the University’s positioning statement, Educating Professionals - Applying Knowledge - Serving the Community, and has been further articulated in eight inter-related goals and 31 objectives. Through these goals and objectives the University realises its mission by defining institutional priorities for its academic programs and research activities. In particular, through a rigorous and systematic planning, review and improvement cycle the University seeks to establish the extent to which its educational and research programs, and community service activities, meet the identified needs of its local, regional, national and international communities.

For the University of South Australia, the value or worth of what has been achieved and hence the quality of our core activities can only be identified by reference to the University’s mission. Thus the quality of our research activities is reflected in their value and application to business, industry and the wider community. The quality of our academic programs and teaching and learning strategies can be judged by the extent to which they attract and provide successful educational outcomes for students from diverse backgrounds, particularly those from groups which have been and continue to be under-serviced by the higher education sector. The quality of our community service activities can seen in the value they add to other core activities by providing a benefit to those sections of our community to which this would otherwise be least available.

2. Strategic approach to quality

The comprehensive nature of the University’s quality framework is composed of interlocking elements which are expressed through all of its core functions: research activities; academic programs; service provision; community service; management and administrative functions. The University’s approach to quality incorporates inter-related processes of quality assurance and quality improvement. These are articulated through the planning and review cycle, and derived from key policies on the review of faculties, research institutes and units, research management and research supervision, and the approval and review of courses and subjects.

An extensive range of quality assurance and improvement processes underpins this approach eg.:

• regular benchmarking with Australian Technology Network (ATN) and other universities;
• regular surveys of student satisfaction with subjects and courses and with services such as the library, counselling and study support;
• ongoing monitoring and analysis of data on the use of services by students from the equity target groups; and

• extensive involvement of student and industry representatives on advisory committees for faculties, courses, and research institutes and centres.

Our mission-referenced approach to quality demands an ongoing process of interaction with the communities we serve. These communities, particularly the industries and professions relevant to our programs and research concentrations, support both quality assurance and quality improvement through their contributions in interpreting our mission and in benchmarking outcomes, especially against the University’s statement of graduate qualities. The systematic implementation of these qualities within the teaching and learning environment of the University is one of the University’s priorities for the 1998-2000 triennium and is intended to improve the quality and enhance the reputation of the University’s courses within industry and the community. The statement of graduate qualities declares that a graduate of the University of South Australia:

• operates effectively with and upon a body of knowledge of sufficient depth to begin professional practice

• is prepared for lifelong learning in pursuit of personal development and excellence in professional practice

• is an effective problem solver, capable of applying logical, critical and creative thinking to a range of problems

• can work both autonomously and collaboratively as a professional

• is committed to ethical action and social responsibility as a professional and a citizen

• communicates effectively in professional practice and as a member of the community

• demonstrates an international perspective as a professional and as a citizen.

The University’s framework for quality is based on the premises that:

• the University's commitment to enhancing the quality and effectiveness of its core activities will be achieved more speedily and thoroughly by ensuring that systematic review and evaluation of its academic program and research activities is embodied in its planning, decision-making and accountability processes at all levels;
• judgements about quality are appropriately the responsibility of the University as an autonomous institution, but this is pursued in partnership with the range of our stakeholders, our students and the various communities which we serve, an approach which itself improves the quality and increases the relevance of our academic programs, community service and research activities;
• the quality of teaching, learning and research is affected not only by the quality of research processes, course design and delivery but also by the management of the University’s academic, research, administrative and service units in terms of the effectiveness of their administrative processes.

The University has embedded responsibility for quality assurance and improvement within its planning and review framework. Thus responsibility for quality improvement rests with each academic, research and administrative unit as a core accountability requirement, as expressed through processes of annual planning, evaluation and review. All faculties and administrative units are subject to intensive scrutiny against a range of qualitative and quantitative indicators deriving from the University’s mission, and the results are reported to the University’s Council annually in the corporate plan. Key elements of the planning cycle include:

• annual faculty, research institute and unit planning and review processes feeding into the annual corporate planning process;
• annual review of all academic and administrative units by the Vice-Chancellor’s Corporate Planning Group to evaluate their performance over the past 12 months against set objectives and performance indicators, and to set goals for improvement over the next year;
• annual review of all research institutes and centres by the Research Policy Committee;
• external review of all academic, research and administrative units on a rolling five-to-seven year cycle;
• annual review of all courses, incorporating anonymous student evaluation and input from student and industry representatives on faculty boards;
• external review of all new courses or major changes to existing courses;
• major review of all courses on a five- yearly cycle;
• ongoing review and revision of the research supervision register.

