Comprehensive Course Review Panel - Terms of Reference The Comprehensive Course Review process involves a self and peer analysis of the structure and content and overall quality of the course in question in relation to the needs of students and external stakeholders, and by reference to national and international standards. While the primary focus is on the content and quality of the course, such reviews, by their very nature, co-incidentally consider the quality of individual units included in the course, and the School(s) delivering the course, thus encompassing the quality of the teaching, organisation and administration, and the resources (both human and physical) to support the course in such a manner as to fulfil its goals and objectives and hence those of the Faculty/Division/Institute and the University. Comprehensive Course Reviews are conducted every seven years as per University obligations under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015. The Terms of Reference provide the Panel with the opportunity to comment on development since the last Comprehensive Course Review and/or Professional Accreditation process, and to consider the Organisational Unit s plans and strategies for future development. Where Professional Accreditation of a course of study is required for graduates to be eligible to practice, the course of study is accredited and continues to be accredited by the relevant professional body in addition to, or parallel with the Comprehensive Course Review process. If the Comprehensive Course Review is the first review of a particular course after its initial approval, the Comprehensive Course Review Panel must also review the course against the Business Case that formed part of the original New Course Proposal. The results of the Comprehensive Course Review are used to mitigate future risks to the quality of the education provided and to guide and evaluate improvements. The task of the Comprehensive Course Review Panel (the Panel) is to provide an objective commentary on such plans and, as appropriate, recommend changes and/or enhancements. In its report, the Panel is asked to comment on the following areas. 1. Strategic Alignment The Panel should comment on the strategic alignment of the course to key University priorities and strategies, outlined in, for example, Open to Talent: Strategic Plan 2012 Onwards, and its supporting plans and strategies. This may include reference to the purpose and objectives of the course and the extent to which the stated objectives contribute to Faculty/Division/Institute and University objectives as set out in their respective strategic plans. Considerations may include the extent to which the course contributes to the University s: access and participation agendas; goals around raising the state s skills base; growth targets (i.e. retention and completion rates); and goals around promoting life-long learning. Other considerations may include the extent to which the course is connected with University research priority areas and is distinctive: e.g. theme, mode of delivery etc., and the effectiveness of course-level quality assurance processes and their connection to school and Faculty/Division/Institute processes.
2. Curriculum 2.1 Structure, Content and Learning Outcomes The Panel should comment on the structure, content and learning outcomes of the course, feedback, Annual Course Reports and a suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. a current Curriculum Map which aligns the structure and content of the Course with the specified Learning Outcomes). Considerations may include the relationship between the course and other courses offered by the University and the extent to which the course aligns with: national external reference points, such as the Higher Education Standards Framework and the Australian Qualifications Framework; and relevant learning and teaching policies and procedures. Considerations may also include: the extent to which the course-level learning outcomes contribute to alignment with the Graduate Quality Statement; the structure of the curriculum in terms of its ability to achieve the course goals and objectives; the appropriateness of the statement of curriculum philosophy for this course; the equivalence of learning outcomes across delivery sites (including nationally and internationally as relevant); the extent to which study of the underlying theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the academic disciplines or fields of education or research are represented in the course; the extent to which emerging concepts that are informed by recent scholarship, current research findings and, where applicable, advances in practice are represented in the course; and the extent to which the course is focussed on continuous improvement through reflection and review, including all students having the opportunity to provide feedback on their educational experiences, and all teachers and supervisors having the opportunity to review feedback on their teaching and research supervision and are supported in enhancing these activities. All feedback received should inform course monitoring, review and improvement activities. Attention should also be given to how the course addresses issues of equity and diversity, including how any inherent requirements of the course are represented and how these reflect best practice. 2.2 Teaching The Panel should comment on the approaches to teaching used in the course, taking into account information contained in the Self-Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data course data pack, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. the qualifications, experience and ongoing scholarship of teaching staff, appropriateness of staff composition, staff orientation and professional development, alignment with the Technology Enhanced Learning and Teaching (TELT) White Paper and student satisfaction survey results). Considerations may include the extent to which teaching and learning activities are arranged to foster progressive and coherent achievement of expected learning outcomes; the extent to which the approaches to teaching: support the achievement of the course level learning outcomes and unit-level learning outcomes; incorporate the effective use of technology; and are innovative and take account of inclusive approaches to student engagement and student feedback. 2.3 Assessment The Panel should comment on the approaches to assessment used in the course, taking into account information contained in the Self-Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. mapping of assessment to learning outcomes, use of peer review of assessment, grade distribution data). Considerations may include the extent to which assessment in the course is consistent with the achievement of the specified learning
