UOW Policy Documents

Policy Documents at a Glance

Writing & Reviewing Policy

UOW ACADEMIC REVIEW POLICY


Date approved	28 November 2008	Date Policy will take effect	1 January 2009	Date of Next Review	November 2009
Approved by	University Council
Custodian title & e-mail address	Executive Officers, Strategic Planning and Quality Office lynn@uow.edu.au Senior Manager, Policy and Governance Unit dominicr@uow.edu.au
Author	Executive Officers, Strategic Planning and Quality Office Course Management Coordinator
Responsible Faculty/ Division & Unit	Strategic Planning and Quality Office
Supporting documents, procedures & forms of this policy	Curriculum Review Procedures Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures Curriculum Review Guidelines Course Approval Guidelines Subject Approval Guidelines
References & Legislation	UOW Strategic Plan 2008-10 Risk Management Policy Graduate Qualities Policy
Audience	Public – accessible to anyone
Expiry Date of Policy	2011

Contents

1 Purpose of Policy 3
2 Definitions 3
3 Application & Scope 4
4 Academic Quality Management at UOW 4
5 Academic Review Principles 5
6 Faculty Advisory Committees 6
7 Faculty and Academic Unit Reviews 8
8 Curriculum Review and Development 12
9 Roles & Responsibilities 16
10 Version Control and Change History 17

1 Purpose of Policy

1. As a self-accrediting institution, the University has an obligation to ensure that it continues to demonstrate high academic standards in learning and teaching programs and services and in the conduct of its research.
2. This policy aims to provide a robust and efficient system to support ongoing academic quality and continuous improvement of academic processes and outcomes at UOW. It sets out, in the context of UOW’s academic quality management structure, the requirements for curriculum and academic unit reviews
3. Related procedures for the conduct of curriculum and academic unit reviews are set out in the Curriculum Review Procedures and the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures respectively.
4. This policy and the accompanying procedures replace the Quality Review Framework approved by Council on 8 October 2004.

2 Definitions

Word/Term	Definition (with examples if required)
Academic unit	School, department or program group within a faculty
CAMG	Course Approval Management Group
Course	As under the General Course Rules
Curriculum	Curriculum includes a single course, a combination of course and major study, a suite of related courses with a common program or an element of a course
DVC(A)	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
DVC(O)	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Operations)
ECAC	External Curriculum Appraisal Committee
FEC	Faculty Education Committee
FRC	Faculty Research Committee
Graduate Qualities	Refers to the Graduate Qualities detailed in the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy
Learning outcomes	Statements of the knowledge, understandings, and skills students are expected to achieve as a result of engaging with the content of the subject
Major Course Proposal	As under the Curriculum Review Procedures
Minor Course Proposal	As under the Curriculum Review Procedures
Subject	As under the General Course Rules
UOW	University of Wollongong

3 Application & Scope

1. This policy applies to all reviews of academic activities carried out by the University both on and offshore.

4 Academic Quality Management at UOW

Key Role of Strategic Planning and Academic Reviews

1. Academic quality is primarily managed at UOW through two interconnected sets of processes (depicted in Figure 1 below):

a. Strategic planning and reporting processes under which UOW sets institutional goals and monitors performance in achieving those goals at both institutional and unit levels.
b. The processes set out in this policy and accompanying procedures for the review of:

i. faculties and academic units (section 7), and
ii. the curriculum (section 8).

2. The goals, objectives and strategies articulated in institutional and unit planning documents provide the essential reference points for reviews of academic units and the curriculum. The outcomes of those reviews in turn help to shape the development of future goals and objectives and the strategies for their achievement.

Figure 1: Academic Quality Management at UOW

3. Within this framework, externally-developed quality systems (eg ISO 9001, business excellence frameworks) are also used, as appropriate, as mechanisms for assuring quality in specific areas or units within the University.

UOW Quality Cycle

4. The strategic planning and academic review processes outlined in section 4.1 both apply UOW’s defined cyclical quality process – Plan, Act, Review, Improve – to ensure that the University’s objectives and standards are tested and improved. This cycle is also applied to other processes and activities undertaken at UOW.

