|
|
|
Academic Review Procedures
Please note that these procedures have not yet been revised or converted to the new format .
Terms of Reference for Academic Review
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 reviews consider outcomes together with the effectiveness of processes and procedures in the following areas
- 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
In more detail, they cover:
Organisational structure and management
- appropriateness and effectiveness of organisational structure
- leadership in maintaining and developing academic standing and reputation
- implementation of previous review findings
Effectiveness of processes and procedures for:
- alignment of objectives with university strategic directions, policy and planning documents, including: Leading the Way; Learning and Teaching Plan; Research and Research Training Management Plan; Support Services Directions; Global Development Plan; and alignment with national policies if appropriate
- systematic quality assurance and improvement including planning, monitoring, reviewing and using feedback for improvement in all areas
- financial management including alignment of planning, budgeting and funding
- consulting with staff, students, professional associations and others to gain feedback for planning and improvement
- identifying, considering and taking appropriate action with regard to problems raised by staff, students and other stakeholders
- induction and mentoring of new staff; staff training and development
- performance management
- realisation of equity objectives
- developing promotional activities and materials
Human and Physical Resources, Support Services including Information Technology
- academic, administrative, professional and technical staffing profile in relation to objectives and plans
- provision and utilisation of appropriate teaching, research and administrative accommodation and equipment
- appropriate provision and utilisation of support services
- appropriate provision and utilisation of information technology
Course and Subject Profile
- the range and scope of courses (eg majors) and subjects
- alignment of courses and subjects with faculty, school/department, course, program and university objectives
- course structures and relationship of courses and subjects with other faculty or university offerings
- currency and relevance of subjects and courses with regard to industry and professional needs
- development of flexible entry, exit and pathway opportunities
- processes and procedures for introducing, resourcing, revising and rationalising courses and subjects to ensure effective use of resources
- appropriateness and equivalence of courses of the same academic value offered in different contexts (eg interdisciplinary, joint, partnership, multi campus, off-shore)
- effectiveness of course advising
Student Profile, Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Processes and procedures to monitor, maintain and develop:
- understanding of the student profile including changes and trends
- student progress and achievement
- Monash graduate attributes
- student-centred and flexible approaches to learning and teaching
- appropriate educational use of technology
- internationalisation of the curriculum and learning opportunities
- cross and interdisciplinary opportunities
- the scope, purpose, range of assessment tasks and alignment with learning objectives and outcomes
- the regular provision of feedback to students
- student learning and other support services
- academic excellence in teaching, learning and assessment
Research and Research Training
Processes and procedures to monitor, maintain and develop:
- excellence in research and research training
- the range and scope of research activity
- alignment of research with faculty and university plans
- implementation of Monash University Research Policy
- interrelationships and mutual support between teaching and research
- collaborative research with other university units, and externally with other institutions and with industry and professional organisations
- academic freedom with regard to research
- intellectual property provisions
- research supervision
- induction, training and opportunities for interaction among postgraduate students
- induction and support for staff new to research
Professional and Community Activities
Processes and procedures to monitor, maintain and develop:
- professional and community access to expertise and resources
- links with professional associations, employer groups, public and private sectors, the local community
- staff participation in local, national and international professional societies and activities
- public awareness of the contribution to society made by the unit
- contact with alumni
Unit of Review for Academic Review
It is the responsibility of the faculty to determine the ‘unit of review’. In academic reviews, the ‘unit of review’ may be the whole faculty, schools and departments within the faculty, or any combination of these. Faculties may also wish to schedule other reviews, such as reviews of faculty-based centres with research or other academic responsibilities, or reviews of programs and courses. Other units with academic responsibilities but which lie outside of the faculty structure are scheduled for review by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor to whom they report. It is the responsibility of faculties and appropriate Deputy Vice-Chancellors to define units for review and to schedule reviews.