All members of the University’s staff have a responsibility to exercise their individual professional judgement in the pursuit of quality in particular areas, with specialist staff available to support a systemic and interlocking approach. The Quality Officer (Internal Audit) has an ongoing role in fostering cross-functional service improvement and innovation in administrative and service units. The Quality and Business Systems Manager (Planning) oversees the University’s involvement in the International Organisation for Standardization’s ISO9001 system to ensure the quality of business activities in all faculties. The Planning Unit provides the necessary data and analysis to enable the localised planning, evaluation and review upon which this embedded approach to quality assurance and improvement depends.

3. Performance

The University has carefully selected a number of key performance indicators to identify the extent of progress and to guide quality improvement in core areas of activity within the context of our mission (see table below). The University is mindful of the dangers inherent in the simplistic and de-contextualised use of performance indicators. As indicated in the literature:

It is simply not possible to specify single indicators of teaching and research quality which are analytically coherent and defensible…(Nor) is it possible to routinely generate systematic data to adequately serve as the single source of information leading to an acceptable evaluation of quality. (Linke 1991, p.129)

The usefulness of the selected indicators in highlighting achievements and identifying areas for quality improvement is still being trialled following their introduction last year. They will be further refined in order to reflect those measures of performance considered most relevant to the University. In 1999, all academic, administrative and service units will adopt and report against their own localised performance indicators. An extensive range of quality improvement processes at the local level underpins the planning and review cycle that generates these performance data.

Teaching and learning

The University’s share of undergraduate first preferences in South Australia is a measure of competitiveness in the local market. Other indicators used to measure demand, including the ratio of applications to quota places and median tertiary entrance scores, are used for measuring trends. However, these indicators do not give a total picture of student demand. The nature of our market is changing and we are working on ways of measuring demand in a more comprehensive and meaningful way, taking into account all student demand, not just that administered by the South Australian Tertiary Admissions Centre.

The Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) provides valuable feedback from our graduates about their perceptions of course quality. The survey results from bachelor degree graduates reveal that, for good teaching and overall satisfaction, the University achieved a lower mean score than the national average for the majority of fields of study in which we teach. However we are more successful for the scale of generic skills.

Three quarters of bachelor degree graduates who were available for full-time employment were in full-time employment four months after they completed their course. In comparing our employment rates against national or interstate figures, much of the variation between the University and our interstate counterparts can be attributed to regional employment factors, rather than specific institutional factors. Nevertheless, the University compares employment rates by field of study against national figures to emphasise the national context in which we operate. In the 1997 survey, our employment rates were above the national average in a third of the fields of study, slightly higher than in 1996.

Fee-paying overseas student (FPOS) load has increased dramatically in the last few years, an increase that is primarily due to offshore load increasing almost threefold between 1995 and 1997. Total FPOS load increased its proportion of total load from 7.2 per cent in 1995 to 9.6 per cent in 1997 and we are actively seeking new markets.

Research

The University's research degree load is small and linked with areas of key research strength. Strategies have been put into place to support steady growth in this area.

The number of research degree completions has increased significantly since 1995 and this trend is expected to continue.

Research performance is monitored by the Research Policy Committee in relation to our Research Management Plan. Research income from all sources, weighted in the same way as the research quantum, increased per academic FTE by 21 per cent between 1996 and 1997. Weighted publications per academic FTE also increased between 1995 and 1996 to 0.40.

Equity

Success indicators for each of the University’s equity priority groups have been selected as the most indicative of the University’s efforts to achieve greater equality of educational outcomes as well as equality of opportunity. Other indicators, including access and retention, are comprehensively monitored as part of the University's equity plan. The success indicators become meaningful and provide insights towards improvement in performance only when they are contextualised by comparing the trends evident across:

• South Australia as a whole
• the higher education sector nationally

• a group of institutions selected for benchmarking on the basis of relevant shared characteristics.

The University has achieved a marked increase in the success indicators for Indigenous, rural and isolated students in the period 1995-6:

• the average success indicator for Indigenous students moved:
• above the SA average
• from below to almost equal the national average
• from 5^th to 4^th place amongst the selected equity benchmark institutions;
• the average success indicator for rural students moved:
• from below to slightly above the SA average
• from equal to above the national average
• from 5^th to 1^st place amongst our equity benchmark institutions;
• the average success indicator for isolated students moved:
• from below to equal the SA average
• from below to above the national average
• from 5^th to 2^nd place in the equity benchmark group.