Figure 2: UOW Quality Cycle

PLAN … identify and define what we want to achieve and develop an approach for achieving those goals

ACT … identify and schedule actions for achieving our goals and implement those strategies

REVIEW … monitor how we are progressing towards achieving our goals

IMPROVE … identify changes that need to be made so that we can better meet our goals and, possibly, reconsider the appropriateness of those goals

Risk management

5. The strategic planning and academic review processes are supported by triennial university-wide strategic risk assessments and other independent reviews of processes conducted by UOW in accordance with its Risk Management Policy. Outcomes of those risk assessments are used as a reference to: (i) set priorities and guide the development of strategies to ensure achievement of UOW’s goals; and (ii) evaluate performance in working towards their achievement.
6. Faculty and other units assess risks at an operational level as part of their annual planning and review process.

Monitoring

7. The strategic planning and academic review processes are monitored at an institutional level by the University Planning and Quality Committee, Academic Senate and the University Council.
8. Faculty Advisory Committees play a pivotal role in monitoring and supporting these processes at a faculty level (see section 6 below).

5 Academic Review Principles

Purpose

1. An academic review should:

a. Provide opportunities to reflect on achievements against goals
b. Identify strengths to be built on and opportunities for improvement
c. Strengthen engagement by staff, students and other relevant stakeholders with the planning process

Process

2. A review process should reflect the governing principles set out in the UOW Strategic Plan and, in particular, incorporate:

a. Rigour
b. Transparency
c. Accountability
d. Collegiality
e. Objectivity

3. A review process should include:

a. A clear statement of the scope of and terms of reference for the review (including clear links to relevant goals, objectives and strategies)
b. Clearly defined responsibilities for initiation and carriage
c. A clear and realistic timeframe
d. Reference to stakeholder feedback (e.g. from students, staff, external community)
e. Reference to institutional, faculty and/or unit performance indicators and relevant data
f. Reference to relevant external standards or benchmarks
g. External input into major reviews
h. Appropriate approval, reporting, communication and implementation of the outcomes of the review

6 Faculty Advisory Committees

Purpose of Faculty Advisory Committees

1. Faculty Advisory Committees have an essential role in academic reviews as external advisory and monitoring bodies.
2. Each Faculty shall establish a Faculty Advisory Committee to promote the quality of academic management by the Faculty by providing external expertise and independent perspectives.
3. A Faculty may obtain approval from the Vice-Chancellor to establish more than one Advisory Committee, where appropriate for the structure of the Faculty (e.g. on a school or discipline basis), each of which shall comply with the requirements of this section.

Terms of Reference

4. The terms of reference for a Faculty Advisory Committee shall, at a minimum, include a responsibility to:

a. Support the Faculty’s strategic planning processes by providing advice and perspectives on:

i. future trends and opportunities
ii. areas for innovation
iii. relevance and quality of the Faculty curriculum, research and community linkages

b. Assist in identifying and securing financial assistance for the Faculty (including via benefactions, scholarships, grants and research funding)
c. Assist in developing close ties with business, industry, professions, public sector and community organisations to pursue mutually beneficial objectives for learning and teaching and research
d. Enhance the local, national and international reputation of UOW and the Faculty
e. Monitor reports on the outcomes of:

i. Triennial reviews of the performance of the Faculty against its Faculty Plan and against the goals set out in the UOW Strategic Plan (submitted to it in accordance with section 7.1 (c))
ii. Reviews of the faculty or its academic units (submitted to it in accordance with section 7.15
iii. Reviews of courses, specialisations or Major Course Proposals (submitted to it in accordance with sections 8.16 or 8.35)

and provide advice and feedback to the Dean and DVC(A) as the advisory committee sees fit

f. Act, at all times, within the parameters of an advisory role

Membership

5. Membership of the Faculty Advisory Committee shall generally be between 6 and 15 persons, no more than two of whom shall be serving UOW academic staff members. The Dean of the Faculty shall be an ex-officio member of the committee. The chair of the committee shall be a person independent of the University.
6. Members shall be prominent persons held in high esteem in their field and have:

a. relevant expertise in the professions related to the disciplines and activities of the Faculty, including relevant professional bodies, or
b. relevant expertise in government or industry, or
c. a capacity for and interest in contributing to the work of the Committee and the faculty.

7. Committee members shall be drawn from both within and outside the local area and, as far as possible, the committee shall be gender balanced.

Approval and Review

a. The Faculty Dean shall provide to the DVC(A) and DVC(O):

i. draft terms of reference for the Faculty Advisory Committee in accordance with section 6.4, and
ii. a draft list of nominees eligible for membership under section 6.5 – 6.7, providing details about each nominee and their suitability for membership.

b. Faculties may propose that the requirements for terms of reference and membership of Faculty Advisory Committees be varied to meet their particular needs.