Throughout these procedures the term ‘unit’ is used to denote the entity being reviewed, which may be a faculty, school, department, centre or other organisational unit.
Review Cycle
Each area of the university’s operations is normally reviewed every 5 years although a shorter cycle is discretionary.
Review Schedule
Each faculty publicises the schedule of academic reviews on its web site. This information is also linked to (and therefore accessible from) the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) review website. The schedule includes all reviews planned during the 5-year cycle. Non-faculty academic reviews scheduled by the respective DV-C also appear on the CHEQ review website.
Support for Academic Review
Quality assurance and improvement are core responsibilities for each faculty and budgeting for academic review is therefore part of the normal planning and budgeting process. Assistance in briefing staff who will be involved in reviews is available from CHEQ. Secretarial assistance for review panels may be negotiated through CHEQ on a cost-recovery basis.
Phase one Self-Review
Self-review is the first phase of the review process. It presents an opportunity for the unit to consider its directions, progress, achievements and strengths, as well as areas for development and improvement and the means of achieving these.
A self-review team is appointed by the dean of the faculty to lead the self-review and produce a self-review document. The self-review document forms the basis for the review that will follow. The self-review document is normally 10,000 to 12,000 words (with up to 20 additional pages of appendices) and is structured to reflect the terms of reference.
The following information, data and supporting documentation are normally regarded as useful for the self-review document. Data relating to students may not be appropriate for some research centre and other unit reviews.
- mission statement and plan
- organisational structure or chart
- performance indicators, stakeholder consultation, survey results (as available)
- graduate information including Graduate Destination and Course Experience data
- information on subjects and courses
- subject evaluation data
- research performance data (eg publications, grants, higher degrees by research student load and completions)
- professional and community engagement information
- budget data including income sources, reserves and financial viability of operations and courses
- space, equipment, information technology and library resources
- student data including enrolment, progression and achievement
- staffing profile (including age, level, gender, qualifications and workload)
- staffing ratios (eg staff/student; academic/administrative)
- staff training and development activities
- examples of promotional materials
The review panel will also require copies of the following support documentation.
- Leading the Way
- Learning and Teaching Plan
- Research and Research Training Management Plan
- Support Services Directions
- Global Development Plan
- education and research Policies
- Faculty Operational Plan
- School, department, Centre or Unit Plan (if appropriate)
- Faculty, school or departmental annual reports (since the last review)
- Previous review report
- Off-Shore Quality Assurance Committee reports (if appropriate)
Phase two Establishing the Review Panel
Review panels are selected by the dean of the faculty (in consultation with the head of unit to be reviewed, as appropriate) and are approved by the DVC (E) and DVC (R&D). Selection of panel members is based on their experience and expertise with regard to the terms of reference. Panels normally include the following:
- two senior academics from relevant areas but external to Monash University (an international perspective is encouraged);
- a senior Monash academic external to the unit and usually external to the faculty;
- member of an appropriate professional association or society;
- an appropriate industry or employer group member;
- a senior student or recent graduate.
The dean nominates the chair of the review panel and additional members as appropriate. The secretary to the committee may be the faculty manager, his or her internal nominee, or an externally appointed person.
It is recognised that in special circumstances the normal composition of a review panel may need to be varied to meet the particular circumstance.
Phase three The Review Process
The review process includes panel members receiving the self-review document, asking for further documentation if necessary and then convening for the review visit. 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.
Organisational and functional differences mean that different organisational units will schedule review activities somewhat differently. In the following examples, a hypothetical review visit has been scheduled for September. Reviews may be scheduled at any time during the year although teaching (but non-examination) times may be preferred in order to ensure student input.
Appendix I outlines a typical calendar of events for faculty, school or departmental review. Appendix II outlines a calendar of events more appropriate for research centre review.
