Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Threshold quality parameters in hybrid higher education

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality assurance conventions are being challenged by emerging business scenarios with alluring economies. This paper analyses shaping contexts, resulting hybridised forms of higher education, and consequences for quality assurance. It devotes sustained attention to unpacking what, as a result of contemporary reconfigurations, would appear to be pressing current change/differentiation frontiers—engineering an engaged learning experience, and authenticating learning outcomes. These parameters are analysed, with consideration of development options. The paper concludes by emphasising the consequent and urgent imperatives for workforce development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See www.apolloglobal.us, www.laureate.net, www.universityventuresfund.com, www.educomp.com, www.academicpartnerships.com, www.pearsoned.com and www.seek.com.

References

  • Auguste, B. G., Cota, A., Jayaram, K., & Laboissière, M. C. A. (2010). Winning by degrees: The strategies of highly productive higher-education institutions. Accessed February 1, 2013, from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/winning-by-degrees.

  • Australian Government. (2012). MyUniversity. Accessed December 1, 2012, from http://myuniversity.gov.au.

  • Australian Trade Commission. (2013). More than MOOCS: Opportunities arising from disruptive technologies in education. Canberra: Australian Trade Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: The anatomy of urban crisis. The American Economic Review, 57(3), 415–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston Consulting Group (BCG). (2013). Australia’s International Education Industry: Analysis of strategic trends. Melbourne: BCG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1998). Co-opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation. New York: Doubleday.

  • Carlton, S. (2012). For-profit semi-privatised university education: Catalysts, benefits and challenges for Australia and beyond. University of Melbourne: Unpublished masters thesis.

  • Chakroun, B. (2010). National qualification frameworks: From policy borrowing to policy learning. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (2011). The innovative university. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coaldrake, P. (2000). Rethinking academic and university work. Higher Education Management, 12(3), 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2009). Development of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE). Higher Education, 60(10), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2013). Assessing higher education outcomes and performance. In S. Marginson (Ed.), Tertiary education policy in Australia. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2012). Recasting the academic workforce: Why the attractiveness of the academic profession needs to be increased and eight possible strategies for how to go about this from an Australian perspective. Higher Education, 64, 875–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., & McCormick, A. C. (Eds.). (2014). Engaging university students: International insights from system-wide studies. Dordrect: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., & Richardson, S. (2011). An international assessment of bachelor degree graduate’s learning outcomes. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23(3), 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H., & Seifert, T. (2010). Linking assessment for learning, improvement and accountability. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Accessed April 1, 2013, from www.academicpartnerships.com.

  • Edwards, D., Wilkinson, D., Coates, H., & Canny, B. (2012). The Australian medical assessment collaboration: Developing the foundations for a national assessment of medical student learning outcomes. Sydney: Office of Learning and Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013). Horizon 2020 program. Accessed March 1, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020.

  • Ewell, P. T., & Jones, D. P. (1996). Indicators of “Good Practice” in Undergraduate Education: A handbook for development and implementation. Boulder: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

  • Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York: Higher Education Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, R., Krause, K.-L., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009. Parkville: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennie, T., & Price, I. (2012). Disruptive innovation and the higher education ecosystem post-2012. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, W., & Katsomitros, A. (2012). MOOCs and disruptive innovation: The challenge to HE business models. London: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (2013). MIT open course ware (OCW). Accessed March 1, 2013, from http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm.

  • Massy, B. (2013). Initiatives for containing the cost of higher education. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, V., & Keevy, J. (2010). Is the national qualifications framework a broken promise? A dialogue. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, A., Sonnemann, J., & McGannon, C. (2013). edu: Online technology and higher education. Parkville: The Grattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Online Learning Task Force. (2011). Collaborate to compete: Seizing the opportunity of online learning for UK higher education. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2013). The UK quality code for higher education. Accessed February 1, 2013, from www.qaa.ac.uk.

  • Radloff, A., Coates, H., Taylor, R., James, R., & Krause, K. (2013). UES National Report. Canberra: Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, K., & Webster, F. (Eds.). (2002). The Virtual University? Knowledge, markets and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staton, M. (2012). Disaggregating the components of a college degree. Paper presented at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., United States.

  • Sullivan, T. A., Mackie, C., Massy, W. F., & Sinha, E. (2012). Improving measurement of productivity in higher education. Washington: National Academics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). (2013). Draft standards for course design and learning outcomes. Accessed April 1, 2013, from http://www.HEstandards.gov.au.

  • The Economist. (2013). All eyes on the sharing economy. The Economist. London: The Economist Magazine.

  • Tuning Project. (2013). Tuning educational structures. Accessed October 1, 2013, from http://www.unideusto.org/tuning.

  • Twigg, C. (2005). Improving quality and reducing costs: The case for redesign. Saratoga Springs: National Center for Academic Transformation.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Phoenix. (2012). University of Phoenix 2011 Annual Report. Accessed April 1, 2013, from http://cdn.assets-phoenix.net/content/dam/altcloud/doc/about_uopx/academic-annual-report-2011.pdf.

  • van der Molen, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). Virtual University? Educational environments of the future. London: Portland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vught, F. (2012). Diversity, Transparency and Institutional Profiling in Higher Education. Paper presented at the LH Martin Institute Symposium on Strategic Differentiation and Sameness in Australian Higher Education: Institutional Profiling and Transparency. Melbourne, LH Martin Institute.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Hamish Coates & Marian Mahat

Authors
  1. Hamish Coates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marian Mahat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamish Coates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coates, H., Mahat, M. Threshold quality parameters in hybrid higher education. High Educ 68, 577–590 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9729-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9729-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation