Principles Governing School Reviews

1.1 

School reviews shall 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 will emphasise self-evaluation by the School and will be conducted with full participation of the staff and students of the School under review. The review process should be a time of critical self-reflection for the School. During the process of preparing for a review, all personnel, and where possible, students, should have input to the review documentation. The Review Methodology is that of Self-Review followed by Peer Evaluation. The external panel will evaluate the documents, reflections and conclusions of the Self-Review.

The review process must not impose an undue burden on members of staff nor impede the normal pattern of teaching and assessment.

Every School should be reviewed once every five years. The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) and the President of Academic Council will determine a schedule for School reviews, after consultation with each Executive Dean concerning reviews in that Division.

In exceptional circumstances, the President of Academic Council may authorise the establishment of more than one review panel to review simultaneously the activities of a single School.

The President of Academic Council or the Vice-Chancellor may at any time initiate a School review outside the normal schedule.

Composition and Appointment of Review Panels

Review panels shall be appointed by the President of Academic Council, after considering the nominees of the Executive Dean of the Division in which the School is located. The Executive Dean shall submit these nominations in confidence to the President, after appropriate consultation within the Division. There shall be two or three nominees for each category of membership (listing them in order of preference), plus a brief statement about the suitability of each nominee.

a member drawn from the non-tertiary sector into which graduates of the School are likely to move (e.g. a senior professional, or a major employer of graduates from the School);

a member capable of addressing any distinctive aspects of the School’s role and vision, such as a claim to be active in international markets or to have an international research reputation.
 

At least one member of the panel must be female and at least one male, unless no suitable qualified person of that gender is available.

All members of the panel must be independent of the School. (This will exclude, for example, members from outside the School who serve on School committees within the School).

In the case of multidisciplinary School Reviews, a feasibility study should be undertaken to determine the number of panel members required, the length of the review and whether the School be reviewed in part or as a whole.

In all Reviews, the degree to which the proposed review will deviate from these guidelines must be considered six months before the proposed panel visit. Where it is clear that the procedures must be altered to accommodate the best interests of the University, then an agreement between the relevant Executive Dean, the Pro Vice Chancellor (Research), the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) and the President of Academic Council must be signed. This agreement specifies the ways in which the process will be allowed to vary from these guidelines.

The University shall pay the Chair an honorarium of $1,500 and other external members of the panel $500 each. The University shall also provide the Chair, and any other interstate or international member of the review panel, with a business class return air fare, accommodation at a high standard hotel, taxi vouchers and any incidental expenses. Other costs of the review should be met by the Division.

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

All reviews shall be conducted in the context of the strategic plans of the University, Division and the School. The School under review shall be considered in the light of national and international trends, best practice in the discipline(s) concerned and any benchmarking activities in which the School has participated.

 Where the School has established relationships in teaching, research or community service with other parts of Murdoch University or with external organisations, these should be included in the review of its activities.

The review shall consider whether the curriculum being taught in the course(s) offered is appropriate to the award being made by the University. In particular the Review Panel should:

• Examine each course in the context of the changes which have taken place 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 academic content, structure, and level of the course(s) and the learning objectives

• 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

• Examine the impact on other courses, particularly newer courses

• Review how graduate attributes are addressed in the major(s) offered

The review shall 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.

The review shall 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 outcomes of previous reviews are addressed.

The review shall 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 on research as well as teaching. (The University Policy on non-DEST funding will be supplied to the Panel with Review Documentation).

The President, after consultation with the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), the Executive Dean and the Head of School, may approve additional or amended terms of reference, or specific questions, agreed by the President and the Executive Dean, to which the review panel should seek answers, for any review at the time of appointment of the review panel.

Review Documentation

All documentation should be kept concise and to the point. The Self Review (The Role and Resources Report, Self-Assessment Report and Plan for the Future) should be limited to a total of no more than 40 pages (including any appendices, but excluding the Strategic Plans). Use should be made of the data available in the statistics section of the University’s website.