Responding to the multi-campus and international nature of Monash is a matter for each review to consider in developing the review process. Possible responses include locating the review on one campus and having people travel from other campuses, short visits by review team members (as a whole or in subgroups) to other campuses or the organisation of different days of the review at different campuses. Self-reviews conducted as part of the Monash Off-Shore Quality Assurance Committee (OQAC) process, together with OQAC reviews and reports, normally form the basis for the review of international teaching and learning activities.
Areas of Responsibility
Typical areas of responsibility concerning the conduct of academic reviews are as follows.
Dean
- determine and publish schedule of reviews
- consult with head of unit on composition of self-review team
- consult with head of unit on review panel membership and gain approval of DVC(E) and DVC(R&D)
- meet with review panel
- receive review report
- consult with head of unit, or for a faculty review, with DVC(E) and DVC(R&D), on an implementation plan
- report major issues or findings to the DVC(E) and DVC(R&D);
- report major issues or findings to relevant university and faculty committees
- send copy of report to CHEQ (for training and development)
- consult with head of unit, or for a faculty review, with DVC(E) and DVC(R&D), on progress of implementation plan
- report to Vice-Chancellor on major findings, issues, implementation progress
Head of Unit
- consult with dean on membership of self-review team
- consult with dean on membership of review panel
- meet with review panel
- consult with dean on implementation plan
- consult with dean on implementation progress
Chair of Review Panel
- consult with dean on augmenting review panel if necessary
- following receipt of the self-review document, coordinate requests for extra information from panel members
- consult with unit on review panel visit program
- facilitate and lead the review panel visit
- coordinate drafting of the review report
- ensure receipt of review report by dean within two months of panel visit
Review Panel Members
- participate fully in the review process and assist the chair wherever possible
- following receipt of the self-review document, request additional information, if necessary
- assist in drafting the review report
Review Panel Secretary
- publicise the review
- call for internal submissions
- take notes during review panel visit meetings
- organise support for the review panel
- play a central role in drafting the review report
Deputy Vice-Chancellors (Education) and (Research and Development)
- approve review panel membership
- for faculty review, consult with dean on development and progress of implementation plan
- establish patterns and trends in review reports
- determine implications and findings of university-wide importance
- bring general issues and concerns to the attention of university committees and other bodies as appropriate
Vice-Chancellor
- monitor progress of reviews in each faculty (normally through the annual performance review)
- monitor progress made on general issues and concerns identified by DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D)
Phase four Review Report
The chair of the review panel working closely with the secretary drafts the review report and sends this to the dean for comment. The dean receives the final report normally within two months of the review visit.
The review report is usually between 8,000 –10,000 words with up to 10 pages of appendices. There is an executive summary of no more than 3 pages. Major headings normally follow the terms of reference and self-review document, with one or two paragraphs for each finding. A copy of the review report is also lodged with CHEQ (for training, development and best practice purposes). The usual format for the report is shown in Appendix III
Phase five Post Review Implementation
On receiving the review report, the dean, in consultation with the head of unit), or in the case of a faculty review, in consultation with the DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D):
- decides priorities, develops an implementation plan and if necessary modifies the Faculty Operational Plan. As well as prioritising actions, the implementation plan assigns responsibilities, assesses resource implications and provides a time scale for implementation (see Appendix IV for typical format for implementation plan);
- reports major issues or findings to the DVC(E) and DVC(R&D);
- reports major issues or findings to relevant university and faculty committees;
- has ongoing consultation with the head of unit, or in the case of a faculty review, the DVC(E) and DVC(R&D), concerning progress of the implementation plan;
- reports to the Vice-Chancellor on the status of reviews and progress on major issues, normally within the context of the annual performance management review.
Scope
These procedures apply to all academic reviews
Related Documents
Governing Documents
Responsibilities for Implementation
- University wide - Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education), Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Development)
- Faculty wide - Deans, Associate Deans Teaching and Research, Faculty Managers, Heads of Units
Review
Academic Board will review these procedures in conjunction with any review of Academic Review Policy.
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.
|
