Reviews
Overview
Review activities are an integral part of the University's approach to quality assurance. The review process follows the University's Quality Assurance Planning and Budgeting, Implementation, Review and Improvement (PIRI) cycle.
Core Principles
The general principles that underpin the University's approach to Reviews are:
- The University is committed to the review and evaluation of its activities as an integral part of its quality assurance processes.
- Reviews are primarily directed towards addressing University priorities established in the context of its strategic direction.
- The review process requires critical self-evaluation and should encourage local participation.
- Reviews will be conducted in a clear and orderly manner, with public and transparent processes.
- Discussions and submissions will be treated with discretion and confidentiality.
- There will be regular evaluation of the review processes.
Types of Reviews
Centrally-managed Reviews
Overall responsibility for the review process rests with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Academic).
Centrally-managed reviews include Program Reviews (which focus on coursework programs) and Organisational Unit Reviews. Administrative and Para-academic unit reviews are overseen and managed by the relevant Divisional Head.
| Type of Review | Unit of Review (Focus) | Overseen By | Managed By |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Reviews | |||
| Academic Programs | Academic Program (Undergraduate and Postgraduate Coursework Programs) | PVC(SE)* | Learning & Quality Support |
| Organisational Unit Reviews | |||
| Academic Units | School (performance, management, structure, resources, facilities and plans of Academic Units). Research centres and research institutes may also be included. | PVC(SE)* | Learning & Quality Support |
| Administrative and Para-Academic Units | Non-Academic Units/Branches (quality of services that support academic activities) | Divisional Heads | |
* Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience)
Locally-managed Reviews
Responsibility for locally-managed reviews rests within the senior managers of Faculties/Schools (e.g. Executive Deans, Heads of School). Such reviews are supported directly by the local academic area. These reviews may focus on courses, ongoing monitoring of academic programs, and other activities of an individual Faculty/School.
Templates and information on Course Reviews are available on this website.
Organisational Unit Reviews
At its Meeting 24/08 - 10 December 2008, the Vice-Chancellor's Committee endorsed the introduction of a systematic approach to reviews of both academic and administrative organisational units, based on the paper 'Introduction of a Systematic Approach to Organisation Unit Reviews'.
Organisational unit reviews are focused on their contribution to and alignment with the University's Strategic Plan and, as with Program Reviews, form an integral part of the University's quality assurance processes.
There are two types of centrally-managed organisation unit reviews - those relating to academic units (usually schools) and those relating to administrative and para-academic units (i.e. those units that do not qualify as academic units such as the International Office and Student Support Services).
Academic Unit Reviews Process
Reviews of academic units are coordinated by staff from the Learning and Quality Support unit, who work with Faculty and School staff throughout the process, providing assistance and advice as required. These are overseen by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience) (PVC(SE)).
Scheduling of Academic Unit Reviews
The choice of academic units for review in any particular year will be negotiated between Executive Deans and the PVC(SE), taking into account the performance of the unit, the prevailing strategic imperatives of the University and the intention that all units be reviewed at least once over the duration of the cycle. For academic units with accreditation requirements or that have undergone or will undergo any other form of external review, these will be taken into account, with the aim of minimising duplication of effort.
Each academic unit is to be reviewed at least once every seven years. An initial seven year schedule of reviews will be developed in consultation with the Executive Dean. The initial plan will be thereafter updated each year for the following seven years. Where appropriate a School, Faculty or Executive Management may request a review outside the cycle.
Terms of Reference
Reviews of academic units focus on performance of the unit, its organisational structure, the allocation and management of resources and facilities, and the management of strategic plans and priorities of the University, the Faculty and the School itself.
While the value and usefulness of standard terms of reference for reviews of academic units or reviews of academic units and programsare recognised, the Executive Dean has the flexibility to provide modified or alternative terms of reference subject to approval by the PVC(SE). External points of reference provide valuable perspective for further reflection and implementation of improvements; therefore an element to be considered when undertaking academic unit reviews is benchmarking against comparable units in other Go8 universities.
Review Panel
The academic unit reviews are conducted by a Review Panel. The composition of the Review Panel will be agreed between the relevant Executive Dean and the PVC(SE). Its membership may vary and it may or may not include external panel members.