9. After consultation with the DVC(A) and DVC(O), the Dean shall finalise the terms of reference and draw up a formal list of members which shall include details of qualifications, membership of professional associations and work experience for submission to the Vice-Chancellor.
10. After consultation with the Dean, DVC(A) and DVC(O), the Vice-Chancellor shall:

a. determine and approve the terms of reference and composition, and
b. appoint the members, the chair and deputy chair of the Committee.

11. At the Council meeting following establishment, the Vice-Chancellor shall inform Council of the terms of reference and composition of the Committee.
12. The terms of reference and composition shall be reviewed by the Dean every four years or more often if necessary (e.g. to add members with additional expertise) and any proposed changes shall be approved and communicated in accordance with sections 6.8 to 6.11 above.
13. Each Committee chair shall hold office for a term of two years, subject to renewal by the Dean for a further two years. The appointment of a new chair shall be approved in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 6.8 - 6.11 above.
14. Deans should use their best endeavours to nominate new members on a regular basis so as to ensure a balance between the continuity of operations and renewal of Committee membership.

Meetings and Quorum

15. Committees shall meet not less than two and not more than four times per year (in accordance with emerging needs).
16. The quorum for any meeting of a Committee shall be one half or, where one half is not a whole number, the whole number next higher than one half of the total number of members of the Committee.

General

17. The Dean of the Faculty shall be responsible for:

a. convening meetings of the Committee in accordance with section 6.15;
b. ensuring, in consultation with the Chair, that the activities and outcomes of the Committee meetings are reported annually in the Faculty’s review against its plan which is submitted by the DVC(A) to the Vice-Chancellor; and
c. providing executive assistance and relevant information via the Faculty Executive Officer.

18. The Dean shall be responsible for managing all correspondence issued by or on behalf of the Committee, including that relating to the convening of all meetings and the submission of reports and related documentation.
19. The Committee may co-opt additional persons to work on or support subcommittees or specialist working groups provided that such subcommittees or working groups shall be confined to examining issues within the Committee’s terms of reference.
20. The Faculty should facilitate ongoing communication between members of the Committee, Faculty staff and students regarding the work of the Committee.

7 Faculty and Academic Unit Reviews

Monitoring and Review Framework

1. Faculty planning and review are critical to the achievement of the goals and objectives of the UOW Strategic Plan. Faculty direction, strategies and performance are monitored through a three-stage reporting cycle:

a. Annual Faculty Plans and Review Reports – reviewed by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), and other senior executives for relevant sections, and linked to the University budget process
b. Quarterly review of operational performance against academic planning, budgetary benchmarks and workforce planning – led by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Operations)
c. Triennial reviews of faculty performance against Faculty Plans (in line with the triennial strategic planning cycle, subject to variation to align with professional accreditation requirements) – see section 7.2.

2. Triennial review reports shall be developed by the Faculty, in accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures, and presented by the Dean to the Faculty Advisory Committee and to the DVC(A) and DVC(O) for their advice and feedback as necessary.
3. The cyclical monitoring processes in section 7.1 above are supplemented by the intensive Faculty and Academic Unit review provisions, set out below, which address significant strategic and performance issues and identify areas for quality improvement and innovation.
4. This section sets out the processes for:

a. initiating faculty and academic unit reviews at UOW, and
b. conducting and reporting on those reviews

and it is supported by the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures.

Initiation of Reviews

Issues identified through Faculty monitoring and review process

5. Where serious strategic or performance issues in a Faculty are identified by the senior executive or Faculty Advisory Committee through the faculty monitoring and review process (set out in section 7.1), the DVC(A) shall ask the Dean to make a written submission to the DVC(A) and DVC(O) which responds to the issues identified and recommends one of the following options:

a. No further action on the basis that the issues lack substance or have otherwise been dealt with
b. Initiation of an unscheduled curriculum review (outside the normal five-year cycle) in accordance with section 8.9 below
c. Initiation by the Dean of a faculty-administered review of an academic unit in accordance with section 7.8 below
d. Initiation by the Vice-Chancellor of a centrally-administered, independent review of a faculty or academic unit in accordance with section 7.10 below

6. Serious issues which may lead to a request for a written response from the Dean under section 7.5 include but are not limited to the following:

a. Significant performance issues, including failure to meet planning targets
b. Misalignment of the Faculty with UOW Strategic Goals
c. External environmental changes requiring reconsideration of strategic direction
d. Evidence of a decline in academic standards
e. Failure to meet student number targets
f. Significant staff recruitment and/or management issues

7. After reviewing the Dean’s submission and consulting with other senior executives, the DVC(A) and/or DVC(O) shall make a recommendation to the Vice-Chancellor on the appropriate course of action, which may include any of the options set out in section 7.5.

