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.


Educational Partnership Quality Assurance Procedures


(1) These Procedures give effect to the Educational Partnership Policy and outline the quality assurance arrangements for the University’s Educational Collaborations.


(2) The review process for educational collaborations involves regular monitoring of performance and student outcomes, and a formal Quality Review.

(3) Regular monitoring and reporting of Educational Collaborators' student outcomes and performance is conducted through reporting at the following committees:

  1. Management Committee Meeting: performance of partners measured against agreed targets. 
  2. Educational Partnerships Board: performance of partners measured against academic quality and student outcomes.

Review process Stage 1 Annual Monitoring

(4) Annual monitoring provides a review mechanism which:

  1. Ensures the effective implementation of quality provisions in Educational Collaboration agreements;
  2. Ensures that the University’s Educational Collaborations are meeting all policy, contractual and statutory requirements;
  3. Provides a means of monitoring the quality of offshore Educational Collaborations and that educational objectives are being fulfilled;
  4. Provides a mechanism for responding to student satisfaction or staff concerns relating to an Educational Collaborations agreement; and
  5. Provides a mechanism to evaluate implementation of recommendations.

(5) The process is as follows:

  1. The Management Committee Meeting:
    1. monitors performance against targets at least once per teaching session.
    2. reviews annual performance against targets and implementation of roles and responsibilities.
    3. manages the implementation plan for relevant recommendations resulting from an annual review.
  2. The Educational Partnerships Board:
    1. reviews student outcomes against institutional benchmarks at least once per teaching session.
    2. evaluates annual student outcomes against institutional benchmarks and effectiveness of quality assurance controls.
    3. manages the implementation plan for relevant recommendations resulting from an annual review.
  3. The Office of Business Intelligence and Quality:
    1. provides data to Office of the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Innovation) for the Management Committee Meeting and the Educational Partnerships Board.
    2. completes an annual desk audit or site visit of each Educational Collaboration and provide results to the Office of Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Innovation) for inclusion in the annual report.

Review process Stage 2 Quality Review

(6) The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Innovation), will inform the CEO of the Educational Collaboration of the projected quality review and agreed timeframes.

(7) The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Innovation) will inform the Educational Collaboration of the process during a Management Committee Meeting at least two months prior to the review.

(8) The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Innovation) will appoint a Review Panel normally comprising:

  1. A Senior staff member of the University who has undertaken audit training will act as Chair;
  2. The relevant academic director for the Educational Collaboration;
  3. Two University representatives;
  4. A representative from Office of Business Intelligence and Quality;

(9) The review panel will complete the following:

  1. Examine a range of documentation including but not limited to:
    1. the educational collaboration agreement;
    2. feedback from relevant University organisational units;
    3. minutes and reports from the management committee;
    4. feedback from students, including systematic and ad-hoc surveys;
    5. course and unit performance reports;
    6. student performance and comparative grade point averages;
    7. academic staff profile and qualifications;
    8. marketing materials including relevant collaborating institution's website;
    9. course procedures manuals, student handbooks or any other information produced for students in the collaborative program;
    10. annual audit reports;
    11. courses (overall quality, accreditation and entry level, curriculum, and graduate outcomes);
    12. staff (experience, appointment practices, induction and professional development);
    13. site audit assessment; and
    14. administrative processes (general administration, marketing).
  2. Conduct interviews with academic staff from the relevant Educational Collaborations, and staff from support areas such as Student Administration Services, University Library, Technology Services, Centre for Teaching and Learning, Financial Services and Southern Cross Global. At its discretion the Review Panel may seek to interview any other persons of interest or seek additional documentation to support their inquiries.
  3. Undertake a site visit to the collaborating institution and interview a range of staff and students and complete an inspection of the institution's facilities.
  4. Complete a Quality Review Report to the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Innovation).

(10) The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Innovation) will present the Quality Review Report and response to the relevant recommendations to the relevant Management Committee and Educational Partnerships Board.

(11) A copy of the Quality Review Report, recommendations and implementation plan will also be provided to the Chair, Academic Board for consideration, and reported to the relevant Audit and Risk Management Committee.

(12) As part of the annual review process, progress updates will be provided to the Management Committee Meeting and the Educational Partnerships Board as relevant in regard to the following:

  1. Implementation and outcomes of recommendations;
  2. Monitoring and reporting of improvements; and
  3. Planned quality enhancements.