Comments

Document Feedback - Review and Comment

Step 1 of 4: Comment on Document

How to make a comment?

1. Use this Protected Document to open a comment box for your chosen Section, Part, Heading or clause.

2. Type your feedback into the comments box and then click "save comment" button located in the lower-right of the comment box.

3. Do not open more than one comment box at the same time.

4. When you have finished making comments proceed to the next stage by clicking on the "Continue to Step 2" button at the very bottom of this page.

 

Important Information

During the comment process you are connected to a database. Like internet banking, the session that connects you to the database may time-out due to inactivity. If you do not have JavaScript running you will receive a message to advise you of the length of time before the time-out. If you have JavaScript enabled, the time-out is lengthy and should not cause difficulty, however you should note the following tips to avoid losing your comments or corrupting your entries:

  1. DO NOT jump between web pages/applications while logging comments.

  2. DO NOT log comments for more than one document at a time. Complete and submit all comments for one document before commenting on another.

  3. DO NOT leave your submission half way through. If you need to take a break, submit your current set of comments. The system will email you a copy of your comments so you can identify where you were up to and add to them later.

  4. DO NOT exit from the interface until you have completed all three stages of the submission process.

 

Course Review Procedures

Section 1 - Purpose and Scope

Purpose

(1) These Procedures set out how Comprehensive Course Reviews are conducted.

Scope

(2) These Procedures apply to all coursework courses.

Top of Page

Section 2 - Procedures

Comprehensive Course Review Process

Instigation and Timing of Review

(3) Comprehensive Course Reviews will normally be conducted on a rolling five-year schedule, as approved by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) in consultation with the College Dean (CD)/Faculty Executive Dean (ED) and the Director, Business Intelligence and Quality.

(4) The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) may approve changes to the schedule where the period since the previous review does not exceed seven years.

(5) The Comprehensive Course Review (CCR) schedule will be aligned, wherever possible, with the external accreditation and reviews of related courses to minimise duplication of effort, and made available to the University community.

(6) Once a course review timing is confirmed, the Office of Business Intelligence and Quality (BIQ) will announce the review to the Faculty normally at least 12 months prior.

(7) The Director (BIQ) will present the course review schedule for the calendar year to the Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) at its first meeting in each calendar year.

Terms of Reference

(8) The quality assurance of academic standards and principles for a Comprehensive Course Review are set out in the Academic Quality, Standards and Integrity Policy.

(9) A reduced CCR scope may be applied under the following circumstances, if approved by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality):

  1. when a course has been professionally accredited within the past two years, following a gap analysis conducted by BIQ, the scope of the relevant CCR may be addressed by evidence from the external accreditation process, including findings and recommendations from the external accreditation panel.  The gap analysis will address the following:
  2. comparison of the professional accreditation requirements with the University’s CCR requirements;
  3. assessment of whether a physical site visit is required;
  4. assessment of whether panel member interviews are required, and if they are the roles which should be included; and
  5. recommendation for the panel membership composition.

(10) When a course is in teach out, and has an expected removal date exceeding 12 months, a reduced CCR scope informed by relevant TEQSA guidelines may apply.

The Review Panel

(11) The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) in consultation with the relevant CD/ED will appoint the Review Panel, which will normally include:

  1. at least one academic staff member of another university to be the independent academic expert;
  2. at least one senior academic staff member of the University from a different Faculty or College to the Faculty or College that owns the course; and
  3. optionally, a representative of current students or alumni;
  4. optionally, a representative from the relevant professional community and/or industry.

(12) Academic panel members must have relevant experience in course development, monitoring and improvement activities.

(13) A Review Panel may be tasked to review a single course or a group of related courses. The number of reviewers will depend on the number of courses being reviewed together. For instance, if the suite of courses is complex or spans multiple discipline areas, more reviewers may be appointed.

(14) Should a panel member subsequently be unable to undertake their role on the panel, an alternate panel member with the same representative role will be appointed in their place. Where this is not possible, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) will make a determination that ensures the integrity of the review process is maintained.

(15) Where a course is subject to suitable academic and independent scrutiny, such as through professional accreditation processes within the five-year review cycle, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) may approve a reduced CCR scope which does not require the appointment of an independent expert panel member, or a physical site visit.

(16) The Review Panel will normally be chaired by the independent expert.

(17) Where relevant, independence will be assessed in accordance with the TEQSA Guidance Note – Independent Experts engaged by providers.

(18) A representative of BIQ will act as the Secretary for the review.

The Review Process

(19) Comprehensive Course Reviews are conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Course Review Process.  BIQ will:

  1. communicate the CCR process and timelines to College/Faculty staff and the Academic Portfolio Office (APO); and
  2. create a CCR submission template and data pack and send these to the ED/CD (or their delegate) in the College/Faculty.

