Academic Review Guidelines

As self-accrediting institution, Monash University is responsible for maintaining the quality of its academic standards.  The academic review is one mechanism which enables the external verification of these standards and assures the  quality of our activities.  

It is important, therefore,  for all areas undergoing academic review to ensure that they have met the mandatory requirements as set out in the academic review policy and procedures. 

The following guidelines have been prepared to further assist academic areas, including faculties, schools, departments, institutes, centres or academic fields, prepare for review.

It is acknowledged that the University comprises distinct and diverse organisational units which carry out academic activities.  The following guidelines outline a general approach to an academic review and as such are able to be adapted to particular local responsibilities.   As noted in the Academic Review Policy, The Monash Quality Unit is available to assist academic areas in obtaining approval from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality) when changes to the guidelines are requested.

1. Review Cycle

Each academic area is reviewed at least every 5 years although a shorter cycle is discretionary. Information obtained from routine and more frequent performance feedback and monitoring mechanisms (such as stakeholder satisfaction surveys) provides input to these reviews.

New centres and institutes must undergo internal review within the first two years of their establishment.

2. Review Schedule

Each academic area publicises the schedule of reviews on its website. This information is also linked to the Office of Planning and Quality (OPQ) website.

3. Terms of Reference

Terms of reference ensure consistency of reviews across the institution. They also ensure that reviews meet the requirements of and are aligned with University strategic planning and policy documents. The terms of reference for academic reviews may be widened by the academic area to include issues not covered in the standard terms of reference. Any request to reduce the terms of reference needs prior approval from the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality).

4. Self Review

Self review is the first stage of the review process. It presents an opportunity for the academic area to consider its directions, progress, achievements and strengths, as well as areas for development and improvement and the means of achieving these.

A team is appointed to lead the self review and produce a self review document.  It is expected that the team leading the self review will consult broadly and engage staff of the academic area in the process of review and reflection,  The self review document forms the basis of the external review that will follow. The self review document is normally up to 7,000 words beginning with an executive summary including a prioritised list of recommendations and is structured to reflect the terms of reference. It may be appropriate for smaller academic areas to develop shorter reports.

The fundamental purpose of the self review document is to provide a summary of the outcomes of the self review process, to identify areas where the unit is performing well and areas where opportunities for improvement have been identified. As the benefits of undertaking this process should outweigh the costs (time, resources and effort), the academic area should ensure that the costs are not excessive and that the benefits are realised.

A ‘helicopter view’ should be taken, which gives an overview of all relevant aspects of the academic area according to the terms of reference, and allows for closer scrutiny of particular areas where needed.

Information, data and supporting documentation normally regarded as useful for the self review document, together with guidelines for drafting the self review report are available from the OPQ website (attachment 1. attachment 2).

The secretary posts the self review document on the intranet.   There is then a request across the University for submissions in response to the self review document.

5. External Review

The second stage comprises the review of the academic area by an external review panel.

a)    Panel Membership

Review panel members are recommended by the dean, if within faculties, or head of academic area and approved by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research).

Selection of panel members is based on their experience and expertise with regard to the terms of reference. Panels normally include: 

• an appointee of the Vice-Chancellor’s Group;
• two senior academics from relevant areas but external to Monash University (an international perspective is encouraged);
• a senior Monash academic external to the area and usually external to the academic area;
• a member of an appropriate professional association or society;
• a member of an appropriate industry or employer group; and
• a senior student or recent graduate.
  
  

The dean or head of academic area nominates the chair of the review panel and additional members as appropriate. The secretary to the panel may be the faculty manager, his or her internal nominee, or an externally appointed person.

Once the panel has been appointed, OPQ is provided with the names of the panel members.

b)    External Review Process

It is expected that Panel members receive the self review document together with any submissions received at least four weeks before the scheduled visit.  Panel members may seek further documentation if necessary. The secretary will convene the review visit in consultation with the dean or head of academic area and panel members.

During the visit, the panel will meet with interested parties, tour facilities, receive submissions and requests for interviews and at the end of the visit, present preliminary findings.

Where reviews involve teaching or research on more than one campus, or teaching programs facilitated by partner organisations, the review panel will determine in consultation with the head of the academic area the need to travel to locations other than the administrative centre of the area.

As part of the review process, the panel may arrange interviews with key stakeholders. These would normally be planned in consultation with the dean or head of the academic area and arranged by the secretary.  It should be kept in mind, however, that the purpose of these interviews is to verify statements made in the self review document. It would be expected that the academic area has processes for obtaining and acting on stakeholder feedback, and these should form part of the self review report.

A typical calendar of events is available from the OPQ website (attachment 3). 

c)     Review Report

The chair of the review panel works closely with the secretary to draft the review report which must be submitted to the dean or head of academic area within two months of the review visit.

The review report can be up to 7,000 words in length, beginning with an executive summary including a prioritised list of recommendations.  Major headings normally follow the terms of reference and self review document, with one or two paragraphs for each finding.   The usual format for the report is available from the OPQ website (attachment 6).

 Once the report has been completed, OPQ is sent a copy.

6. Post-Review Implementation

The third stage of the review process is the consideration of recommendations made by the external review panel, the development of an action plan and its implementation.

a)    Developing an Action Plan

On receiving the review report, the head of the academic area:

• reviews the recommendations, risk management issues and their assigned priorities;
• develops an action plan (and if necessary modifies the academic area’s operational plan);
• reports major issues or findings to the Vice Chancellor’s Group and the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality) who will refer relevant sections to the Monash Research Committee and/or Education Committee for comment and endorsement.

The final action plan is submitted by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality) to Academic Board for approval of academic matters and to the Vice-Chancellor’s Group.

A template for a standard action plan is available from the OPQ website (attachment 7).

b)    Post-Review Reporting

The secretary must lodge with OPQ within two weeks of development of the action plan, the review report and action plan for uploading to OPQ’s Academic Review database.

The dean or head of the academic area has ongoing consultation with relevant members of the Vice-Chancellor’s Group and the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality) concerning implementation of the plan.

The Associate Dean (Education) and Associate Dean (Research) provide reports on implementation of the implementation plan to the Education Committee and Monash Research Committee, respectively.

Twelve months following the review, the dean or head of the academic area must provide a progress report on the implementation of the review recommendations to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality).  The secretary must lodge the progress report with OPQ for uploading to the Academic Review database.

A final report based on outcomes must be sent to OPQ once all actions have been implemented.

7. Support

Quality assurance and improvement is a core responsibility for each academic area.  Support with review preparation is available from OPQ.  The following documents have been prepared to assist with the review of academic areas and are available from the OPQ website:

• Sources for Information, Data and Support Documentation (attachment 1) 
• Guidelines for Drafting Self Review Report (attachment 2) 
• Typical Calendar of Events (attachment 3) 
• Areas of Responsibility (attachment 4) 
• Documents Required by the External Review Panel (attachment 5) 
• Format of Typical External Review Report  (attachment 6)
• Format of Implementation Plan (attachment 7) 

Other documents available on request from OPQ:

• Sample Questions to Assist with Self Review Preparations