OLT/Higher Education Standards Panel Research Fellowship

Response by the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL)

This response was prepared on behalf of CAUL by Anne Horn, chair of the CAUL Learning & Teaching Advisory Committee and the CAUL Executive.

Contact the CAUL Office at or 02 6125 2990

31October 2014

Introduction

The Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) is pleased to have the opportunity to make a submission to the OLT/Higher Education Standards Panel Research Fellowship.

CAUL, as the peak leadership organisation for university libraries in Australia, seeks to enhance the value and capacity of Australian university libraries and to influence scholarship, learning, and information policies and practices relevant to Australian higher education. Our members are the University Librarians or equivalent of institutions which have representation on Universities Australia.

CAUL is committed to supporting transformations in the role of university libraries as partners in learning and teaching, and their major contribution to the student experience.

The contribution made by university libraries is critical to the success of Australia’s higher education system, one of the chief components of a successful national research and innovation system. Of particular relevance is CAUL’s encouragement of, and involvement in:

exploring evaluative methods that will assist members in providing evidence and reporting on their contribution to learning outcomes and attainment of graduate attributes.
assisting members to contribute to e-learning developments, including technology enabled learning environments and online delivery modes such as MOOCs.
monitoring and advising members on developments in the integration of publisher e-learning resources and platforms into course curricula and university learning environments.

Further details about CAUL and its activities can be found at

Submission

General comments

Libraries provide essential infrastructure and services required by higher education providers as they embrace new modes of delivery. The information landscape is increasingly complex and new challenges continue to arise as the modes of delivery, and partnerships with other providers and commercial entities, raise questions of compliance and risk. Education and advice on publishers’e-learning resources and platforms, copyright and open access are examples of some of the key areas where libraries have a responsibility to advise and educate the university community, and are held accountable for compliance with relevant legislation.

The Council of Australian University Librarians’ submission to the Proposed Higher Education Standards Framework – Consultation Draft April 2014 is attached for information. In this submission, CAUL broadly supported the proposed standards framework. It was noted, however, that while the proposed standards framework was concise, statements about reasonable accommodation that have been used in other documents were lacking. This absence of a ‘reasonable’ qualification is seen by CAUL members to be particularly relevant under Section 3.3 Learning Resources and Educational Support.

The questions included in your preliminary request for information are far-reaching, with layers of complexity. Library services, knowledge and expertise make a significant contribution to achieving learning outcomes in multiple contexts including the following, identified through Communique Number 13- October 2014 (Higher Education Standards Panel):

online learning
off-shore delivery
individual learning plans
joint degrees across countries
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
Work-based learning
Multi-campus and inter-institutional benchmarking
Collaborative and cross-sector programs

It is understood that you request for information is preliminary and that information will be used to shape further consultation. The CAUL Executive would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to enable a deeper conversation and understanding of the issues from our areas of expertisethat the short time frame for a written response will not allow. Given that the Proposed Higher Education Standards Frameworkmakes no explicit reference to libraries, CAUL members are concerned that the Framework does not reflect current assessment and benchmarking practices. We can only attribute this to a missed opportunity for deeper conversations around the development of the higher education standards and the relevant library sectors.

Response to Questions

CAUL sees value in a further dialogue around Questions 1 and 5.

If your institution is engaged in higher education delivery via the models listed below, do you experience any impediments arising from the current Threshold Standards or the proposed Higher Education Standards Framework? If so what are the difficulties?

-online or open learning units

-work integrated learning (such as internships, placements)

-units delivered by another provider (e.g. overseas)

-other (please specify) ‘non-traditional’ delivery modes?

CAUL members provide essential infrastructure and services required by higher education providers engaged in each of the modes listed. Libraries delivering services to meet the proposed threshold standards will be required to assure that all students regardless of mode of study or cohort group do not face any unexpected barriers when accessing learning resources. There is no question that this is a reasonable expectation of students and of providers. There should also be no doubt that there are and will be difficulties in a dynamic education environment where business models for content production and access continue to shift, shaped by technologies and networks, ownership and rights management.

5. As these forms of study become more prevalent, what types of safeguards and quality control measures do you believe will be necessary?

We note that the production of a guide/ reference point/ code of practice for higher education providers is a key outcome for your project and believe that we are well placed to contribute to this work.

CAUL members are concerned that the standards may result in a higher administrate burden for libraries, for which they do not have the capacity to meet. A fuller understanding of the potential difficulties and guides to what is ‘reasonable’ will be of benefit to the sector.