Initiation by Dean

8. The Dean of a Faculty, for strategic or performance reasons and after consultation with the DVC(O) and DVC(A), may at any time:

a. initiate a faculty-administered review of an academic unit within the faculty, or
b. recommend that the Vice-Chancellor initiate an independent, centrally-administered review of an academic unit within the faculty

9. The DVC(O) shall monitor the progress of faculty-administered reviews and the Vice-Chancellor may at any time, on advice from the DVC(O), direct that a review of an academic unit, under 7.8(a) be administered centrally.

Initiation by Vice-Chancellor

10. The Vice-Chancellor may initiate an independent, centrally-administered review of a faculty or academic unit either in response to a request by the DVC(A), DVC(O) or Dean under sections 7.7 and 7.8 above, or at any other time, in response to faculty-specific issues listed in section 7.6 or wider environmental or University planning issues, including but not limited to:

a. Major changes in strategic direction, disciplinary mix, academic focus or leadership
b. Significant issues in performance identified by the Dean or Senior Executive outside the formal reporting cycles listed in section 7.1.
c. Significant strategic recruitment issues
d. Significant issues in performance identified in other reviews (e.g. curriculum reviews, faculty-administered reviews)

Review Scope and Focus

11. Faculty and Academic Unit Reviews will assess performance against the UOW Strategic Goals and Objectives and aligned faculty and unit objectives for:

a. Learning and Teaching
b. Research
c. Community Engagement
d. Students
e. International Outlook
f. Staff
g. Business/Planning

as they apply at the time of the review.

Conduct of Faculty-Administered Reviews

12. Where a faculty-administered review of an academic unit is initiated under section 7.8, the Dean, in consultation with the Faculty Executive Committee, shall advise the Academic Unit and activate the review program in accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures.
13. The Review Committee will be appointed by the Dean, in consultation with the DVC(O), and comprise:

a. Dean or senior nominee
b. At least one other senior academic member of the Faculty (e.g. usually from another unit within the faculty)
c. At least one senior UOW academic from outside the Faculty
d. Normally not more than two senior expert(s) in related fields external to UOW

Review Committee Terms of Reference:

14. The Review Committee shall:

a. Review the unit’s performance against UOW’s Goals and Objectives (and aligned faculty and unit objectives) in accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Reviews Procedures, with particular reference to:

i. the issue(s) triggering the review
ii. information and data provided to or requested by the Committee
iii. stakeholder feedback (e.g. from students, staff, external community)
iv. relevant external standards and benchmarks

b. Provide a report on the review that includes recommendations for improvements and a plan for further action

15. In accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Reviews Procedures, the outcomes of the review shall be:

a. reported to the DVC(O), DVC(A) and Vice-Chancellor
b. referred to the Faculty Advisory Committee for information and comment where appropriate and for reference in the triennial review cycle (set out in section 7.1)
c. presented in a specific implementation/improvement report as part of their Faculty Plan and Review Report
d. implemented by the unit, with monitoring of any outstanding issues to be carried out thereafter via the annual reporting process

Conduct of Centrally-Administered Reviews

16. Where an independent, centrally-administered review of a faculty or academic unit is initiated, the Vice-Chancellor shall, after consultation with the Dean, DVC(O) and DVC(A), advise the Faculty and/or Academic Unit and commence the review in accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures.

