Content
Program Review - Procedures
Parent Policy: Program Review - Academic Policy
Approval authority: Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Responsible officer: Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality)
Designated officer:
Date of approval: 3 January 2012
Date last amended:
Effective starting date: 1 January 2012
Any procedures replaced by these procedures: Major Program Review – Interim Procedures
Definitions
For the purposes of these procedures, the following definitions apply:
“Program” means a set of structured courses undertaken by a student in order to meet the requirements for an award *.
“Executive Dean” means the Executive Dean responsible for a particular course or program of study and includes a person acting for the time being in such position.
“Program cluster” means programs in a cognate discipline that are grouped for the purposes of a program review.
“Review officer” means the person/position in a Faculty who/that has Faculty responsibility for preparing for, progressing and following-up on a program review.
“Review panel” means the persons appointed to undertake a review of one or more programs.
“Review support officer” means a member of University staff who provides primary support to a review panel and support to a review officer in organising a review.
* Includes a set of structured courses designed to assist with the transition to award studies.
Procedures
1 Clustering and scheduling of reviews, including appointment of review officer and review support officer
1.1 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) maintains records of the dates by which each program must be subject to a major seven-yearly review.
1.2 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) liaises with Executive Deans or their nominees in:
- identifying programs that should be clustered for the purpose of a program review, and usually this is on the basis of the programs being in the same discipline or field of education; and
- proposing a rolling seven-year schedule for review of programs in light of the dates by which each program must be subject to a program review.
1.3 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) assigns one of its staff to act as a review support officer for each review of clustered programs unless resource constraints make this impossible, in which case the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) will consult the Deputy Vice-Chancellor with a view to appointing a review support officer from beyond the office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) for one or more reviews.
1.4 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) develops an initial draft seven-year schedule for review of clustered programs, including milestone dates for the review, and:
- confirms with each Executive Dean or nominee that the schedule and clustering of programs is appropriate; and
- presents the schedule for review of clustered programs to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for approval together with advice that the schedule is as agreed with Executive Deans or their nominees.
1.5 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) consults Executive Deans or their nominees annually in proposing additions to the rolling seven-year schedule to incorporate reviews in subsequent years.
1.6 Any changes to the sequence of the reviews require the approval of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
1.7 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) provides a copy of the current approved schedule to Executive Deans, Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching), and all Heads of School, and publishes the current approved schedule on the University’s Staff Portal.
2 Advance notice and reminders of review
2.1 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality), at least one year prior to the date by which a review must be completed, provides the relevant Executive Dean, Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) and Head of School with:
- written advice of a forthcoming program review, together with details of the relevant University review personnel and milestone dates;
- copies of any associated program review guidelines, manuals, checklists, flowcharts or the like, and
- a suggestion that an initial meeting of the relevant University review personnel be convened to confirm the terms of reference and progress the review, if this has not already occurred.
2.2 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality), at least six months prior to the date by which a review must be completed, consults the review support officer to ascertain progress with review preparations and, if necessary, requests the review support officer to remind the other review personnel of the milestone dates for the review.
3 Review planning meetings
3.1 Review planning meetings involving the, Executive Dean or nominee, Head of School, review officer and review support officer are held well in advance of the first milestone date for the review in order to:
- clarify the nature and purpose of the review;
- clarify the roles of staff involved in the program review;
- consider the need for any variations to the standard set of terms of reference (refer to item 4 below);
- identify and discuss possible members and possible Chairperson of the review panel in light of the terms of reference (refer to items 4 and 6 below);
- determine the overall contents of a review portfolio (refer to item 5 below);
- develop a timeline of key events and activities for the review, including the proposed length and dates for a review panel site visit;
- agree on a broad indicative program for the site visit that, among other things, identifies likely interviewee/meeting groups and potential interviewees, including external stakeholders;
- identify groups/targets to be invited to make submissions to the review panel;
- clarify that the relevant faculty is responsible for funding all review-related expenditure;
- reach agreement on honoraria to be offered to external panel members and the Chairperson; and
- make clear the actions that are needed following receipt of the review report, e.g. development of a response to the report and a draft improvement plan to address findings and recommendations.
Back to top
4 Terms of reference for program reviews
4.1 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor, after considering advice from appropriate University bodies, approves a standard set of terms of reference for all program reviews (refer to Appendix A).
4.2 No element in the standard set of terms of reference may be excluded except with the written approval of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and usually only in cases where a program has been subject to recent external accreditation and there is overlap between foci for the external accreditation and any of the specific terms of reference for a program review.
4.3 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor may require the incorporation of additional terms of reference, and Executive Deans may propose additional terms of reference for specific program reviews which, subject to the written approval of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, may be included.
5 Review portfolio preparation
5.1 The review officer is responsible for preparation and production of a review portfolio to be submitted to the review panel by the relevant milestone date in the review schedule.
5.2 The portfolio contains essential information about the program/s to be reviewed, and supporting evidence, and is the starting point for the review.
5.3 The portfolio should be structured to reflect the standard terms of reference for program reviews and accommodate review of a number of programs simultaneously.
5.4 The proposed structure and contents of the portfolio should be discussed with the review support officer to ensure its quality and completeness.
5.5 The final portfolio is:
- approved by the Executive Dean of the Faculty;
- submitted through the review support officer to the review panel by the portfolio milestone date given in the review schedule; and
- made available to members of the University community and other identified stakeholders.
