Skip to content | Change text size
 

Course Review Procedures

Please note that these procedures have not yet been revised or converted to the new format .

Terms of Reference for Course Reviews

The course review panel is asked to review and report to the dean of the faculty on the quality and adequacy of the course, taking into account the following key features.

  • Course Rationale and Structure
  • Course Management, Planning and Quality Assurance and Improvement
  • Units and Major and Minor Sequences
  • Student Profiles
  • Teaching Learning and Assessment
  • Human, Physical, IT Resources and Health and Safety Issues
  • Professional and Community Relations

Additional Terms of Reference may be added to reflect circumstances and emphases in particular courses

The key features for course review can include the following subsections

Course Rationale and Structure

  • course philosophy and overall aims
  • alignment of course with faculty and university strategic directions and plans
  • course objectives and the appropriateness of teaching and assessment methods to meet objectives
  • flexibility including modes of entry, instruction and assessment
  • adequacy, relevance and appropriateness of course regulations
  • overall coherence of course structure
  • alignment of course with market demand

Course Management, Planning and Quality Assurance and Improvement

  • processes and procedures for ensuring effective course co-ordination and monitoring across contributing faculties, schools and departments
  • processes for identifying, reviewing and remedying problems
  • appropriateness and effectiveness of course delivery including use of flexible learning methods
  • processes and procedures for ensuring a sound business plan and appropriate strategic cost management
  • processes and procedures for liaising with library, IT and learning support staff
  • processes and procedures for monitoring the continued relevance of the course to students, professional bodies, employers and other interested parties
  • mechanisms for incorporating feedback from students, graduates, professional bodies, employers and other interested parties into course structure, design and delivery
  • processes and structures for ensuring equitable delivery across campuses
  • equity objectives
  • staff training and development as appropriate
  • appropriateness and effectiveness of promotional material

Units and Major and Minor Sequences

  • appropriateness of the range and scope of units offered
  • relevance of subjects to industry and professional needs
  • the appropriateness and range of major and minor sequences
  • processes and procedures for ensuring that major and minor sequences and individual units accurately reflect the objectives of the course
  • processes and procedures for introducing, revising, resourcing and rationalising units and sequences which contribute to the course, in order to ensure effective and efficient use of resources
  • outcomes from regular unit reviews
  • processes and procedures for ensuring consistency across campuses and across different teaching modes
  • processes for ensuring that Monash’s defining themes of innovation, engagement and internationalisation are included in units and sequences offered
  • processes and procedures for ensuring that students acquire Monash graduate attributes during their course

Student Profiles

  • effectiveness of processes for recruiting students to the course
  • processes for ensuring a range of students is recruited to the course including local, international and equity group students

Teaching Learning and Assessment

  • mechanisms for encouraging students to develop intellectual independence and life long learning skills
  • mechanisms for monitoring and sustaining excellence in teaching, learning and assessment in the course
  • processes and procedures for encouraging and supporting innovative teaching and assessment methods in the course
  • appropriate use of different teaching and learning approaches including use of technology
  • integration of the Monash themes of innovation, internationalisation and engagement in teaching learning and assessment
  • processes and procedures for ensuring effective monitoring of student progress and achievement
  • processes and procedures for providing students with regular and effective feedback
  • provision of appropriate learning support for students
  • appropriateness and effectiveness of course advising
  • processes and procedures for ensuring comparable experiences and resources for students on different campuses and in different delivery modes

Human, Physical, IT Resources and Health and Safety Issues

  • adequacy of academic, administrative, professional and technical staffing profile in relation to course objectives, teaching methods and desired learning outcomes
  • appropriate provision of teaching and laboratory accommodation and equipment
  • appropriate provision of library services
  • appropriate provision of IT services
  • appropriate provision and utilisation of support services
  • processes and procedures for addressing health and safety

Professional and Community Relations

  • appropriate input to the course from professional and community sources
  • student participation in appropriate community and professional activities

Scope of Course Review

Course reviews 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.

Course Review Cycle

Course Reviews 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. Where different faculties are involved in teaching particular programs, (e.g. joint degrees, cross faculty programmes) deans should collaborate in determining review timetables.

Support for Course Review

Quality assurance and 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.

Overall Course Review Process

The process of course review is as follows. First an internal self-review is held that produces a self-review report. This is followed by an external course review panel that produces findings and recommendations. The final phase is implementation and monitoring of how findings from the course review are implemented. Each phase of Course Review is outlined below. Appendix 1 outlines responsibilities of individual in the course review process.

Phases and Responsibilities for Course Review

Schedule of course reviews in faculty

This responsibility lies with the dean in conjunction with associate dean (teaching), quality management group, heads of schools and departments and course coordinators. For joint or cross faculty degrees and courses, the dean of the managing faculty consults with the deans of faculties contributing to the course to ensure appropriate timing and contribution to the review process. 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.

Phase One: Self-review report

A self-review team of 3-5 people including a student is appointed by the dean of the faculty on advice from course coordinator to lead the self-review of the course and produce a self-review report. The self-review team is supported by an administrator and includes at least one senior academic.

Self-review is the first phase of the course review process. It presents 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 and course review that will follow. The self-review report is normally no more than 10,000 words (plus appendices) and is structured to reflect the terms of reference. The self-review report should be completed two months before the course review panel visit. It is the responsibility of the dean to ensure that the self-review documentation is forwarded to the course review panel.

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

Appendix II outlines information, data and supporting documentation that is normally regarded as useful for the self-review report. Faculties, schools or departments may include areas that reflect their special circumstances e.g. multi campus and international operations, meeting new developments in the marketplace

Phase Two: Establish 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. Selection of panel members is based on their experience and expertise with regard to the terms of reference. Course review panels may consist of 6 or more members, usually configured as follows. It is recognised that membership of a course review panel may be varied to meet the particular circumstances:

Convenor/chair: normally a senior staff member of the faculty but from outside the course under review.

Two or three external members: normally including senior staff from an Australian or overseas university and a representative of a professional, industry or employer group. An international perspective is encouraged.

An internal member: normally a member of the faculty.

One or two student representatives: normally a senior student and a recent graduate of the course 

Secretary: an appropriately experienced Monash general staff member, normally a nominee of the faculty manager.

Phase Three: Course Review Panel Visit

The course review panel members receive the self-review document, ask for further documentation if necessary and then undertake 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.

A typical calendar of events is presented as Appendix III.

Responding to the multi-campus and international nature of Monash is a matter for each course review to consider in developing the course review process. Possible responses include locating the course 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, the organisation of different days of the review at different campuses and the use of audio and video conferencing facilities. Course reviews may also pay particular attention to quality and variation in student experience by campus and mode of delivery.

Phase Four: Course Review Panel 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). The usual format for the report is shown in Appendix IV.

Phase Five: Implementation Plan 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. Appendix V outlines the format of a typical implementation plan. The dean reports major issues or findings to relevant committees. Action is ongoing till the next review.

Course coordinator and the head of school report to the dean and appropriate faculty committee on timelines and responsibilities for implementation of recommendations.

Course Advisory committee, faculty committee and quality management group of the faculty report progress to the dean.

In the case of joint degrees, the dean of the managing faculty also ensures that both faculties contribute to the post review implementation strategies.

Scope

These procedures apply to all courses

Related Documents

Governing Documents

Responsibilities for Implementation

  • Faculty Wide - Deans

Review

Academic Board will review these procedures in conjunction with any review of Course Review Policy.

Approved

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