Review Committee Membership:

17. The Review Committee shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor and comprise:

a. For faculty reviews

i. A Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice Chancellor
ii. The Chair or Deputy Chair of Senate
iii. The Chair of the appropriate Faculty Advisory Committee(s) or their external nominee(s)
iv. Normally not more than two senior experts in related field(s) external to UOW, on advice from the Dean

b. For academic unit reviews

i. A Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice Chancellor
ii. The Dean or senior nominee
iii. At least one other senior academic member of the Faculty (eg Head of another unit; FEC/FRC Chair)
iv. At least one senior UOW academic from outside the Faculty
v. One to two senior external expert(s) in a related field on advice from the Dean

Review Committee Terms of Reference:

18. The Review Committee will:

a. Review the unit’s performance against UOW’s Goals and Objectives (and aligned faculty and unit objectives) in accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures, with particular reference to:

i. the issue(s) triggering the review
ii. information and data provided to or requested by the Committee
iii. stakeholder feedback (e.g. from students, staff, external community)
iv. relevant external standards and benchmarks

b. Provide a report on the review that includes recommendations for improvements and a plan for further action

19. Upon completion of the review, the review report shall be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor, who shall refer the outcomes to the Faculty for a response in accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures. The response shall include:

a. a plan for action to address issues raised in the review report, or
b. reasons why no further action is required in response to issues raised.

20. The Vice-Chancellor shall assess the response and provide a commentary (which may include advice on directions and structure).
21. In accordance with the Faculty and Academic Unit Review Procedures, the report on the review outcomes, the commentary and the response from unit/faculty shall be forwarded, as appropriate, to the Faculty Advisory Committee for noting and to the Academic Senate and University Council for noting and, where required, approval of the recommendations.
22. The Faculty shall implement the approved recommendations and submit a specific implementation/improvement report, as part of their next Faculty Plan and Review Report, and address any outstanding issues thereafter via that annual reporting process.

8 Curriculum Review and Development

Monitoring and Review Framework

1. UOW is committed to upholding academic standards and providing high quality learning and teaching programs and services.
2. The quality, viability and strategic relevance of learning and teaching programs shall be monitored by:

a. the DVC(A), DVC(O) and Faculty Deans on a regular basis through the cyclical faculty monitoring and review process (set out in section 7.1); and
b. Faculty Advisory Committees in accordance with their terms of reference (set out in section 6.4.

3. Monitoring in section 8.2 may lead to:

a. The initiation of an unscheduled faculty-administered curriculum review in accordance with section 8.9
b. The development of a Minor Course Proposal which shall be submitted for approval in accordance with the Course Approval Guidelines
c. The development of a Major Course Proposal to be assessed by the Course Approval Management Group for referral in accordance with section 8.25- 8.35.

4. The monitoring processes noted in section 8.2 are supplemented by the requirements set out in this section for conducting:

a. regular and systematic internal faculty-administered curriculum reviews (section 8.5 – 8.10)
b. reviews of Major Course Proposals (section 8.25 – 35) which are supported by:
c. Curriculum Review Procedures (covering course and subject reviews)
d. Curriculum Review Guidelines
e. Course Approval Guidelines
f. Subject Approval Guidelines

Initiation and Scope of Faculty-Administered Curriculum Reviews

5. Faculties shall administer curriculum reviews in accordance with a schedule determined by the DVC(A) in consultation with Faculty Deans. The schedule shall provide for the review of every course and every subject offered by UOW at least every five years.
6. The Dean shall formally include the review schedule and a summary of review outcomes and action in the annual faculty review and planning report.
7. A curriculum review may cover:

a. An individual course or suite of courses
b. A specialisation or suite of specialisations
c. An individual subject or suite of subjects (either as part of or independently of a course or specialisation review)
d. A combination of course, specialisation and subject reviews

8. Where a course has received external accreditation, the Faculty Dean may apply to the DVC(A) to have this accreditation recognised in full or partial substitution for a curriculum review under this section.
9. Where a serious performance issue is identified through the monitoring processes noted in section 8.2 the DVC(A), DVC(O) or Faculty Dean may initiate an unscheduled faculty-administered curriculum review. Issues which may lead to an unscheduled curriculum review include but are not limited to:

a. Poor student outcomes
b. Negative student feedback
c. Evidence of a decline in academic standards
d. Changes to student enrolment patterns
e. Changes to staff profile
f. Faculty or academic unit restructure
g. Changes to industry or other external requirements

10. Where an unscheduled review takes place, the DVC(A) may adjust the next scheduled review date.

Conduct of Faculty-Administered Curriculum Reviews

11. A scheduled or unscheduled faculty-administered curriculum review initiated under section 8.5 – 8.10 shall be conducted in accordance with the Curriculum Review Procedures.
12. The Faculty Curriculum Review Group shall be appointed by the Dean, in consultation with the DVC(A), and shall comprise at a minimum:

a. The FEC Chair or nominee
b. A FEC Chair from another faculty
c. The Head of the relevant academic unit or nominee
d. Two other members each of whom is either:

i. a member of the FEC who is not a member of the unit concerned, or
ii. a representative from Learning Development or the Centre for Educational Development and Interactive Resources

13. Terms of reference for the Faculty Curriculum Review Group shall include the following:

a. Assess the quality, viability and strategic relevance of the course under review, and
b. Provided a report on the review that includes recommendations for improvements and a plan for further action,

in accordance with the Curriculum Review Procedures.