outcomes at both the course and unit level; the learner-centric nature of the course in terms of course and unit design; the range of assessment tasks, opportunities for alternative assessment tasks, associated learning outcomes and student workload. For Higher Degree Research courses, consideration should be given to the outputs arising from research training and how they contribute to the development of the field of research, practice or creative field and, in the case of doctoral degrees, demonstrate a significant original contribution. 2.4 Student Admission and Progress The Panel should comment on the admission requirements and student progress in the course, feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. entry requirements, profile of commencing students basis of admission, Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR), demographic elements, Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and articulated pathways, retention and progression rates). Considerations may include: the quality of the students entering and completing the course; and the extent to which admission practices assess sufficient academic preparation, including English proficiency to assure progress in the course. 2.5 Graduate Outcomes The Panel should comment on the graduate outcomes of the course, taking into account information contained in the Self-Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. completion rates, results from the Graduate Outcomes Survey employment rates and rates of further study, and results from the Employer Satisfaction Survey). Considerations may include the extent to which graduate outcomes in terms of employment or further study reflect the objectives of the course and the extent to which the structure, content and methods of delivery of the course result in the development of appropriate knowledge and skills bases, and provide appropriate preparation for employment and further study. 2.6 Stakeholder Engagement The Panel should comment on the appropriateness of the level of stakeholder engagement in the course, taking into account information contained in the Self-Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. Professional Accreditation, industry or Course Advisory Board involvement and results from the Employer Satisfaction Survey). Considerations may include the extent to which external stakeholders contribute to the monitoring and improvement of the course and the ways in which the course been amended as a result of stakeholder feedback. Considerations may also include collaborative arrangements between the course and teaching within other Schools/Faculties/Divisions/Institutes, other educational institutions and relevant businesses, industries and professions. Considerations may also include the extent to which work-integrated learning, placements, other community-based learning and collaborative research training arrangements are quality assured, including assurance of the quality of supervision of student experiences. Where a course of study, any parts of a course of study, or research training are delivered through arrangements with another party(ies), whether in Australia or overseas, the registered higher education provider remains accountable for the course of study and verifies continuing compliance of the course of study
with the standards in the Higher Education Standards Framework that relate to the specific arrangement. 2.7 Research Components of Undergraduate Programs of Study and Higher Degrees by Research The panel should comment on the extent to which students are guided and supported in developing underpinning research skills including scoping, designing and conducting research, critical evaluation, and the presentation, publication and dissemination of findings. The panel should also consider how research training contributes to developments within the field and allows students to develop significant original contributions. 3. Student Experience 3.1 Course Advice, Orientation and Transition The Panel should comment on the appropriateness of the level of advice, orientation and transition support for students, taking into account information contained in the Self- Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. retention rates from first year to second year, student academic progress rates and allegations of academic misconduct). Considerations may include the extent to which processes are in place to support orientation and transition, the ways in which students at risk were identified and supported, and the ways in which students were advised of their obligations in relation to academic integrity. 3.2 Learning Support Services The Panel should comment on the appropriateness of the level of learning support services available to students in the course, taking into account information contained in the Self- Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. levels of access and take up of learning support services, library and other learning resources). Considerations may include the extent to which learning support services are tailored to students enrolled in the course. 3.3 Wellbeing and Safety The Panel should comment on the appropriateness of levels of student wellbeing and safety in relation to this course, taking into account information contained in the Self-Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. incident reports, student complaints and retention rates). Considerations may include the extent to which specific issues relating to student wellbeing and safety have been identified by students in the course. 3.4 Facilities and Infrastructure The Panel should comment on the appropriateness of facilities and infrastructure in the course, feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. internal student satisfaction survey results and University Student Experience Survey results). Considerations may include: the range, quality and availability of learning resources and systems; the extent to which students have identified issues relating to teaching spaces, technology or placement which affect their access to and engagement with the course; and the extent to which these issues have been addressed.
4. Financial Viability The Panel should comment on the financial viability of the course and its capacity to deliver the curriculum, taking into account information contained in the Self-Assessment Report, stakeholder feedback, Annual Course Reports and the suite of relevant data, which has been collated from the regular, local review cycle (e.g. revenue and costs, staff/ student ratios, time series student load data and selected benchmark/competitor data relevant to the future plans for the course). The Panel may also comment on any additional financial considerations, for example: the need for the course to deviate from standard administration processes and procedures and any subsequent financial impact this may cause; and unit viability (teaching efficiency), i.e. the extent to which it is demonstrated that: the units in the course are individually viable (load by unit); that the teaching mode is efficient; and that there is not duplication of content across units. Considerations may also include the currency, relevance and quality of the curriculum including: the standing of the course and its position with regard to competitor courses; the course s contribution to the profession and/or the community; the currency and relevance of curriculum content; and the capacity of the curriculum to develop graduate attributes and allow for the integration of knowledge with a focus on where the discipline/profession is expected to be over the next five years.