6 Review panel
6.1 The panel should comprise at least:
- a chairperson who currently occupies or recently occupied a professorial level position in another Australian university in a discipline or field of education pertinent to the programs to be reviewed, and who has past experience in undertaking program reviews or is an experienced Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) or Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) auditor and who has no past or current formal association with the University;
- a member drawn from a relevant industry or professional association or from amongst the employers of graduates from the programs to be reviewed, and who is neither a past nor current employee of the University; and
- a member who is an experienced academic staff member or a professorial level adjunct member of the University who has no past or current involvement with the programs to be reviewed.
6.2 With the approval of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the size of the panel and composition of the panel membership can be altered, providing that the number of external members remains equal to or greater than the internal members.
6.3 The review officer:
- in light of discussions and decisions at review planning meetings and after the terms of reference are approved, approaches potential panel members and a potential Chairperson
- documents a short list of persons to be appointed as panel members or Chairperson, including full contact details and information on why each person would be an appropriate appointment; and
- seeks approval from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, through the Executive Dean, for appointment of the short-listed persons as members.
6.4 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor appoints the panel members and Chairperson, and provides the review support officer with a copy of the signed review panel appointment form.
6.5 Members of the review panel:
- are required to enter into an agreement to protect University intellectual property and maintain the confidentiality of any corporate or personal information made known to them during the review process; and
- are reimbursed for all out-of-pocket expenses and members other than employees of the University may receive an honorarium for their contribution to the review.
6.6 Once all members and the Chairperson have agreed in writing to accept membership of the review panel, the review support officer becomes the conduit for communications between the University and the review panel.
7 Panel and University review personnel planning meetings
7.1 On the request of the panel chairperson, review planning meetings involving the review panel, Executive Dean, review officer and review support officer may be held in order to discuss matters such as, requests for additional information and the organisation of the site visit.
8 Site visit by review panel
8.1 All program reviews identified in the review schedule include a site visit to the University by the review panel.
8.2 During the site visit, usually two or three days, the review panel:
- will interview/meet with a representative sample of persons with a stake in the programs under review, including for example current students, recent graduates, staff teaching in or providing support services for the programs, staff with management responsibilities for the programs, members of academic committees, external members of faculty academic/disciplinary advisory committees, employers of graduates and members of related professional/industry associations; and
- may inspect the physical teaching and other facilities and resources provided to support the programs under review.
8.3 The Review Officer with the support of Faculty staff is responsible for organising the attendance of the representative sample of persons with a stake in the programs, as identified in 8.2.
9 Review report
9.1 The review panel submits a report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor on its findings in relation to each of the terms of reference, including any recommendations, usually by no later than four to five weeks after conclusion of the site visit.
9.2 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor on receipt of the final report provides a copy to the Executive Dean of the relevant faculty. The Executive Dean is required to develop a response to the report for the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. The report and the report response are presented to Academic Board.
9.3 The review support officer publishes the review report on the Staff Portal and advises the University community of its availability.
Back to top
10 Response to review report and improvement plan
10.1 The Executive Dean of the Faculty offering the reviewed programs:
- initiates discussion of the review report by relevant faculty staff and committees and, if required with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor;
- develops a written response to the report using a standard template;
- uses that response to inform development of a draft improvement plan for one or more of the programs or to propose discontinuation of one or more of the programs; and
- within eight weeks of receipt of the review report, submits the written response and draft improvement plan or proposals for discontinuation to the Academic Board.
11 Academic Board decision on accreditation status of programs reviewed
11.1 The Academic Board considers the response and draft improvement plan from the Faculty, and any associated proposals and:
- specifies any changes required to be made to the improvement plan;
- makes a decision whether to approve the implementation plan, including any required changes; and
- makes a decision whether to:
- approve continued accreditation of one or more of the programs for a further seven years subject to implementation of the improvement plan and a further review within seven years; or
- approve the initiation of the process for discontinuation of one or more of the programs from a specified date.
12 Reporting and monitoring
12.1 The Executive Dean of the Faculty offering the reviewed programs presents a written report on progress in implementing the improvement plan twice-yearly to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for consideration at Academic Board, until such time as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that the improvement plan has been fully implemented.
12.2 The Academic Board monitors the progress in implementation of improvements to the reviewed programs through consideration of the twice-yearly progress reports submitted by the relevant Executive Dean.
13 Feedback on improvements
13.1 The relevant Executive Dean provides timely written feedback to the University community and external stakeholders on improvements made to one or more of the programs as a consequence of the review.
13.2 A copy of the written feedback to the University community is provided to the Academic Secretariat which records its provision in the reviews-audits database.
14 Program Review support materials
14.1 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) develops and makes available review support materials such as manuals, guidelines, templates, indicative role statements, checklists and flowcharts to assist all personnel involved in program reviews.
15 Program Review Repository
15.1 The office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and Quality) is responsible for maintaining a repository of information relating to program reviews that have been undertaken, this should include for each program review:
- details of the panel membership;
- a copy of the review portfolio (and additional information);
- a copy of the review report;
- the Faculty response to the review report and implementation plan; and
- the progress reports on the implementation of the plan.
END
Appendix A: Standard Terms of Reference for Program Reviews (template)
The template for terms of reference for program reviews is available on the USC portal.
Back to top