Undertaking Program Reviews Policy

Document Number000624
Date Approved12 April 2006

1.      Rationale and Objectives

1.1.     This Policy and Procedure shall ensure that program reviews are undertaken in a consistent manner in line with the quality assurance mechanisms of the University.

2.      Interpretation

Nil

3.      Scope

3.1.     This Policy and Procedure will apply to all program reviews undertaken within the University.

4.      Provisions

4.1.     As a major component of the University’s quality assurance mechanisms, the Academic Senate requires that every program in the University will be externally reviewed on a five-year cycle approved by Academic Senate.

4.2.     Each review must address at least the Generic Terms of Reference for reviews approved by Academic Senate, but may also include more specific issues affecting the program on which guidance is sought.

4.3.     To promote efficiencies and to achieve the best outcome from the review process, programs that are similar in nature (undergraduate and postgraduate) should be reviewed at the same time. Core and directed courses offered within the program(s) must also be reviewed at the same time.

4.4.     The review team must include members external to the University with at least one employer, one senior academic and one graduate as well as a representative of University Services.

4.5.     The report of the review team must come to Faculty Board. Faculty Board must subsequently endorse an Action Plan responding to the review's recommendations (5.16) and forward this to the Teaching and Learning Committee and Academic Senate for noting.

4.6.     Revisions to the program(s) resulting from a program review will be forwarded to the Academic Senate through the Program and Course Approval Committee.

5.      Procedure

5.1.     Program Reviews are initiated by the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) (PVCs) of the Faculty(ies) responsible for the program(s). The Pro Vice-Chancellors may agree that one will have overall responsibility for the review. In the case of the programs and courses conducted by the English Language and Foundation Studies Centre the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will be responsible. Program Reviews should take place at least every five years on a schedule approved by Academic Senate

5.2.     Wherever possible for externally accredited programs, the accreditation process and the Program Review should be undertaken at the same time. Program Reviews should occur at least every five years regardless of the accreditation period, and include a review of recent Business Plans and all core courses and majors/specialisations within programs. Documentation from the accreditation process should be used to inform the review. Where programs are offered off-shore it must be demonstrated, through comparison with the domestic program, that standards and compatibility have been maintained.

5.3.     If accreditation and the review are to take place concurrently, or are integrated, or will be undertaken by the same team at different times, any variations in the procedures, team membership and the terms of reference from those set out below must be signed off by the PVC(s).

Terms of Reference must include a requirement to review core courses and majors as part of the five yearly program review cycle, and ask the following questions of the course under review:

  1. Does the course objective meet program requirements?
  2. Does course content satisfy course objectives?
  3. Does assessment test course objectives?
  4. Does learning support materials or facilities need to be upgraded?
  5. Has there been conformity to the principles adopted by Academic Senate as a result of the 2005 Course and Program Rationalisation process?

5.5.     The Program Convenor(s), assisted by appropriate Faculty administrative staff, is responsible for the development of the documentation necessary for the review.

5.6.     The Program Review will be undertaken by a Review Team consisting of:

  1. no less than four reviewers external to the University, including at least:
    1. one employer from a related industry/service,
    2. one senior academic teaching in a related field,
    3. a graduate of the Program(s);
  2. no less than one senior member of the Academic Staff of the University who is not teaching into the program(s); 
  3. one member of the University Services Division, nominated by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Services); and
  4. one member of the Centre for Teaching and Learning.

The Chair shall be appointed by the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) from amongst the senior academic members of the team.

5.7.     Where multiple programs, or multiple majors/specialisations, are being reviewed by the same Review Team, the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) may establish working parties to examine particular areas not represented on the Review Team to provide reports on those areas. The Review Team will also have the right to invite persons with particular expertise not represented on the team to assist the team in its deliberations.

5.8.     The Program Convenor(s), in conjunction with the Assistant Dean(s) (Teaching and Learning) of the Faculty(ies), will provide for the consideration of the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) of the Faculty(ies):

  1. draft terms of reference, based on a set of Generic Terms of Reference approved by the Academic Senate to which additional items may be added; and
  2. the names of at least ten possible Review Team members.

The selection of a review team and the drafting of terms of reference should be undertaken early in the semester preceding the date for the scheduled review, to ensure that the review is conducted at the time scheduled by Academic Senate.

5.9.     The Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) of the Faculty(ies) in consultation with the Heads of Schools will consider the draft terms of reference and the membership of the review team.

