The Academic Program Review Procedure has been updated. A copy of the previous version of the procedure is available for reference.

Procedures

Academic Program Review - Procedure

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0    Purpose and Scope

Academic Program Reviews facilitate the comprehensive, cyclical review of the University's academic programs and plans. These procedures enact PPL 3.30.03 Programs, Plans and Courses Quality Assurance Policy.

The purpose of the Academic Program Review is to undertake an evidence-based evaluation of the design, market appeal, viability, competitiveness, student satisfaction, employment outcomes and longevity of programs and associated plans. In addition to the review of longitudinal performance against internal institutional thresholds, Academic Program Reviews use external benchmarking to measure performance.

This procedure applies to all coursework programs offered at UQ. This procedure does not apply to the Higher Degree by Research (HDR) and Higher Doctorate programs.

This procedure fulfils relevant regulatory obligations described in the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HESF) and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code).

2.0    Process and Key Controls

The Academic Program Review process requires that all coursework programs are subject to a comprehensive review at least once every seven years. Plans are reviewed in conjunction with program reviews, however programs with a large number of plans may conduct plan reviews in stages.

Reviews may be held sooner if required by the Faculty administering the program, an external accreditation review cycle, or if determined by the Provost and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

New academic programs are reviewed after two cohorts have graduated or sooner if required. The review of a new Graduate Certificate or a new Graduate Diploma that is part of a Master’s suite will be undertaken after two cohorts of the Master’s program have graduated or sooner if required. The septennial review cycle will commence upon the completion of the initial review.

Academic Program Reviews are overseen by the Appropriate Authorised Delegate. Reviews of programs which are predominantly administered within a School are overseen by the Executive Dean through the Associate Dean (Academic) and Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. Programs that are administered at a faculty level (or across faculties) are reviewed with the oversight of the Academic Board through its Standing Committee.

The process is informed by dashboards and detailed reports comprising defined contextual and academic quality assurance data. Key controls include:

  • the scope of the Review and the terms of reference for the Academic Program Review panel; and

  • reporting of the recommendations and implementation plan, and subsequent monitoring of actions arising.

The key tasks within the Academic Program Review process are:

  1. Selection of the Academic Program Review panel (section 3.2.1)
  2. Development of the Academic Program Review terms of reference (section 3.2.2)
  3. Preparation of the Academic Program Review submission for the panel (section 3.3.3)
  4. Conduct the Academic Program Review by the Review panel (section 3.4.1)
  5. Preparation and submission of the Academic Program Review report to the Appropriate Authorised Delegate (section 3.4.2)
  6. Response to the Academic Program Review report (section 3.4.2)
  7. Consideration of the post-Academic Program Review response and identification of priorities for the Academic Program Review implementation plan (section 3.5)
  8. Development of the implementation plan (section 3.5)
  9. Implement Review recommendations (section 3.5)
  10. Report on progress of the implementation plan (section 3.5).
  11. Report on the Academic Program Reviews conducted annually (section 3.5)

 

3.0    Key Requirements

3.1    Principles of the Academic Program Review process

The Academic Program Review process is underpinned by the following key principles:

  • That there is one UQ Academic Program Review process that accommodates all programs identified in this procedure.

  • That the Academic Program Review process aligns with the size, viability, and complexity of the program.

  • That decision-making relating to Academic Program Reviews, including generalist degrees and programs administered across faculties, will ensure that decisions are made at the next higher level of academic oversight (the "Appropriate Authorised Delegate").

  • That any conflict of interest is considered and addressed.

  • That stakeholder input is sought and considered throughout every stage of the Review process and includes both student and external perspectives.

  • That where a program is subject to external accreditation, the Academic Program Review is a complementary review; Academic Program Review elements not included in the external accreditation documentation must be reviewed separately to fulfil the Academic Program Review process.

  • That where the program forms part of a dual degree, any changes resulting from the Academic Program Review will apply to that component of the dual program.

  • That Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges and perspectives are considered during the Academic Program Review process.

  • That the Academic Program Review process assures compliance with relevant UQ policies and procedures including the Program Design Policy, as well as with regulatory requirements including the HESF and the National Code.

3.2    Establish the Academic Program Review

3.2.1    Academic Program Review Panel

The membership of the Academic Program Review panel is determined by the Appropriate Authorised Delegate. This is typically the Associate Dean (Academic) for programs administered within a School and the President of the Academic Board for programs administered across faculties. The Appropriate Authorised Delegate must consider any conflict of interest in the Review panel selection.

The composition of the Academic Program Review panel is guided by the size, viability and complexity of the academic program to be reviewed, including whether the program is within a School, across schools, within or across faculties or whether it is a professionally accredited program. In all cases, input will be sought from all faculties and schools involved.

The Review panel will typically include:

  • the Chair

  • the Secretary

  • one member with relevant expertise from a cognate discipline

  • one to three members who are external to the University with local, national, or international expertise and knowledge in a relevant discipline(s)

  • student representatives, and

  • other members as determined by the Appropriate Authorised Delegate.

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and the President of the Academic Board, or their nominees, may participate on the Review panel or make a submission to the Review, as appropriate.