(20) Upon receipt of the CCR process and timelines from BIQ, the ED/CD will assign Faculty roles for completion of the CCR.

Review Submission

(21) The CCR Submission is compiled on a template which addresses questions related to relevant Threshold Standards(1, 2, 3 and 5).

(22) The relevant CD/ED must ensure relevant University staff are consulted, and that feedback informs the CCR Submission, including:

  1. where the course is offered at other campuses, staff involved in the delivery of the course at that or those locations;
  2. professional and/or industry representatives, which may be addressed through CCR Panel Membership;
  3. all Faculties that own core units, majors or minors within the course; and
  4. other faculties where the CCR includes:
    1. double degrees where a strand is owned by another faculty;
    2. core units, minors or majors owned by another faculty.

(23) BIQ will in consult with the CD/ED and collect and incorporate supplementary information for the CCR Submission, where required, including information from:

  1. currently enrolled students;
  2. alumni;
  3. marketing and/or recruitment staff;
  4. learning support and student support staff; and
  5. librarian.

(24) Once completed, the CD/ED will submit the CCR Submission to BIQ.

(25) Once received, BIQ will send the CCR Submission to the Chair of the Review Panel.

Review Assessment

(26) The Chair of the Review Panel will liaise with BIQ to coordinate interviews, obtain support materials, or coordinate the physical site visit, if required.

(27) The Review Panel will complete the following in line with the scope of the CCR Submission:

  1. complete a physical site visit, if required;
  2. consider the CCR Submission, additional reference material and feedback received;
  3. meet with or interview relevant staff and students; and
  4. explore any other matters of interest within the scope of the review.

Review Outcome Report

(28) The Review Panel will submit a CCR Report to BIQ which:

  1. addresses the scope of the review;
  2. provides commendations and recommendations; and
  3. provides a justified recommendation regarding re-accreditation.

(29) After receipt, BIQ will collate the CCR Report and associated documents and send them to the:

  1. Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality);
  2. relevant Executive Dean of the College/Faculty;
  3. relevant Associate Dean (Education). 

Review Outcome, Implementation and Monitoring 

(30) The relevant ED/CD normally in conjunction with relevant Faculty staff, will:

  1. develop a proposed Management Response that includes an implementation plan to address the recommendations of the CCR; and
  2. send a proposed Management Response together with the CCR Report to BIQ.

(31) BIQ will assess the management review response for completeness, currency, and relevancy, and provided a recommendation to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality).

(32) The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) will respond to the proposed Management Response and send directly to the relevant ED/CD and BIQ.

(33) BIQ will create a briefing paper and send it with the proposed Management Response, UCMS ACtivity summary and CCR Report to the relevant Faculty or College Board.

(34) The Faculty or College Board will review the proposed Management Response, UCMS Activity summary and CCR Report and make the following recommendation to Accrediation Committee:

  1. Reaccredit the course; or
  2. Reaccredit the course with conditions; or
  3. Remove the course.

(35) BIQ, in consultation with the ED/CD or nominee, will add the recommendation of the Faculty or College Board to a briefing paper and send it together with the Management Response and UCMS Activity Summary to Accreditation Committee.

(36) The Accreditation Committee will review the Management Response and UCMS Activity Summary and make the following recommendations to Academic Board:

  1. Reaccredit the course; or
  2. Reaccredit the course with conditions; or
  3. Remove the course.

(37) BIQ, in consultation with the Chair of Accreditation Committee, will add the recommendation of the Accreditation Committee to a briefing paper and send it together with the UCMS Activity Summary and Final Management Response to Academic Board.

(38) The Academic Board will make the following determination in line with the Academic Quality, Standards and Integrity Policy and notify the University Council through the Chair of Academic Board’s report:

  1. Reaccredit the course; or
  2. Reaccredit the course with conditions; or
  3. Commence the course removal process.

(39) Faculties or Colleges do not have to wait until review outcomes and management response are circulated through the Accreditation Committee and the Academic Board to commence implementing amendments to courses or units. It may be appropriate for the Faculty or College to commence course and/or unit approval processes as soon as an issue is identified in accordance with the Course and Unit Approval Authorities/Document/Policy Library.

(40) BIQ will record the outcome of the review in UCMS.

(41) The relevant ED/CD will oversee implementation of recommendations until they are resolved.

(42) When conditions are made on a course accreditation, the ED/CD will ensure these are addressed as per Academic Board’s requirements.

(43) One year after receipt of the CCR Report, BIQ will request the ED/CD to prepare an update on the Management Response for distribution to:

  1. Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Quality) for noting;
  2. Faculty Board;
  3. Accreditation Committee; and
  4. Academic Board.