5.10.   The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), the President of the Academic Senate and members of the Faculty(ies) are requested to comment on the draft terms of reference, and the proposed review team membership.

5.11.   After considering comments provided by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), President of Academic Senate and members of the Faculty(ies) the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) determines the membership of the review team.

5.12.   After considering comments provided by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), the President of Academic Senate, members of the Faculty(ies) and the review team, the terms of reference are finalised and approved by the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s).

5.13.   Notice of the review, including the membership of the review team and the terms of reference, is forwarded to the Academic Senate for noting.

5.14.   The review team will visit the University, and conduct interviews with the Program Convenor(s), students, members of staff involved in teaching in the Program(s) and any other person or people relevant to the review team's deliberations.

5.15.   The Chair of the review team, in consultation with the members of the team, will provide, normally within six and no more than eight weeks of the completion of the site visit,  a report to the PVC(s) reflecting the review team's examination of the documentation provided prior to the review, and any further information obtained during its visit to the University.

The report will:

  1. address all the terms of reference for the review;
  2. comment on any other matters arising during the review process; and
  3. provide recommendations for improvement.

5.16.   The Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) will request the Program Convenor(s) in conjunction with the Assistant Dean(s) (Teaching and Learning) to provide - normally within six and no longer than eight weeeks of the submission of the report - responses to the report and the recommendations and an Action Plan outlining:

  1. their support or otherwise for each of the recommendations;
  2. the actions to be undertaken;
  3. who is responsible for the action; and
  4. a timeline for implementation.

The Heads of Schools who have a major role in the program(s) will need to be consulted in preparing this documentation.

5.17.   The Review Report, with a draft response and Action Plan, are forwarded by the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s) to:

  1. the Faculty Board(s); and
  2. the Teaching and Learning Committee, 

for comment.

5.18.   A revised Action Plan incorporating advice from Faculty Board and TLC is sent to Faculty Board for approval and to Academic Senate for noting.

5.19.   The Program Convenor(s) is responsible for implementation of the actions arising from the program review, in accordance with the timeline indicated in the approved Action Plan, and in consultation with the Heads of School involved in the program(s).

5.20.   The Program Convenor(s) and the Assistant Dean(s) (Teaching and Learning) must report annually to the Faculty Board(s), TLC and Academic Senate on the implementation of the approved Action Plan. The report should occur as part of the standard annual report on the program's performance.

5.21.   When all actions have been completed, the Faculty Board(s) and the Academic Senate will be informed.

5.22.   The outcomes of the review and the actions resulting from the recommendations will inform the next program review.

6.      Checklist for the Review Documentation

6.1.     The Program Convenor(s) must provide the following information to assist the program review process:

6.1.1.       The principles adopted by Academic Senate as a result of the 2005 Course and Program Rationalisation process.

6.1.2.       A summary statement on the performance of the program(s), based on the information listed below.

6.1.3.       A description of program and course content.

6.1.4.       The report of the previous review indicating outcomes/implementation.

6.1.5.       Annual Program Performance Indicators including:

  1. trends over the last five years in: demand (commencing EFTSL); attrition; progression; CSQ results;
  2. progress in the mapping and integration of graduate attributes;
  3. the latest CEQ data (including reference to national benchmarks); and
  4. GDS data on the employment status and salary range of graduates.

6.1.6.       Core and directed course performance report that examines whether:

  1. the course objectives meet program requirements;
  2. course content satisfies course objectives;
  3. assessment tests course objectives, and
  4. learning support materials or facilities need to be upgraded.

6.1.7.       Staff input – submissions, surveys.

6.1.8.       Student input – submissions, focus groups.

6.1.9.       Results from the Graduate Destination survey.

6.1.10.    A Checklist of graduate attributes for each program, that demonstrates which courses (and which assessment items within courses) test the graduate attributes that form the graduate profile for each program.

6.1.11.    A summary of Course Assessment Returns for core courses, including comments by Course Coordinators on student evaluation.

6.1.12.    Faculty and School Strategic Plans.

6.1.13.    Any additional information relevant for the evaluation of the program(s).

6.1.14.    Report on the strategies implemented for inclusion of students with a disability.

6.2.     Where possible, the following information should be given:

6.2.1.       Alumni input random survey.

6.2.2.       Summary comment on similar offerings at other institutions – program/contents.

Approval AuthorityAcademic Senate
Date Approved12 April 2006
Amendment HistoryAmended 1 January 2008 to align with policy changes approved in 2007.