Academic Organisational Unit; Bridging; Central Student Administration; Enabling; Foundation Unit; Library; Murdoch International; Offshore; Quality; Review; School; Student Services, Teaching and Learning Centre.

This policy combines the previous, separately approved Guidelines for School Reviews, Quality Review Audits of Offshore Courses, Quality Review of Library Services, Quality Review of University Student Services and Review of Bridging and Enabling Courses policies.

This policy should be read in conjunction with the Code of Conduct for Academic Organisational Unit Reviews, which  is provided at Attachment B and replaces the Code of Conduct for School Reviews.

The basic administrative groups of academic and supporting general staff that are responsible for teaching and the conduct of research. These units are called Schools.

For the purposes of this policy, AOUs also include University Services, Enabling Courses, Foundation Units, Library Services, the Teaching and Learning Centre, Murdoch International and Offshore Courses.

A bridging programme is provided for particular types of disadvantaged students who need preparation prior to commencing a formal award course – it is offered to students to enable them subsequently, if they so choose, to commence an award course in a student place that is funded either partially or fully by the Commonwealth. Programmes which form part of a formal award course or for which credit will or may be given towards an award course are not considered to be bridging programmes.

• being from low socio-economic background;
• being from rural or isolated backgrounds;
• being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent;
• being women in non-traditional areas;
• being from non-English speaking backgrounds; and
• having a disability.

• provides bridging or supplementary education that is offered for the purpose of enabling a non overseas student to undertake an award course in a student place which is funded either partially or fully by the Commonwealth at the institution or at another institution; and
• which meets Commonwealth guidelines concerning the inclusion in the annual data collection of student load for bridging and supplementary programmes.

A specifically designated unit that enables students new to the university to develop a range of generic learning skills and attitudes in a context that develops an interdisciplinary conceptual understanding, as well as providing a foundation for subsequent university study and a basis for the development of Murdoch University’s Graduate Attributes.

A course that leads to a Murdoch University award and that is offered either partially or wholly outside Australia and in conjunction with an overseas partner.

The formal document establishing a contractual relationship between Murdoch University and the offshore institution, covering amongst other things, how the relationship will work, and the roles and responsibilities of the parties.

Recommendation

An opportunity for improvement identified by the Review Panel that was not identified as part of an AOU’s self-evaluation.

School-based Centre

A Centre in which the operations and focus are based primarily within one school, and where the resources of the school (eg staff, equipment and infrastructure) are adequate to effectively run the Centre without additional assistance from the University (eg, does not require Research and Development Board supplementary funding).

• The Office of Central Student Administration
• Murdoch International
• Prospective Students and Admissions Centre
• Faculty Administration Offices
• Alumni, Careers and Employment
• Graduate Centre

1.

Reviews of Academic Organisational Units will be conducted on a regular and systematic basis as part of the University’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing the quality of all its activities.

The review process is an opportunity to demonstrate excellence and identify opportunities for further improvement as part of the AOU’s ongoing commitment to quality.

The review process will involve an honest, thorough self-evaluation followed by peer evaluation.

The review process will be conducted with the full participation of the staff and, where relevant, students of the AOU under review.

The review process will utilise existing data wherever possible in order to minimise the impact on staff and routine AOU activities.

6.

Each AOU will implement its Action Plan for self-identified areas for improvement immediately following submission of its self-evaluation documentation.

The Review Panel will consider the self-evaluation documentation; conduct interviews with staff, students and various internal and external stakeholders as appropriate (eg, employer groups, government and non-government organisations, alumni, community representatives, partner institutions); provide a report commenting on the self-identified opportunities for improvement as well as any additional recommendations.

Each AOU will respond to each of the Review Panel’s recommendations and, following approval by Academic Council, undertake the necessary follow-up action.

1.

Timing of Reviews

1.1

1.2

The President of Academic Council and Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) will determine the Schedule of Future Academic Organisational Unit Reviews, following consultation with relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive and Faculty Deans.