14. Upon completion of the review, the Faculty Curriculum Review Group shall develop a Faculty Curriculum Review Report in accordance with the Curriculum Review Procedures. The report shall address the evaluation criteria listed in the Procedures and include any recommendations for improvements.
15. Review recommendations may include:

a. Major or minor amendments to the course under review
b. Discontinuation of the course under review
c. Review of another related course
d. Development of a new course
e. Changes to University rules or policies
f. A review of an academic unit, in accordance with section 7

16. The review recommendations shall be implemented and reported in accordance with the Curriculum Review Procedures and, in particular:

a. The Faculty, in consultation with the DVC(A), shall develop an action plan to address the recommendations in the Faculty Curriculum Review Report
b. Any resultant Minor Course Proposals shall be submitted for approval in accordance with the Course Approval Procedures
c. Any resultant Major Course Proposals shall be assessed by the Course Approval Management Group for referral in accordance with section 8.25 - 35
d. Implementation of the action plan shall be reported and monitored via the annual Faculty reporting process
e. The review outcomes and action plan shall be presented to the Faculty Advisory Committee (established under section 6) for information and comment where appropriate
f. A summary of the review outcomes shall be presented to Academic Senate for noting

Conduct of Faculty-Administered Subject Reviews

17. Subject reviews may be conducted individually, as a related group or as an integral part of a course or specialisation review under section 8.11 – 8.16.
18. A subject review shall address the following:

a. Appropriateness of learning outcomes
b. Suitability and quality of subject content, teaching materials and assessment
c. Appropriateness of delivery methods
d. Quality of resources
e. Adequacy of student support
f. Student outcomes

19. For each subject review the Dean or nominee shall appoint:

a. a Review Coordinator who is either:

i. a member of staff who has not taught the subject for two or more years, or
ii. another member of staff as agreed by the DVC(A);

b. if considered necessary by the Dean, a small Subject Review Group whose membership shall be determined by the Dean,

noting that, where a subject is reviewed as an integral part of a course or specialisation review, the review may alternatively be conducted by the Course Review Group.

20. The Review Coordinator or Review Group shall seek feedback from:

a. Students – through the Subject Evaluation Survey (mandatory) and other appropriate means (e.g. open feedback sessions)
b. Academic peers – through peer evaluation of subject documentation, materials and performances
c. Colleagues from other units, faculties or institutions as appropriate

21. Evaluation criteria shall include whether:

a. The subject meets the expectations of the relevant discipline or profession
b. The learning outcomes reflect the objectives of the course/s in which the subject is taught, UOW’s institutional goals and objectives (and aligned faculty and unit objectives) and the standards of performance expected for a higher education subject at the relevant level
c. The assessment is appropriate and clearly related to the learning outcomes
d. Relevant UOW Graduate Qualities have been appropriately embedded
e. Facilities are suitable and accessible
f. Content is culturally inclusive
g. Student demand meets expectation
h. Student retention rate and performance compare well with other subjects within the discipline/course

22. When the review is completed, the Review Coordinator or Review Group shall prepare a summary report addressing the evaluation criteria listed in section 8.21, including any recommendations for improvement and submit it to the FEC.
23. The FEC shall consider the report and forward it to the Dean with comment as required. After consultation with the Dean, the Head of Unit shall initiate and monitor implementation of the improvements.
24. Where a change to a subject affects the structure of a course, an application to amend that course shall be submitted in accordance with the Course Approval Procedures.

Review of Major Course Proposals

25. A Major Course Proposal arising from:

a. a faculty-administered curriculum review (under section 8.5 – 8.10);
b. the monitoring process (under section 8.2); or
c. an independent strategic initiative,

shall be assessed by the Course Approval Management Group (CAMG) in accordance with the Course Approval Guidelines.