3.2.2    Academic Program Review Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for Academic Program Reviews are approved by the Appropriate Authorised Delegate in consultation with relevant stakeholders commensurate with the size, viability and complexity of the program under review. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) may be consulted on the terms of reference as appropriate.

The terms of reference provide the context for analysis of the effectiveness of the program since the previous Review, or since commencement of a new program, and for the Review panel’s recommendations on the future development of the program. The terms of reference will typically cover the distinctiveness and strategic oversight of the program, curriculum and pedagogical developments, integration of the UQ Graduate Statement and Attributes, internationalisation and indigenisation of the curriculum, assessment, academic governance, financial viability, staffing and facilities, and student satisfaction.

The Academic Program Review panel reviews the program in accordance with the terms of reference, ensuring that the program complies with the HESF and with relevant UQ policies and procedures including the Program Design Policy.

The timeframe for undertaking the Review will be determined by the relevant parties after the terms of reference have been approved.

3.3    Prepare the submission to the Review panel

The ‘Review submission’ is a document that is considered by the Review panel. The focus of the Review submission is to identify future directions and strategic intentions for the program through analysis and reflection on the program’s history, the program at present, and future plans for program improvement and development, including consideration of market demand and competition, pricing structures and UQ and Faculty strategic alignment. The Review submission will inform deliberation by the Review panel and assists panel members to make decisions and recommendations.

The Program Convenor or the Plan Convenor coordinates development of the Review submission to the Academic Program Review panel, in consultation with the Head(s) of School and relevant teaching staff. The Program Convenor or the Plan Convenor will seek input from stakeholders (such as employers, international partners) through forums/focus groups, student and staff submissions, surveys/consultation, and workshops. Input must be sought from student and external representatives as well as from relevant schools/units across UQ.

The Review submission will contain information from benchmarking and related analysis with other Australian and international universities where appropriate. The submission will also incorporate information and analysis from relevant academic quality assurance reports and related reports including, as appropriate:

  • Student load and demand

  • Student attrition, retention, progress and success (pass rates, completions, grade distributions)

  • Student satisfaction (SECaTs) and Student Experience Survey (SES)

  • Graduate satisfaction and destinations (GOS and CEQ scales for good teaching, generic skills, overall satisfaction for field/s of study, employment outcomes)

  • Assessment of learning outcomes

  • Modes of teaching

  • Financial sustainability.

Planning and Business Intelligence will make available through the UQ Reportal relevant reports related to the academic quality assurance of programs, plans and courses.

Further guidance on benchmarking and data analyses for the Review submission, including for externally accredited programs, is available from the Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation (ITaLI) website.

3.4    Conduct the Review

3.4.1    During the Review

In conducting the Review, the Review panel Chair will ensure that each term of reference is addressed.

During the Review, the Review panel will:

  • Interview key stakeholders including the Heads of School(s) and the Program Convenor or Plan Convenor where relevant

  • Consider and deliberate on the Review submission from the Faculty/faculties, School(s) and other UQ units as well as submissions from external stakeholders

  • Consider any quality improvement and enhancement themes nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, Provost and/or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

In the case of externally accredited programs, the Academic Program Review will consist of the accreditation report and any benchmarking, data or other information required in the Review submission not covered in the accreditation report.

3.4.2    Review report and response

At the conclusion of the Review, the Review panel will:

  • Prepare the Academic Program Review report, including a summary of findings in relation to the terms of reference and recommendations to the School(s) and/or Faculties

  • Submit the Academic Program Review report to the Appropriate Authorised Delegate.

After Reviews of generalist degrees, a response to the Review report will be prepared by the Program Convenor, Head of School or Appropriate Authorised Delegate.

The Executive Dean and/or the Appropriate Authorised Delegate will consider the Academic Program Review report and, for reviews of generalist degrees, the post-Review response and will identify priorities for the implementation plan.

3.5    Implement the Review recommendations

The implementation plan may form part of the Academic Program Review report or alternaively coordinated by the Program Convenor or the Plan Convenor in consultation with the Head of School and relevant teaching staff. In either case, input will be sought from other faculties and schools, and academic units with which the Faculty has a teaching relationship.

If distinct from the Academic Program Review report, the implementation plan is submitted to the Appropriate Authorised Delegate for approval.

The Secretary to the Review panel will circulate the Review report and approved implementation plan to the relevant Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee and/or Board(s) of Studies, the Teaching and Learning Committee of the Academic Board and to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) for noting.

Each Faculty will submit an annual list of Academic Program Reviews undertaken and implementation plans approved to the Teaching and Learning Committee of the Academic Boarad for noting.

The Secretary of the Teaching and Learning Committee will compile a summary list of the Academic Program Reviews and implementation plans annually for the consideration of the Teaching and Learning Committee of the Academic Board.

4.0    Monitoring, Review and Assurance

The Appropriate Authorised Delegate is responsible for ensuring that the actions identified in the implementation plan are fulfilled.

The preparation of the implementation plan progress report is coordinated by the Program Convenor or the Plan Convenor, in consultation with the Head of School and relevant teaching staff. The actions identified in the Academic Program Review implementation plan will be monitored by the Executive Dean and the relevant Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee.