Academic Council will note the Schedule of Future Academic Organisational Unit Reviews.

The President of Academic Council or the Vice Chancellor may at any time initiate an AOU review outside the agreed schedule.

2.

Composition of Review Panels

3.

3.1

The Chair will be responsible for co-ordinating the preparation of a report on the conduct of the review, its findings and conclusions.

3.2

All members of the Review Panel will be expected to:

(a)

Consider the self-evaluation documentation submitted by the AOU.

(b)

Be available for at least three days for intensive interviews, discussions and deliberations in Perth.

(c)

Form an overall assessment of the AOU based on the documentation, interviews and discussions.

(d)

Assist in the framing of recommendations to assist the AOU further enhance the quality of its operations.

The Chair will be expected to stay an additional day, in order to complete the draft Panel report prior to leaving Perth.

4.

4.1

The Faculty Dean or relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive responsible for the AOU under review will, after consultation with staff of that AOU, forward to the President of Academic Council nominations for the Review Panel, including any special case to have more than three members.

Two or three nominees will be provided for each category of membership (listed in order of preference), plus a brief statement on the suitability of each nominee.

4.2

The President of Academic Council will determine the membership and appoint the members of the Review Panel from the nominations received.

5.

5.1

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

5.2

The University will co ordinate arrangements for the review and provide secretarial support for the Review Panel.

6.

Terms of reference may vary depending on the AOU under review. The President of Academic Council, after consultation with the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) (Chair, Academic Quality Audit Committee) and other relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive, Faculty Dean and AOU concerned, may approve additional or amended terms of reference, or specific questions for which the review panel should seek answers. Any such approval should be sought prior to appointment of the review panel.

The following terms of reference apply to all AOU reviews, except Foundation Units, for which Academic Council approved separate terms of reference:

6.1

The review will be conducted in the context of the strategic plans of the University, Faculty and the AOU.

6.2

The review will consider the past and present performance of the AOU in terms of the AOU’s own stated role, objectives, strategies and outcomes, as well as commenting on the appropriateness of its plans for the future.

6.3

The AOU under review will be considered in the light of national and international trends, best practice in the discipline/area(s) concerned and any benchmarking activities in which the AOU has participated.

6.4

The review will consider whether there are adequate quality assurance mechanisms in place, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the review process and, in particular, that the Academic Council approved recommendations of previous reviews were addressed. Consideration should also be given to any other external audits.

6.5

The review will include any established relationships with other parts of Murdoch University or with external organisations.

The following additional terms of reference apply to the AOU specified:

6.6.1

• The external research income of the AOU.
• The quantity and quality of publications of staff and research students.
• The enrolments and load of higher degree by research (HDR) students in the AOU, number of completions, completion rate and time to complete of HDR students.

6.6.2

• The vision statement of the focus and direction of research within the AOU.
• Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the AOU’s research performance.
• Assessment of research performance in comparison with comparable AOUs within and outside the University.
• Assessment of the role and performance of any School-based Centres within the AOU.
• Measures being taken to address issues raised in these assessments.
• Measures to be taken to improve the quality of research within the context of the Research Quality Framework.
• Targets for improvement.

6.7

School Reviews and Enabling Course Reviews

• Examine each course in the context of changes that have occurred since its development and/or last review, and for course development will focus on the purpose of the major(s) and its continuing relevance.
• Review the structure and level of the course(s) and how learning objectives are supported by aligned assessment, learning activities and academic content.
• Review the continuing appropriateness of the assessment practices and criteria to the aims and objectives of the course(s) offered.
• Review the lines of responsibility for the conduct of the course(s) offered.
• For School Reviews, review how the University’s graduate attributes are addressed in the major(s) offered.
• For School Reviews, review employer group feedback to determine the extent to which it is incorporated in the current curriculum.

6.7.2

The review will consider whether the University is delivering sufficient resources to ensure that the academic experience of Murdoch’s students is comparable to that of students in other Australian universities.

