Monash University > Policy > Policy-bank > Academic > Education > Quality

Course Review Policy

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

Guiding Principles for Course Review

The guiding principles for course review fit within the values and principles outlined in the policy 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, there are a number of important guiding principles relating specifically to course review as follows.

the strategic directions of the university and of faculties are of central importance for all course reviews;
benchmarking leading to improvement is strongly encouraged, as is input from stakeholders;
course reviews consider the effectiveness of processes and procedures, particularly as they are demonstrated through learning outcomes for students;
the importance and relevance of external professional and accreditation reviews is acknowledged.

Scope of Course Review

Course review is an important part of the comprehensive review process by which the university systematically evaluates its activities and operations. The integrated nature of the student experience means that all aspects of a course are best considered at the same time. Course reviews therefore include an entire academic programme (degree, diploma or certificate) in the context of its regulations, overall structure and management, the units, major and minor sequences and clinical experiences, practicums, projects and work experience that make up the course.

The major focus of a course review is the manner in which the range of units, sequences and other activities offered (often by many schools and departments from more than one faculty and at a variety of locations) contribute to the course. The student experience of the course is central to course review.

Relationship between Academic Review and Course Review

Academic review is described in detail in the policy on Academic Review Policy. Academic Review has the operational unit of the faculty, school or department as its focus. Academic review considers teaching and learning, research, professional and community activities and internal organisation, management, quality assurance and improvement of the operational unit.

Course review is a more limited activity having as its focus a particular course or programme. Course Reviews feed into and inform academic reviews. Depending on organisational arrangements within particular faculties, some courses may be more appropriate for review at faculty level and some at school or departmental level.

Course Review Cycle

At Monash, review cycles are normally five years (e.g. Institutional Review, Academic Review, Support Services Review). Course Reviews also follow a five-year cycle unless the faculty decides on a shorter cycle for operational reasons such as a rapidly changing discipline field. Faculties may choose to plan the alignment of course reviews with their schedule of unit reviews. Units are reviewed at least every five years

Faculties may choose to review courses in groups, especially in postgraduate areas. Where different faculties are involved in teaching particular programs, (e.g. joint degrees, cross faculty programmes) deans should collaborate in determining review timetables.

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.

Support for Course Review

Quality assurance and quality improvement are core responsibilities for each faculty and budgeting for course review is therefore part of the normal planning and budgeting process. Assistance in briefing staff who will be involved in course reviews is available from the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ). Secretarial assistance for course review panels may be negotiated through CHEQ on a cost-recovery basis.

Terms of Reference for Course Review

Terms of reference help to ensure some consistency of course reviews across the university. They ensure that course reviews meet the requirements of, and are aligned with, faculty and university strategic planning and policy documents. Course reviews may also include other areas or issues not covered in the standard terms of reference. The standard terms of reference of course reviews are elaborated in the document Course Review Procedures and cover the quality and adequacy of:

course structure;
course management including planning and quality assurance and improvement;
units and major and minor sequences;
student profile;
teaching, learning and assessment;
human, physical, IT resources, health and safety issues;
professional and community relations.

If a course has external professional accreditation, faculties may choose to extend the external accreditation to include all the above terms of reference, or to incorporate results from external accreditation as part of their course review process.

Phases in the Overall Course Review Process

Course reviews have five main phases. An internal self-review is held that produces a self-review report. An external course review panel is appointed. The panel reads the self-review report, conducts a review visit and produces a report with findings and recommendations. The final phase is implementation and monitoring of how findings from the course review are implemented. The phases of course review and responsibility for each stage are detailed in the document Course Review Procedures.

Phase One - Self-review

A self-review team of 3-5 people including a student is appointed by the dean of the faculty to lead the self-review of the course and produce a self-review report.

Self-review is an opportunity for the department/school/ faculty to consider the directions, progress, achievements and strengths of the course, as well as areas for development and improvement and the means of achieving these.

The self-review team gathers information about the course following the terms of reference and presents this in a self-review report. The self-review report forms the basis for the panel visit. The self-review report is a collection of factual information that sets out the background of the course, its structure and management and highlights any special characteristics or factors that have influenced course development. The contents of the self-review report are taken from the terms of reference and should include:

Preamble

Course Structure

Course Management

Student Profile

Units and Major and Minor Sequences

Teaching Learning and Assessment

Human, Physical and IT Resources and Health and Safety

Professional and Community Relations

Further information on the form of the report is contained in the document Course Review Procedures

Phase Two - Course Review Panel

Course review panels are nominated by the head of the school/department in consultation with the course coordinator of the course to be reviewed, and are approved by the dean of the faculty. They are normally configured as Convenor/chair, two or three external members, an internal member, and one or two student representatives supported by a secretary. Membership of a course review panel may be varied to meet the particular circumstances.

Phase Three - Course Review Process

The course review process includes panel members receiving the self-review document, asking for further documentation if necessary and then undertaking the review visit. During the visit the panel meets with interested parties, tours facilities, receives submissions and requests for interviews, and at the end of the visit, presents preliminary findings. Details of the process are contained in the document Course Review Procedures.

Phase Four - Course Review Report

The chair of the course review panel working closely with the secretary drafts the course review report and sends this to the dean for comment. The dean receives the final report normally within two months of the course review visit.

The review report is usually about 8,000 words (plus 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 and may consider recommendations made in the self-review. A copy of the review report is also lodged with CHEQ (for training, development and best practice purposes).

Phase Five - Post Review Implementation and Monitoring

On receiving the course review report, the dean, in consultation with the head of operational unit and the course coordinator, decides priorities, develops an implementation plan and if necessary modifies the Faculty Operational Plan. As well as prioritising actions and implementation, the dean assigns responsibilities, assesses resource implications, approves a time scale for implementation and appoints a review implementation group if necessary. The dean reports major issues or findings to relevant committees. Action is ongoing till the next review.

Purpose

To provide guidance to the university on the implementation of course review. The purpose of course review is to assist faculties and the university to assure the quality of academic courses and to learn from this essentially developmental process in order to effect improvement.

Scope

This policy applies to all courses

Governing Documents

Responsibilities for Implementation

Faculty Wide - Deans

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