Reporting
Learning and Quality Support staff, in consultation with the Convenor, will commence drafting of the report during the final session of the Review Panel's visit, with a particular focus on developing the recommendations. A draft set of recommendations will be finalised with the Convenor in the week following the Panel's visit. A first draft of the complete Report will be provided to the Convenor of the Review Panel no later than the end of the third week after the Review Panel visit. Draft reports should be considered confidential. The main body of a Review Report will be not more than ten pages in length.
The final Review Report is submitted to the PVC(SE).
Approval
On receipt of the Unit Report, the PVC(SE) will seek the relevant Executive Dean's advice on acceptance, rejection or modification of the recommendations. Following this consultation, the PVC(SE) will present the Report to the Vice-Chancellor's Committee.
The Vice-Chancellor's Committee (VCC) is responsible for endorsing the final recommendations (to the extent that they fall within its Terms of Reference), and recommending their approval to the Vice-Chancellor and President. Approved recommendations are available from Review Reports & Final Recommendations (Staff only).
Implementation
The Faculty, in consultation with staff from Learning and Quality Support, will develop an Implementation Plan addressing the approved recommendations of the Review Report. A finalised Implementation Plan is to be provided to the PVC(SE) within three months of Academic Board's consideration of the Review Report.
The Faculty is required to submit updates on the progress of the actions described in the Implementation Plan to Learning and Quality Support. These updates are required 6 and then a further 12 months after Academic Board has considered the recommendations in the Review Report.
The PVC(SE) has the responsibility of ensuring that an Implementation Plan is developed, and for ensuring the monitoring of progress of the actions described in the Plan. Implementation Plans and progress reports are available from Review Reports & Final Recommendations (Staff only).
Administrative or Para-academic Units
Reviews of these units are overseen and managed by the relevant Division Head who has the responsibility for determining the frequency, process and panel structure for such reviews within their Division.
Each administrative or para-academic unit is to be reviewed at least once every seven years. An initial seven year cycle will be developed by the relevant Division Head and then updated each year for the following seven years.
Reviews of administrative units consider the quality of services and core activities, the preparedness of the area under review to deal with new challenges or priorities and the ways in which the activities support the academic activities and the aims of the University's Strategic Plan. Given the difficulties of such an undertaking, administrative reviews might focus on a small and relatively homogenous area.
Reporting
Learning and Quality Support staff, in consultation with the Convenor, will commence drafting of the report during the final session of the Review Panel's visit, with a particular focus on developing the recommendations. A draft set of recommendations will be finalised with the Convenor in the week following the Panel's visit. A first draft of the complete Report will be provided to the Convenor of the Review Panel no later than the end of the third week after the Review Panel visit. Draft reports should be considered confidential. The main body of a Review Report will be not more than ten pages in length.
The final Review Report is submitted to the PVC(SE).
Approval
On receipt of the Unit Report, the PVC(SE) will seek the relevant Senior Manager's advice on acceptance, rejection or modification of the recommendations. Following this consultation, the PVC(SE) will present the Report to the Vice-Chancellor's Committee.
The Vice-Chancellor's Committee (VCC) is responsible for endorsing the final recommendations (to the extent that they fall within its Terms of Reference), and recommending their approval to the Vice-Chancellor and President. Approved recommendations are available from Review Reports & Final Recommendations (Staff only).
Implementation
The Faculty, in consultation with staff from Learning and Quality Support, will develop an Implementation Plan addressing the approved recommendations of the Review Report. A finalised Implementation Plan is to be provided to the PVC(SE) within three months of Academic Board's consideration of the Review Report.
The Faculty is required to submit updates on the progress of the actions described in the Implementation Plan to Learning and Quality Support. These updates are required 6 and then a further 12 months after Academic Board has considered the recommendations in the Review Report.
The PVC(SE) has the responsibility of ensuring that an Implementation Plan is developed, and for ensuring the monitoring of progress of the actions described in the Plan. Implementation Plans and progress reports are available from Review Reports & Final Recommendations (Staff only).
Program Reviews
The review process is an integral part of the University's quality assurance system. All coursework programs offered by the University are subject to review as part of a five year cycle. Oversight of these reviews is the responsibility of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience).