6.7.3

The review will consider confidential submissions and reports submitted by the School with respect to any significant non-DEST funding. Consideration needs to be given to any implications for research as well as teaching.

The following terms of reference will apply in addition to the terms of reference that apply to both School Reviews and Reviews of Enabling Courses:

6.8.1

The review will consider the lines of responsibility for the conduct, management and academic oversight of the course(s) offered.

6.8.2

The review will consider the appropriateness of the organisational positioning of each course within the University to determine whether academic and administrative support is adequate.

The review will be guided by Universities Australia [formerly the Australian Vice Chancellor's Committee's] Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Education to International Students by Australian Universities.

The review will consider whether Murdoch University and its offshore partners are complying with their obligations in the various Offshore Course Agreements.

The review will consider whether the academic experience of offshore students is comparable to that of other students at Murdoch University. Considerations will include factors such as library resources, information technology facilities, buildings including lecture theatres and classrooms, class sizes, administrative support and pastoral care.

The review will consider equivalency in admission standards and assessment between offshore and onshore students.

The review will consider whether the courses are meeting their obligations in terms of Foundation Units.

6.10.1

In particular the Review Panel should:

• Examine broad areas of operation (i.e. lending and document supply; information services; information literacy programs; collection development and management; acquisition and cataloguing; planning and management; facilities; IT services; partnerships and other collaborative activities.
• Review the funding mechanism for the collection budget, its adequacy, and the Library’s ability to respond to new areas of teaching and research.
• Review the adequacy of Library buildings and facilities.
• Review the Library’s impact on the University’s learning environment.
• Review the Library’s organisational structure and disposition of staffing resources.
• Review/consider Library support in regional, remote and offshore areas.

6.10.2

The review will consider whether the University is delivering sufficient resources to ensure that the Library experience of Murdoch’s staff and students is comparable to that of staff and students in other Australian universities.

The review shall consider the past and present performance of student services in terms of their own stated role, objectives, strategies and outcomes, as well as commenting on the appropriateness of their plans for the future.

(a)

The provision of information to cohorts of students (Undergraduate, Postgraduate Coursework, Postgraduate Research, International, First Year, External, Equity), either directly or generally published. The services concerned are listed below.

The channels available for cohorts of students (Undergraduate, Postgraduate Coursework, Postgraduate Research, International, First Year, External, Equity) at each campus to access specific advice. The matters on which advice may be sought are listed below.

*Disability assistance could include assistive technology, alternative information formats or alternative examination requirements.
**Government requirements may include Visa or Overseas Health Cover requirements for international students

(c)

The service levels provided to students at each campus by various offices and centres. These organisational units are listed below.

The review shall be conducted in the context of the strategic plan of the University and the various offices providing student services. The student services under review shall be considered in the light of national and international trends, best practice and any bench marking activities in which the relevant offices providing the services have participated.

6.11.4

The President, after consultation with the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), [Chair, Academic Quality Audit Committe], may approve additional or amended Terms of Reference at the time of appointment of the review panel.

The following terms of reference apply to Foundation Unit Reviews (AC/145/2003):

The review will consider the past and present performance of the Foundation Units in term of the common aims and learning outcomes approved AC/104/2003 (1).

The review will consider whether the curriculum being taught in the Foundation Units is appropriate; in particular, the review is to:

Examine each Foundation Unit in the context of changes that have taken place since the last review and the continuing relevance of the unit content.

Review how graduate attributes are addressed in the units offered.

Examine future plans for the content of the Foundation Units and recommend whether any units should be discontinued and whether new units should be offered.

The TLC has a strong research capacity in teaching and learning in higher education and focuses on applied research in collaboration with staff in schools, other universities and the private sector.  The review will assess the research performance of the TLC in relation to:

• The external research income.
• The quantity and quality of publications of staff and research students

• Examine each unit in the context of changes that have occurred since its development and/or last review.
• Review how the University's graduate attributes are addressed in the units offered.
• Examine future plans for the context of units and recommend whether any units should be discontinued and whether new units should be offered.