While the average success indicators for both age groups of low socio-economic status (SES) students remained stable at the institutional level over the 1995-1996 period:

• the average success indicator for low SES students (15-25 years):
• moved from equal to above the SA average
• remained above the national average
• moved from 5^th to 4^th place amongst the selected equity benchmark institutions;
• the average success indicator for low SES students (25 years and older):
• remained equal to the SA average
• remained below the national average
• moved from 5^th to 3^rd place amongst the equity benchmark group.

Management

The proportion of gross income to the University from sources other than the Commonwealth has been increasing steadily over the last triennium, from 23 per cent in 1995 to 28 per cent in 1997.

The University monitors the participation of women in management as part of its Affirmative Action Plan. The proportion of female academic staff at this institution (41 per cent) is higher than the national average across all levels of full and fractional time academic staff. Women’s representation at senior academic levels increased from 19 per cent to 25 per cent between 1995 and 1997 and is targeted to increase further. Women’s representation amongst general staff is around 60 per cent, but at the senior levels of Higher Education Officer (HEO) 10 and above it decreased slightly between 1995 and 1997, from 31 per cent to 28 per cent.

Current figures on academic staff qualifications indicate that around 30 per cent of our academic staff have a doctorate. A range of strategies has been implemented to assist staff to gain doctorates.

Community service

The University relies on qualitative indicators to assess its performance in community service. We believe this is the most appropriate form of measurement for this area of activity given the difficulty experienced across the higher education sector in identifying any key indicators for community service which are both meaningful and capable of measurement. We therefore take a systematic approach to the use of qualitative performance information, similar to that of the Commonwealth University Management Benchmarking Club, which can distinguish between community service activities ranging along a continuum of development from the ad hoc and anecdotal to those which are highly systematic, creative and evidence-based.

Judgements about the quality of our community service over the period 1995-97 are based on the extent to which:

• a genuine engagement with community service is embedded across all areas of the University. This can be seen in the following examples:

• community service activities are now considered in the calculation of academic workloads
• all academic and administrative units now report on community service in their annual plan
• the calibre and number of entrants in the annual Chancellor’s Awards for Excellence in Community Service has increased
• there is a requirement for all community service activities to be planned and evaluated in consultation with the community partners.

• community service activities reflect and give meaning to the University’s mission through addressing unmet needs in communities where our contribution will have the greatest impact. There are many examples of this, including:

• an early intervention gym program for young children with disabilities offered by 3^rd year physiotherapy students is a service not provided by any other agency in the state;

• community service activities are integrated with and enhance the University’s core activities in teaching, research and consultancy. Indicators of this include:

• an increase in the number of opportunities for community service outcomes from student practicums and placements
• an increase in the number of research and consultancy projects which have a direct community benefit.

Other performance indicators

A number of other indicators are used to monitor trends in addition to the key indicators discussed above and outlined in the table below. These indicators are applied at the local level as part of the annual planning and review process and each faculty is required to explain and report on the implications of any trends. They include such measures as:

• Demand. As outlined in the discussion above, relevant and comprehensive measures of demand are being investigated. Trend data outlining first preferences to quota ratio and tertiary entrance scores are monitored and interrogated;
• Basis of admission for undergraduate students. The proportion of students admitted on bases other than their Year 12 results is around 50 per cent and this is higher than many other universities. Patterns by faculty and course are monitored;
• Retention and success rates for all undergraduate students by course and by faculty;
• Student load profile by level of course, mode and funding source for all faculties;
• CEQ results for all scales for each course, related to field of study at the institutional and national levels;
• Graduate destinations. Detailed analyses by course and by field of study;
• Revenue generation. Detailed monitoring of source of income by designated revenue categories;
• The proportion of bachelor degree graduates going on to further full-time study. Currently around 10 per cent of our bachelor graduates continue to full-time study, a rate which is similar to the ATN average; and
• Equity. While the measure of success is a key indicator, all measures including access, participation and retention are comprehensively monitored at the course, school, faculty and University levels.

Contacts

Professor Eleanor Ramsay
Pro Vice Chancellor, Equity and Development
Tel: (08) 8302 0157
Fax: (08) 8302 0225
Email: eleanor.ramsay@unisa.edu.au

Dr Robert Sumner
Manager, Planning
Tel: (08) 8302 0577
Fax: (08) 8302 0222
Email: bob.sumner@unisa.edu.au