Skip to content | Change text size
 

Academic Review Policy

Please note that this policy has not yet been revised or converted to the new format.

The guiding principles for academic review fit within the values and principles outlined in the Quality at Monash Policy. In that policy, seven key areas of values and principle are identified including:

  • creating the agenda for quality by recognising quality as concerned with ‘fitness for purpose’ in a unique and innovative university;
  • recognition that quality is the professional responsibility of each individual and work team;
  • the best way to effect quality assurance and accountability is through continuous quality improvement based on collaboration and the development of a learning organisation;
  • a commitment to develop policy so as to assure comparable treatment in all areas of the university, while leaving room for different areas to develop implementation for their particular contexts;
  • the value of an open and thoughtful approach to quality informed by international research and scholarship;
  • a planned and systematic approach to quality including ensuring that the results of monitoring and review are fed back in order to effect improvement;
  • recognition that both self-reflection and external points of reference provide valuable perspectives for further reflection and action.

In addition, a number of important guiding principles relating specifically to academic review are as follows.

  • the strategic directions of the university are of central importance for all reviews.
  • benchmarking leading to improvement is strongly encouraged, as is input from stakeholders.
  • academic reviews consider the effectiveness of processes and procedures, particularly as they are demonstrated through outcomes. Effective processes are best demonstrated by successful outcomes and reviews encourage a focus on outcomes.
  • the importance and relevance of external professional and accreditation reviews is acknowledged. Duplication is avoided by identifying those areas of professional and accreditation reviews that address the terms of reference for Monash academic review. Remaining areas are considered by, for example, negotiating additional terms of reference for professional reviews or by a supplementary report produced at the same time.

Scope of Academic Review

Academic Review is an integral part of Monash’s comprehensive review process by which the university systematically evaluates its activities and operations. The integrated nature of academic work means that all aspects of academic work are best considered at the same time. Academic reviews therefore include

  • courses including teaching, learning and assessment;
  • research and research training;
  • professional and community activities;
  • internal organisation, management, quality assurance and improvement

Unit of Academic Review

The unit for review may be the whole faculty, schools and departments within the faculty, or any combination of these as determined by the faculty.

Review Cycle

Each area of the university’s operations is normally reviewed every five years although a shorter cycle is discretionary.

Review Schedule

Each faculty publicises the schedule of academic reviews on its website. This information is linked to the Centre for Higher Education Quality’s review website.

Terms of Reference

Standard 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. Reviews may also include other areas or issues not covered in the standard terms of reference. The standard terms of reference for academic review cover the quality and adequacy of

  • organisational structure, management, planning, quality assurance and improvement;
  • human and physical resources, support services, information technology;
  • course and unit profiles;
  • student profile, teaching, learning and assessment; research and research training;
  • professional and community activities

The document Academic Review Procedures gives a full list of the standard terms of reference and detailed procedures for academic review.

Process of Academic Review

The academic review process consists of five phases

Phase one Self Review

The unit under review conducts a self-review and produces a self-review document that considers its directions, progress, achievements and strengths, as well as areas for development and improvement and the means of achieving these.

Phase two Review Panel appointed

The dean of the faculty selects a Review Panel which is approved by the DV-C (Academic and Planning) and DV-C (Research and Development

Phase three Review Process

The review process includes panel members receiving the self-review document, requesting further documentation if necessary and then undertaking a review visit.

Phase four Review Panel Report

The chair prepares the review report for the dean, normally within two months of the review visit.

Phase five Post review implementation

The Dean in consultation with the head of the unit being reviewed, decides priorities, allocates resources, and reports findings to university committees.

Purpose

This policy provides guidance to the university on the implementation of academic reviews. The purpose of academic review is to assist the university to assure itself of the quality of its academic endeavour and to utilise learning from this essentially developmental process in order to effect improvement.

Scope

This policy applies to all areas of academic endeavour

Related Documents

Governing Documents

Responsibilities for Implementation

  • University wide - Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research and Development), Deputy Vice Chancellor (Resources)
  • Faculty wide - Deans, Associate Deans Teaching and Research, Faculty Managers, Heads of Units

Review

Academic Board will consider this policy for review three years after approval or earlier if required.

Approved

Approved by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Planning) on 2 December 2002

Change to "Responsibilities for Implementation" made by Education Committee Meeting 6/2005, 26 October 2005.