• Student Learning
• Learning Management System (LMS)
• Turnitin
• Live Classroom
• Lectopia
• Educational Development
• School Developement Process
• Institutional research and Evaluation
• Media Production

7.

8.

• The AOU’s Self-Evaluation Report (including the Action Plan for self-identified areas for improvement)
• A Schedule of Activities for the Panel Visit
• Report(s) from previous review(s) and subsequent commentaries
• Copies of the University, Faculty and AOU Strategic Plans
• Copies of relevant University policies, including (but not limited to):
  • Academic Organisational Unit Reviews
  • Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students
• A copy of the University Handbook

• Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Education to International Students by Australian Universities
• Manual for the Development and Implementation of Offshore Courses
• Offshore Course Offerings
• Offshore Teaching Policy
• Copies of current Offshore Course Agreements.
• For courses that do not include a Foundation Unit, evidence that the objectives of Foundation Units are encompassed within other required units.

9.

The AOU is responsible for conducting the self-evaluation and preparing the review documentation, with the assistance of the Faculty. Where the AOU under review involves staff from multiple Schools (e.g. Offshore Courses, Enabling Courses), a single person will be assigned responsibility to co-ordinate preparation of the review documentation, rather than the entire group of co-ordinators.

The Teaching and Learning Centre can assist if additional information is needed on student surveys of teaching, course experience questionnaire (CEQ) and graduate destination survey (GDS) data, or if the School wishes to survey its students, graduates or the employers of its graduates.

For all AOU Reviews the self-evaluation will include:

• A Role and Resources Report.
• A Self-Assessment Report, including outcomes from the previous review.
• A Plan for the Future

• Report on adherence of all parties to the various Offshore Course Agreements.
• Statement of Past and Future Performance of the Offshore Course Agreement from both Murdoch University and its offshore partners.

(a)

Role Statement

For Reviews of Schools, Enabling Courses, Offshore Courses, the Library, Teaching and Learning Centre and Foundation Units, this section will broadly outline the overall role of the AOU, its contribution to the objectives and strategies of the Faculty and the relation of these to the Faculty’s strategic plans, and the particular elements of the University’s Strategic Plan that it sees itself as serving. This statement will indicate the ways in which the AOU sees itself as fulfilling a particular niche in terms of the University’s stated commitments to teaching, research, accessibility, interdisciplinarity, international outlook, management, University standing and community service.

For University Services Reviews this section will broadly outline the overall role of Student Services and how they contribute to the University’s Strategic Plan. This statement will document the major roles and responsibilities of each office/section within an overall student service function, indicating the content and channels by which both information and services are provided to different cohorts of students, across all campuses. [Copies of the University Strategic Plans and the strategic plans of the offices providing student services should also be made available with the Review Documentation.]

For Reviews of Schools, Enabling Courses, Offshore Courses, the Library, Teaching and Learning Centre and Foundation Units, this statement will briefly summarise resources available to the AOU to carry out its role, making reference to staffing, equipment and accommodation to support teaching, research and community-related activities.

Where there is any non-DEST funding, as defined in the Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students Policy, the AOU must provide a report on the nature of the non-DEST funding and demonstrate that the academic integrity of teaching and research is not compromised by the funding arrangements.

For Offshore Courses Reviews this statement will also include evidence of financial reporting in accordance with the Offshore Teaching policy.

For University Student Services Reviews this statement shall briefly summarise the resources available to each office/section that provides student services to carry out their role, making reference to staffing, equipment and accommodation.

For Reviews of Schools, Teaching and Learning Centre, Enabling Courses, Offshore Courses and Foundation Units, this section will include concise descriptions and summary enrolment statistics on the course offerings of the School including, where appropriate, undergraduate, postgraduate and professional development courses and details of their availability by mode, location (domestic and international), and arrangements with other partner-providers. This should include a brief account of the nature and appropriateness of the curriculum for course majors, the nature and extent of service teaching, and of teaching loads for each member of full-time academic staff in the School.