Program Reviews are co-ordinated by staff from the Learning and Quality Support unit, who work with Faculty staff throughout the process, providing assistance and advice as required. A summary of the responsibilities of stakeholders during Program Reviews is available.
Scheduling of Program Reviews
A five-year Program Review Schedule is developed by Learning and Quality Support in consultation with Executive Deans, and approved by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience) - PVC(SE). The schedule is updated on an annual basis. The updated schedule for a given calendar year is reported to Academic Board at the end of the preceding calendar year.
To avoid unnecessary duplication, cognate programs are often grouped for the purpose of review, and the schedule is developed with due consideration to the timing of external accreditation processes for programs with professional accreditation requirements.
The current Program Reviews Schedule groups reviews by Faculty and School.
Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference for a particular review should address any particular issues specific to the program(s) concerned, while also being cognisant of priorities determined by the University's strategic direction. In particular, the Terms of Reference should address the quality of the program(s) offered.
Executive Deans will submit draft Terms of Reference to Learning and Quality Support. While the use of standard Terms of Reference is recommended, the Executive Dean can provide modified or alternative Terms of Reference. The PVC(SE) will approve the final Terms of Reference for the review.
Review Panel
Program Reviews are conducted by a Review Panel which is established with the aim of facilitating independent peer-review, and must include an external reviewer. While Review Panels are usually restricted to three members, in certain circumstances, the PVC(SE) may approve an increased panel size.
| Member | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Senior Academic (Convenor) | Internal Staff Member | Professor Independent to the School/Discipline area of the program(s) under review |
|
| Academic | External Appointee | Professor From the same or similar area to the program(s) under review |
|
International panel members can only be included if travel and accommodation costs are met by the Faculty.
Executive Deans will submit a list of prospective panel members for consideration and approval by the PVC(SE).
Review Preparation
The Faculty will prepare a submission for the Review prior to the Review Panel meeting using the Five-Year Program Review Faculty Submission proforma. Note that Faculties are permitted to provide additional information considered relevant to the review.
A limited number of targeted invitations to provide submissions to the Review Panel will be made to internal and external stakeholders. The Faculty, in consultation with Learning and Quality Support, will develop a list of relevant stakeholders, which will include both industry/professional representatives and students. Learning and Quality Support staff will contact the stakeholders to invite written submissions, and may also invite some of the stakeholders to an interview with the Review Panel.
Review Panel Visit
Learning and Quality Support staff will develop a schedule for the Review Panel visit in consultation with the relevant Faculty.
The Review Panel will usually convene for not more than two days and two nights. Normally, entry and exit interviews will be held involving the Review Panel and the PVC(SE). The exit interview may involve other senior managers (e.g. Executive Dean, Head of School).
Reporting
Learning and Quality Support staff, in consultation with the Convenor, will commence drafting of the report during the final session of the Review Panel's visit, with a particular focus on developing the recommendations. A draft set of recommendations will be finalised with the Convenor in the week following the Panel's visit. A first draft of the complete Report will be provided to the Convenor of the Review Panel no later than the end of the third week after the Review Panel visit. Draft reports should be considered confidential. The main body of a Review Report will be not more than ten pages in length.
The final Review Report is submitted to the PVC(SE).
Approval
On receipt of the Review Report, the PVC(SE) will seek the relevant Executive Dean's advice on acceptance, rejection or modification of the recommendations. Following this consultation, the PVC(SE) will present the Report to Academic Board.
Academic Board is responsible for endorsing the final recommendations (to the extent that they fall within its Terms of Reference), and recommending their approval to the Vice-Chancellor and President. Approved recommendations are available from Review Reports & Final Recommendations.
Implementation
The Faculty, in consultation with staff from Learning and Quality Support, will develop an Implementation Plan addressing the approved recommendations of the Review Report. A finalised Implementation Plan is to be provided to the PVC(SE) within three months of Academic Board's consideration of the Review Report.
The Faculty is required to submit updates on the progress of the actions described in the Implementation Plan to Learning and Quality Support. These updates are required after another 6 months and then a further 12 months following the initial implementation plan.
The PVC(SE) has the responsibility of ensuring that an Implementation Plan is developed, and for ensuring the monitoring of progress of the actions described in the Plan. Implementation Plans and progress reports are available from Review Reports & Final Recommendations.