The implementation plan progress report will be submitted to the Appropriate Authorised Delegate, the Associate Dean (Academic) and to the Teaching and Learning Committee of Academic Board in time periods commensurate with the recommendations and cycle of initiatives.

The implementation plan progress report will detail the extent to which the actions identified in the implementation plan have been finalised and the effectiveness of those actions in meeting the agreed priorities of the Academic Program Review.

5.0    Recording and Reporting

Reports, implementation plans and associated records are maintained in accordance with the University’s Information Management Policy.

The Appropriate Authorised Delegate is responsible for approving changes to the published shcedule of Academic Program Reviews for their faculty and for reporting these changes to the Secretary of the Teaching and Learning Committee of the Academic Board.

6.0    Roles and Responsibilities

Position Responsibility

Vice-Chancellor

  • May nominate quality improvement and enhancement themes for the Academic Program Review process.

Provost

 

  • May nominate quality improvement and enhancement themes for the Academic Program Review process.

  • Determines whether an Academic Program Review will be undertaken earlier than the seven-year cycle.

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

 

  • May nominate quality improvement and enhancement themes for the Academic Program Review process.

  • Determines whether an Academic Program Review will be undertaken earlier than the seven-year cycle.

  • Endorses the Academic Program Review report and implementation plan.

Executive Dean

 

  • Determines whether an Academic Program Review will be undertaken earlier than the seven-year cycle.

  • Oversees reviews of programs which are predominantly administered within a School.

  • Determines membership of the Review panel in consultation with the Associate Dean (Academic).

  • Endorses the terms of reference of the Academic Program Review.

  • Provides a post-review response for programs administered across Faculties (generalist degrees)

  • Approves the implementation plan for programs administered by the Faculty and monitors progress.

Associate Dean (Academic)

  • Will be the Appropriate Authorised Delegate for programs which are predominantly administered within a School, in consultation with the Executive Dean.

  • Develops the Academic Program Review terms of reference for relevant programs, in consultation with stakeholders.

  • Ensures actions identified in the implementation plan are fulfilled.

Head of School

  • Consults with Program Convenor or Plan Convenor to prepare Review submission to the Review panel

  • Coordinates the preparation of the implementation plan in consultation with the Program Convenor or Plan Convenor.

  • Coordinates preparation of the implementation progress report in consultation with the Program Convenor or the Plan Convenor, as relevant.

President of Academic Board

  • As Chair of the Academic Board Standing Committee, the President of the Academic Board is the Appropriate Authorised Delegate for programs administered across Faculties (for example, the Bachelor of Arts and the Bachelor of Science).

  • May participate on the Review panel or make a submission to the Review, as appropriate.

  • Receives the Academic Program Review report and implementation plan for all programs which are reviewed with oversight of the Academic Board through its Standing Committee.

  • Ensures the actions identified in the implementation plan are fulfilled for all programs for which the Academic Board Standing Committee is the Appropriate Authorised Delegate.

Program Convenor / Plan Convenor

  • Coordinates development of the Review submission to the Academic Program Review panel, in consultation with the Head(s) of school and relevant teaching staff.
  • Prepares a response to the Academic Program Review Report for programs administered at faculty level (generalist degrees)
  • Coordinates preparation of the Review implementation plan in consultation with the Head of School and relevant teaching staff.
  • Coordinates the preparation of the Review implementation plan progress report as relevant in consultation with the Head of School and relevant teaching staff.

Secretary of the Teaching and Learning Committee of the Academic Board

  • Maintains the published schedule of Academic Program Reviews

7.0    Appendix

7.1    Acronyms and definitions

Appropriate Authorised Delegate - the term Appropriate Authorised Delegate has been introduced to provide flexibility for the different structures within faculties and to cater for different processes for reviews of programs administered within a School, within a faculty or across faculties.

For this procedure the Appropriate Authorised Delegate represents the next higher level of academic oversight in decision-making relating to Academic Program Reviews. Reviews of programs which are predominantly administered within a School are overseen by the Executive Dean through the Associate Dean (Academic) and Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. Programs that are administered at a faculty level (or across faculties) are reviewed with oversight of the Academic Board through its Standing Committee.

CEQ - Course Experience Questionnaire.

Generalist degree - a 48-unit AQF level 7 bachelor's degree that has no or few common compulsory courses and a number of plans from which students may choose.

GOS - Graduate Outcomes Survey.

Program - a sequence of study leading to the award of a qualification such as an undergraduate degree or diploma, and/or a postgraduate coursework qualification.

SECaT - Student Evaluation of Course and Teacher.

SES - Student Experience Survey.

Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald

Forms

Printer-friendly version

Guide to Academic Program Review (APR) process overview flow chart - Form

Guide to Academic Program Review (APR) process overview flow chart - Form

Printer-friendly version
Body
Description: 

The flow chart reflects in summary format the content of the Academic Program Review (APR) process as set out in the Academic Program Procedure [PPL 3.30.05].

Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald
Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald
Custodians
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) Professor Doune Macdonald