For Library Services Reviews, this section should instead include the Library’s activities that support the University’s teaching activities.

This section is not required for University Student Services Reviews.

For School and Teaching and Learning Centre Reviews, this section should describe and provide statistical information relevant to research supported by the School/TLC, including the nature of the research focus, levels of activity and performance in terms of inputs and outputs and relationship with other research groups or organisations. It should also include an extract from the most recent University Research Report concerning publications by staff in the School/TLC.

If the AOU incorporates a School-based Research Centre, the Centre will be reviewed as part of the research activities of the AOU Review, as per the Establishment and Management of Centres Policy adopted through resolutions AC/125/2005 and S/61/2005.

For Library Services Reviews, this section should instead describe the Library’s activities that support the University’s research activities.

This section is not required for Reviews of University Student Services, Enabling Courses, Offshore Courses and Foundation Units.

For School and Teaching and Learning Centre Reviews and Library Service Reviews, an account of the community service activities of the AOU should be provided.

This section is not required for Reviews of University Student Services, Enabling Courses, Offshore Courses and Foundation Units.

The AOU will report on its performance against the indicators specified in Attachment A, as approved by the President of Academic Council to reflect the current University Strategic Plan and Operational Goals.

For each of the designated indicators:

• Duplicate the table and time series data provided at the University’s statistical web site.

• Report the AOU’s level of satisfaction with the performance indicated by that data on a scale of 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (satisfied).

• Briefly state any explanation of the outcomes for that indicator.

• Briefly outline any action that has been taken, or is proposed, in response to these outcomes.

The AOU will provide an honest critique of its performance against its stated role and objectives with respect to all of its activities. The analysis should give an account of evidence from benchmarking partners and other comparators, which help to demonstrate the competitiveness and performance of the AOU and any associated courses and research groups locally, nationally and internationally, where appropriate.

For Offshore Courses, this analysis will be in the form of a report on adherence of Murdoch University and its offshore partners to the relevant Offshore Course Agreements and a Statement of Past and Future Performance of the Offshore Course Agreement from both Murdoch University and its offshore partner(s).

The report on adherence to the Offshore Course Agreements will be prepared by the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Enterprise and International) and will include a description of any agreed changes to the Agreements (Schedules of Amendments) and a discussion of the need for any future changes.

The Statement of Past and Future Performance of the Offshore Course Agreement will be in the following format:

(i)

The Past
This is a statement of how successful the Offshore Course Agreement has been.  It can draw on facts provided in the Report on Performance Against Designated Indicators.  It must address the issue of the adequacy of academic quality assurance measures in the Agreement.  It may also reflect on issues such as the adequacy of course materials, provision of appropriate staff, adequacy of facilities, adequacy of equipment, adequacy of communications with the main Murdoch Campus, support of students as Murdoch University students and preparation of students for completion of their studies in Australia (if appropriate).

(ii)

The Future
This is a statement of how each signatory to the Offshore Course Agreement sees the development of the Agreement. It is an opportunity to refine the Offshore Course Agreement in light of the reflections obtained during preparation of the review documentation.

This section will set out the AOU’s plan for the next 5 years, in terms of revisions to its role, objectives, strategies and qualitative and quantitative outcomes for each significant area of activity, consistent with the University and Faculty Strategic Plans. Where the process of self-evaluation has brought AOUs to a realisation of the need for change, then the AOU should propose an “Action Plan”. This should include a time-line, a statement as to the measurable outcomes of the Plan, and an assessment as to how the Plan will be resourced. (Template provided at Attachment C.1).

AOUs are expected to commence implementing this Action Plan following submission of their final self-review documentation to the President of Academic Council, with a progress report to be submitted to Academic Council via the Academic Quality Audit Committee at the same time that Council considers the Review recommendations.