Course Reviews
The review process is an integral part of the University's quality assurance system. This is reflected in the Coursework Academic Programs Policy, which states that "All courses must be reviewed in accordance with the process specified by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Academic) or relevant Executive Dean" (Clause 32).
Process and Responsibilities
The responsibility for ensuring the quality and standards of individual courses lies with the faculties. On 9 March 2011, the University Learning and Teaching Committee, in consultation with the Executive Deans, endorsed a common approach with some flexibility for all course reviews across all faculties to maximise the benefits derived from such reviews. This two-tiered approach enables faculties to use an in-depth approach or a light-touch approach when reviewing courses.
An in-depth approach is to be used for core courses and in cases where courses are deemed to be in need of an in-depth review, e.g. for courses identified with high failure rates. A less rigorous approach can be adopted in respect to other courses.
It was agreed that Executive Deans will:
- Ensure that course reviews are conducted and that the recommendations from these reviews are implemented.
- Develop a schedule for course reviews, determining which courses require an in-depth review.
- Ensure that courses are reviewed every three to five years and that consideration is given to course performance, assessment outcomes, topics taught and quality of materials.
- Provide an annual report of course reviews conducted and the key outcomes of these reviews to the DVC&VP(A).
- Ensure that feedback on the course review is provided to students.
Process
An annual schedule of course reviews as well as the review approach to be used for each course will be determined at faculty level. In planning a schedule of course reviews the Grade Monitoring Exception Recommendations should be taken into account. Consideration will also need to be given to the timing of external accreditation processes. In addition to core courses, Faculties may wish to consider other courses—e.g. those courses identified through Grade Monitoring Exception reports—that will require an in-depth review. These in-depth reviews could include: SELT data, curriculum reviews, program and accreditation reviews, poor enrolments, high attrition and outcomes of previous course reviews.
A course review process flowchart incorporates the elements discussed above.
Review Preparation and Implementation
The specific templates and processes to be used for each level of course review are to be finalised on an annual basis at a faculty level. The Course Review Template can be used in its current form or be adjusted according to faculty and school needs.
Preparation Checklist
Following is a step-by-step guide to completing the Course Review process. Please note that these guidelines do not include any faculty/school specific procedures that may be in place.
Step One:
Print out the complete Course Profile for the course under review. If any data is missing from the course profile please include any other relevant documents. For example, course overview, teaching materials and resources, staffing profiles and relevant benchmarking reports. Also attach any available SELT results for the courses.
Step Two:
Print out the relevant pages from the appropriate teaching school's Course Review Book and fill in the necessary course information in Section A. Please note that each report contains all the courses that the designated school teaches into for the given half year. Individual courses are listed alphabetically by name in the table of contents and are hyperlinked to the appropriate page, which can then be printed (ie: print current page only).
Step Three:
Print out the Course Review Template or, if appropriate, the faculty/school specific evaluation form. This template is available on the website in Word format so it can be easily downloaded and filled in electronically before printing if desired.
Step Four:
Check any faculty or school specific guidelines or procedures that may be in place.
Step Five:
Attach all course review documentation together. Once completed, this must be approved and signed by the appropriate Committee Convenor and Head of School.
To minimise duplication of effort, the Course Review template only captures information that is not already available through the Course Profile and the Course Review Book. As such, it is important that both of these documents as well as SELT results are attached to the template.
Reporting
Reporting is an important part of any quality assurance process. An annual summary of course reviews conducted and the outcome of the reviews should therefore be provided to the DVC&VP(A). In addition, any improvements made to a course as a result of the review process need to be communicated to students, either through MyUni or the Course Profile.
The Course Review Overview Template can be used to report the courses reviewed within a specific timeframe, including any recommendations/actions and the approach used.
Active Reviews
The program and organisational unit reviews, overseen by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience), that are currently active at the University of Adelaide are listed below.