26. Where the Major Course Proposal is approved in concept by the CAMG, the Faculty shall establish and support an External Curriculum Appraisal Committee (ECAC) to review the Course Proposal.
27. The DVC(A) may waive the requirement that a Major Course Proposal be reviewed by an ECAC and direct that the Proposal be submitted directly for approval under the Course Approval Guidelines.
28. Each ECAC shall include at least six members, including:

a. Dean of the Faculty or nominee
b. Faculty Education Committee (FEC) Chair or nominee
c. Chair of the appropriate Faculty Advisory Committee(s) or external nominee(s)
d. At least two prominent persons held in high esteem in their field of relevant expertise, including relevant professional bodies, or relevant expertise in government or industry, who are external to the University
e. A student representative nominated by the Faculty, usually from among the student representatives on the Faculty Committee.

29. Committee members should be drawn from both within and outside the local area and, as far as possible, each Committee shall be gender balanced.
30. For each review under section 8.25 – 8.35, the Dean shall submit a recommended list of members to the DVC(A) for approval. A variation of the usual committee membership may be recommended by the Dean for approval by the DVC(A) in particular cases (e.g. where a Committee is to review a joint faculty program, the Dean and/or FEC Chair from both Faculties shall be included).
31. The ECAC terms of reference are as follows:

a. In accordance with this section and the Curriculum Reviews Procedures, review a Major Course Proposal with particular reference to the criteria set out in the Procedures relating to quality, viability and strategic relevance
b. Where appropriate, make recommendations for changes to the Major Course Proposal
c. Report to the Faculty on the outcomes of the review with specific reference to the course evaluation criteria set out in the Curriculum Review Procedures

32. Additional terms of reference may be prescribed by the DVC(A) in consultation with the Dean.
33. Reviews under this section shall be conducted by the ECAC in accordance with the Curriculum Review Procedures.
34. Upon completion of the review, the ECAC shall develop a Report in accordance with the Curriculum Review Procedures. The report shall address the evaluation criteria listed in the Procedures and include any recommendations for changes to the Major Course Proposal.
35. The review recommendations shall be implemented and reported in accordance with the Curriculum Review Procedures and, in particular:

a. Any resultant Major Course Proposals shall be submitted for approval in accordance with the Course Approval Procedures
b. The review outcomes shall be presented to the Faculty Advisory Committee (established under section 6) for information and comment where appropriate
c. Implementation of the course proposal shall be reported and monitored via the annual Faculty reporting process

9 Roles & Responsibilities

Management

1. The DVC(A) has executive oversight of the implementation of this Policy.
2. A Faculty Dean is responsible for:

a. Ensuring that faculty planning and review processes are conducted by appropriate staff in accordance with the strategic planning framework
b. Establishing and operating one or more Faculty Advisory Committees in accordance with the requirements set out in section 6
c. Ensuring that other faculty committees are in place and operating as required to contribute to the review processes set out in sections 7 and 8
d. Overseeing curriculum reviews in accordance with the procedures set out in section 8
e. Reporting the outcomes of reviews of faculty and academic unit performance against the Faculty Plan and the University Strategic Plan to the Faculty Advisory Committee in accordance with section 7 of this policy.

Committees

3. The University Planning and Quality Committee, Academic Senate and the University Council have general oversight of the strategic planning and academic review processes.
4. The University Planning and Quality Committee is responsible for monitoring and reviewing implementation of the Policy and its effectiveness in supporting ongoing quality improvement at the University.
5. Faculty Advisory Committees are responsible for monitoring and supporting the strategic planning and academic review processes at a faculty level in accordance with this Policy.
6. The roles of other Faculty committees are set out, as appropriate, in the procedures for academic unit and curriculum reviews in sections 7 and 8 respectively.

10 Version Control and Change History

Version Control	Date Effective	Approved By	Amendment
1	1 January 2009	University Council	First Version
2	5 February 2009	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)	Migrated to UOW Policy Template as per Policy Directory Refresh
3	13 July 2009	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)	Minor amendments to: • rename the Curriculum Review and Development Committee to become the External Curriculum Appraisal Committee • rename the Curriculum Review Group to Faculty Curriculum Review Group • correct references to the Course Approval Guidelines and include reference to Curriculum Review Guidelines • correction of DVC(A&I) to DVC(A) • other minor typographical changes

Last reviewed: 6 October, 2009

Policy Directory Search

Ask for Help

Click here for information on how to contact the Policy and Governance Unit for advice and assistance on policy issues.