For Offshore Courses Reviews, refer to 9.2 (b) (ii) above.

9.5

All documentation should be kept concise and to the point. The self-evaluation report should be no more than 60 pages in length (including any Appendices, but excluding the Action Plan and Supplementary Material). Use should be made of the statistical data published by the Office of Policy and Planning on the University’s website.

9.6

In preparing the documentation, the AOU will provide an accurate, open and honest appraisal of its operations and circumstances. The focus should be on the AOU’s role; the opportunities and constraints it faces in fulfilling this role; an honest critique of its performance to date; and a clear statement of plans to enhance its performance in the future.

9.9

The President of Academic Council will meet with relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive, Faculty Dean and Head of the AOU at least six weeks prior to the date of the Panel’s arrival to consider the documentation and identify any strategic issues, problem areas or parameters that should be drawn to the attention of the Review Panel, and whether any additional materials should be included in the documentation.

The President of Academic Council will advise the School Dean/Head of the AOU of the outcomes of that meeting. The AOU will also have the opportunity to provide the Review Panel with comments on these matters.

9.10

The AOU will finalise the review documentation and provide 12 printed copies to the Secretary to the Review Panel at least five weeks prior to the date of the Panel’s visit, for circulation to Panel members, relevant Senior Executive, Faculty Dean, President of Academic Council, Panel Secretary, Central Records, etc. Please note that the number of copies required could change, depending on number of Panel members. (The AOU might also consider whether it should print copies for relevant AOU staff members). Further requests for copies of the self-study documentation should be made to the President of Academic Council.

9.12

The Secretary to the Review Panel will submit the review documentation to Panel members at least four weeks prior to the date of the Panel’s visit.

The documentation will be accompanied by an invitation to the Panel members to request additional information or to modify the proposed Schedule of Review Activities in any way, including the scheduling of additional meetings with persons currently not scheduled to meet the Panel. The invitation should inform the Panel that it might, as it thinks appropriate, handle some aspects of the review on a sub-committee basis.

10.

Staff and, where relevant, students (including those taught offshore) in the AOU will be given an opportunity to make written submissions to the Review Panel. A notice will be placed in Explore and Metior and any other relevant publications 2-3 months before the review takes place, inviting submissions. Where relevant, the review, and opportunity to make submissions, should also be advertised in lectures.

For Library Services, a notice also will be placed on the Library web site 2-3 months prior to the review date.

All submissions will be forwarded to the Panel by the Panel Secretary, and will be treated as confidential.

11.

The Schedule of Review Activities will be determined by the Secretary to the Review Panel and the President of Academic Council in conjunction with the School Dean/Head of the AOU.

AOU staff and, where relevant, representative students will be invited to meet the panel. Representative students will be selected from those elected by students as representatives on School committees, or where that is not appropriate, from a list of relevant students in a manner that guarantees random selection. Where students decline the offer to be involved, replacements will be selected following the same procedure. If international students constitute more than five per cent of the course enrolment, the Panel will invite Murdoch International to make a submission.

The schedule will include (but not be limited to):

• The role of each person who has been included on the Schedule.
  

• An introductory session to meet the Vice Chancellor, President of Academic Council, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) and any other relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive to explain the context of the review and any strategic issues, problem areas or parameters that warrant special attention.

• An introductory session with the relevant Faculty Dean (if any).
  

• Visits to regional campuses, where relevant.

• Meetings with staff and, where relevant, students.

• Input from external stakeholders (e.g. alumni, employers, relevant professions, external persons or bodies contributing to the AOU’s activities).

• A closing session with the Vice Chancellor, President of Academic Council, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) and any other relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive [e.g. Deputy Vice Chancellor (Faculty, Enterprise & International)] to discuss the draft recommendations and the thrust of the report.

For Offshore Courses Reviews the schedule (not necessarily for the full Panel) will also include:

• Meetings with academic staff, administrative staff and students of selected partner institutions.

• Meetings with relevant external, offshore stakeholders.