- Review of the School of Architecture and Built Environment
Type of review Unit Faculty Professions Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Friday, 3 May 2013 at 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Kelly Radcliffe, Project Support Officer, Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 6814
Email: kelly.radcliffe@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 20 - 22 May 2013 Date report provided to Faculty - Review of the School of Education
Type of review Unit Faculty Professions Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Monday, 29 April 2013 at 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Susie Smith, QA Officer (Reviews), Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 8393
Email: susie.smith@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 13 - 15 May 2013 Date report provided to Faculty - Review of the Bachelor of Science (Animal Science)
Type of review Program Faculty Sciences Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Friday, 22 March 2013 at 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Julie Banfield, Learning and Quality Support Officer, Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 0109
Email: julie.banfield@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 4 - 5 April 2013 Date report provided to Faculty - Centre for Aboriginal Studies in Music (CASM)
Type of review Unit Faculty Humanities and Social Sciences Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Wayne Pritchard, Manager, Quality and Reviews, Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 5902
Email: peter.pritchard@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 14 - 15 March 2013 Date report provided to Faculty - Bachelor of Laws Program
Type of review Program Faculty Professions Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Monday, 3 December 2012, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Wayne Pritchard, Manager, Quality and Reviews, Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 5902
Email: peter.pritchard@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 13 - 14 December 2012 Date report provided to Faculty 19 March 2013 - School of Agriculture Food and Wine
Type of review Unit Faculty Sciences Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Friday, 16 November 2012, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Wayne Pritchard, Manager, Quality and Reviews, Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 5902
Email: peter.pritchard@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 28 - 30 November 2012 Date report provided to Faculty 19 February 2013 - Bachelor of Development Studies
Type of review Program Faculty Humanities and Social Sciences Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Thursday, 15 November 2012, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Stephen Jeisman, Quality Assurance Office (Quality), Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 6346
Email: stephen.jeisman@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 26 - 27 November 2012 Date report provided to Faculty 19 March 2013 - Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Science (Advanced)
Type of review Program Faculty Sciences Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Monday, 5 November 2012, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Wayne Pritchard, Manager, Quality and Reviews, Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 5902
Email: peter.pritchard@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 13 - 14 November 2012 Date report provided to Faculty 18 March 2013 - School of Psychology
Type of review Unit Faculty Health Sciences Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Friday, 28 September 2012, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Susie Smith, QA Officer (Reviews), Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 8393
Email: susie.smith@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 15 - 16 October 2012 Date report provided to Faculty 19 December 2012 - Bachelor of Commerce
Type of review Program Faculty Professions Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Wednesday, 8 August 2012, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Stephen Jeisman, QA Officer (Reviews), Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 6346
Email: stephen.jeisman@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 23 - 24 August 2012 Date report provided to Faculty 18 October 2012 - Elder Conservatorium of Music
Type of review Unit Faculty Humanities and Social Sciences Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Friday 23 March 2012, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Susie Smith, QA Officer (Reviews), Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 8393
Email: susie.smith@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 11 - 13 April 2012 Date report provided to Faculty 26 June 2012 - Postgraduate Coursework Commerce Programs
Type of review Program Faculty Professions Terms of reference (ToR) ToR Closing date for submissions Friday 11 November 2011, 5.00 pm Send submissions to: Stephen Jeisman, QA Officer (Reviews), Level 1, 233 North Terrace
Phone: 8313 6346
Email: stephen.jeisman@adelaide.edu.auPanel visit dates 29 - 30 November 2011 Date report provided to Faculty 21 March 2012
Program and Organisational Unit Reviews for 2013
As approved by the Quality Enhancement Committee at its December 2012 meeting.
|
Faculty
|
School/Unit Review
|
Program Review
|
|---|---|---|
| ECMS | School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering* | Electrical and Electronic Engineering UG/PG Coursework Programs* |
| Health Sciences | School of Population Health | Bachelor of Health Sciences |
| Humanities & Social Sciences | School of History and Politics | UG/PG International Studies (Deferred unit 2014) |
| Bachelor of Social Sciences | ||
| School of Humanities | Discipline of Linguistics | |
| Professions | ECIC | ECIC UG/PG Coursework Programs |
| School of Education* | Education UG/PG Coursework Programs* | |
| School of Architecture and Built Environment | ||
| School of Economics* | Bachelor of Economics* | |
| Sciences | Bachelor of Science (Physics named degrees) | |
| Roseworthy Campus | Bachelor of Science (Animal Science) |
*Indicates a combined School/Program Review
Go to the Review Reports page (Staff-only access)