12.

12.1

The Chair of the Review Panel is responsible for co-ordinating the preparation of the Review Panel’s Report.

12.2

The Report will include the Panel’s overall assessment of the AOU, a list of recommendations/affirmations and the thrust of its argumentation.

12.3

Where the Panel supports a self-identified opportunity for improvement, this should be listed as an affirmation. Where the Panel has identified further opportunities for improvement, these should be listed as recommendations. Affirmations and recommendations should be identified separately and each numbered consecutively.

12.4

The report should be written on the basis that it will become a public document. In rare cases the Panel may attach a confidential appendix or mention additional matters in the closing meeting with the Vice Chancellor.

12.5

The format of the Panel Report will be:

• Table of Contents

• List of Abbreviations

• Executive Summary, including a list of the commendations, affirmations and recommendations

• Introduction, including Review Panel membership

• Broad Overview

• Commendations

• Advice of the Review Panel, including affirmations and recommendations

• Concluding Comments

• Appendices, including Review Documentation and Schedule of Review Activities

12.6

In drafting the Report, the Chair will also take into account the formal process that flows following receipt of the final report, which focuses on the recommendations/affirmations. Any actions the Panel believes the University should consider will therefore be crystallised in specific recommendations. Most recommendations for change will have to be achieved by redeployment of the AOU’s existing resources.

12.7

The Chair should complete the initial drafting the day after the Review concludes.

12.8

The Report will be circulated to the other Panel members for comment before being submitted to the President of Academic Council in both electronic and hard copy. The draft report will be marked “CONFIDENTIAL” at this stage.

12.9

Within two weeks of receipt of the draft report, the President of Academic Council will meet with relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive, Faculty Dean and School Dean/Head of the AOU to determine whether they believe the Report contains any errors of fact, or whether any statements require clarification, or additional matters should be addressed. If necessary, the President of Academic Council will raise any matters so identified with the Chair.

12.10

If necessary, the Chair will consult with the other Panel members before finalising the Panel Report. The final report will be submitted to the President of Academic Council within two months of the review, with the “CONFIDENTIAL” marking removed.

12.11

The President of Academic Council will distribute copies of the final report to the Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research), relevant Faculty Dean, the Office of Internal Audit and Risk Management, the Office of Policy & Planning, the Office of Records Management & Archives and, for Offshore Course Reviews, to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Enterprise & International) and offshore partner institutions.

13.

13.1

The President of Academic Council will submit a short summary report on the major findings of the review to the next meetings of Academic Council and Senate. This summary, along with a copy of the Panel Report, will also be submitted to the Academic Quality Audit Committee.

13.2

It is assumed that the Panel will confirm the AOU’s self-identified areas for improvement as Affirmations, while acknowledging that they may wish to strengthen some further, possibly into Recommendations. Responses to the Review Panel Recommendations/Amended Affirmations will be collated in tabular format for eventual submission to Academic Council (refer Attachment C.2)

While these responses are being considered, the AOU will continue implementing its original Action Plan. At the time these responses are submitted to Academic Council, a progress report on implementation of the original Action Plan for the self-identified areas for improvement will also be submitted to Academic Council via the Academic Quality Audit Committee (refer Attachment C.3).

13.3

The Faculty Dean or relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive will invite comments on the final Review Panel Report from all staff and, where relevant, students in the AOU in order to determine the Faculty’s response to the review recommendations/amended affirmations and develop an Action Plan for implementation of the changes it supports. The Faculty’s response to the Report is to be submitted to the President of Academic Council within two months of receipt of the final report.

13.4

Where appropriate, the President of Academic Council will invite the Research and Development Board to consider the review recommendations/amended affirmations relevant to research and research training and the Faculty’s response. The Board will advise Academic Council whether or not each of these recommendations (or a modified version) should be accepted, and a process and timetable for each recommendation it supports. The Board’s response is to be submitted to the President of Academic Council within four months of receipt of the final report.

13.5

The AOU will submit a progress report on implementation of the original Action Plan for the self-identified areas for improvement to the Academic Quality Audit Committee (refer Attachment C.3). AQAC will consider the progress and make any recommendations to Academic Council for consideration with the tabular report provided in response to 13.2 above.

13.6

The President of Academic Council will consider the advice from the Faculty and, where appropriate, the Research and Development Board in order to advise Academic Council whether or not each of the recommendations/amended affirmations (or a modified version) should be accepted, and a process and timetable for each recommendation/amended affirmation supported. This tabular report is to be submitted to Academic Council within six months of receipt of the final report.

13.7

Academic Council will confirm action to be taken for each recommendation/amended affirmation from the Review Panel, and how this is to be implemented. At this time, Academic Council will also receive a copy of the Action Plan progress report and advice from the Academic Quality Audit Committee. Academic Council is to make its determinations within six months of receipt of the final report.

The Secretary to the Review Panel will forward a copy of the table recording Council’s decisions to relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive, Faculty Dean and the Review Panel.

The Secretary to the Review Panel will combine the approved recommendations with the progress report against the original Action Plan into a single combined Action Plan (refer Attachment C.4) and also forward to relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive, Faculty Dean and the Review Panel.

The relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive or Faculty Deans will distribute a copy of the table recording Council’s decisions and combined Action Plan to staff in the AOU.

14.

14.1

Eight months after Council’s decisions on the review report, and not more than 16 months after the report is published, the relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive or Faculty Dean will report to Academic Council via the Academic Quality Audit Committee, on progress in implementing the agreed actions. This follow-up report will be via updates to the combined Action Plan (refer Attachment C.5). If Academic Council is of the opinion that insufficient progress has been made, it may recommend to the relevant member(s) of the Senior Executive or Faculty Dean that appropriate action be taken.

14.2

Further progress in implementing the Action Plan should be made on a six-monthly basis to the Academic Quality Audit Committee until all strategies have been actioned.

14.3

When making submissions during subsequent annual academic planning rounds, the AOU will refer to how any changes proposed relate to the plan for the future set out in its most recent review and the direction for the AOU endorsed by Council in the review.

14.4

A report on implementation of the combined Action Plan will ultimately be included in the documentation provided to the next Review Panel.

President of Academic Council
Professor Michael Borowitzka
Tel: (08) 9360 2333
E-mail: M.Borowitzka@murdoch.edu.au

Assistant to President of Academic Council
Ms Cheyrlie Doyle
Tel: (08) 9360 6902
E-mail: cdoyle@murdoch.edu.au

Manager, Academic Reviews
Dr Lucy Jarzabkowski
Tel: (08) 9360 7377
E-mail: l.jarzabkowski@murdoch.edu.au

Policy Implementation Officer(s):

RELATED MATERIALS / POLICIES:

Code of Conduct for Academic Organisational Unit Reviews
Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students
DEST Enabling Courses, Continuing Education Courses and Award Transition Units
Establishment and Management of Centres Policy
Evaluation of Undergraduate Courses
Manual for the Development and Implementation of Offshore Courses
Offshore Course Offerings
Offshore Teaching
Schedule of Future Academic Organisational Reviews
Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Education to International Students by Australian Universities
Current Academic Planning Guidelines
School Development Process

REVISION HISTORY:

Approved / Amended / Rescinded

Date

Committee

Resolution Number

Attachment A - Performance Indicators for AOU Reviews

Attachment B - Code of Conduct for Academic Organisational Unit Reviews

Attachment C1 - Template of Action Plan for Self-Identified Areas of Improvement

Attachment C2 - Template of Responses to Review Recommendations

Attachment C3 - Template of Progress Report on Action Plan for Self-Identified Areas of Improvement

Attachment C4 - Template of Combined Action Plan for Review Affirmations & Recommendations

Attachment C5 - Template of Progress Report on Combined Action Plan for Review Affirmations & Recommendations