The aim of the School in preparing its documentation should be to provide an accurate, frank and honest appraisal of its operations and circumstances. The focus should be on the School’s role, the opportunities and constraints it faces in fulfilling this role, a critical self-appraisal of its performance to date, and a clear statement of its plans to enhance this performance in future.

All staff in the School should be consulted in determining what is the collective School submission, as reflected in the review documentation.

At least six weeks prior to the date of the panel’s arrival, the review documentation shall be submitted to the President. The review documentation will be the subject of a meeting between the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), the Executive Dean, Head of School, the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) and President of Academic Council, and shall consider whether there are any strategic issues, problem areas or parameters which should be drawn to the attention of the review panel, and if additional material should be provided in the documentation. The President of Academic Council shall advise the School Head of the outcomes of that meeting. The School shall also have the opportunity to provide the review panel with comments on these matters.

At least two weeks prior to the date of the panel’s arrival, copies of the review documentation and the proposed Schedule of Activities shall be forwarded to each member of the panel. The documentation shall be accompanied by an invitation to the panel members to request additional information or to modify the proposed Schedule of Activities in any way and at any time, including the scheduling of additional meetings with persons not currently scheduled to meet with the panel. The invitation should inform the panel that it may, as it thinks appropriate, handle some aspects of the review on a sub-committee basis.

Role and Resources Report

The Role and Resources Report shall have the following format:

(a) Role statement

A copy of the current School Role Statement. This shall broadly outline the overall role of the School, its contribution to the objectives and strategies of the Division and the relation of these to the Division’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 School 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. Copies of the Divisional and University Strategic Plans should also be made available with the Review Documentation.

(b) Resources statement

This shall briefly summarise the resources available to the School to carry out its role, making reference to staffing, equipment and accommodation to support teaching, research and community-related activities.

Where there is any significant (as defined by University Policy on non-DEST funds) non-DEST funding in a School, the School 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. The School must provide with the report, a copy of the “University Policy and Procedure on Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students”.

(c) Teaching activities

This shall provide concise descriptions and summary enrolment statistics on the course offerings of the School including undergraduate, postgraduate and professional development courses and details of their availability by mode, location (domestic and international), and arrangements with other partner-providers. (A copy of the University Handbook should be provided at the meeting of the Review Panel). 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.

(d) Research activities

This shall describe and provide statistical information relevant to research supported by the School, 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 also shall include an extract from the most recent University Research Report concerning publications by staff in the School. (Copies of individual staff CVs are not required, unless requested by the review panel).

(e) Community service activities

An account of the community service activities of the School should be provided.

Self-Assessment Report

The Self-Assessment Report shall have the following format:

(a) Performance on Designated Indicators

The School shall report on its performance on the 10-20 performance indicators set out in the schedule below, as approved from time to time by the President of Council. These indicators cover all major areas of the University’s strategic objectives.

For each of the designated indicators, the Self-Assessment shall, in tabular form and with succinct comment:

• duplicate the table and time series supplied at the web-site,
• report its 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 each indicator; and
• briefly outline any action that has been taken, or is proposed, in response to the outcomes for each indicator.

(b) Analysis of Performance

This shall provide a critical self-appraisal of the School’s 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 School and its associated courses and research groups locally, nationally and internationally, where appropriate.

 Plan for the Future

This shall set out the School’s plan for the next 7-10 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 Division Strategic Plans. Where the process of Self-Review has brought Schools to a realization of the need for change, then the School 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.

 Schedule of Review Activities

The schedule of activities proposed by the School shall include (but not be limited to):

• at the panel’s first session, a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor, President of Academic Council, Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) and the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) to explain the context of the review and any strategic issues, problem areas or parameters which warrant special attention;

• meetings with staff and students (see 5.12);

• input from external stake-holders (e.g. alumni, employers, relevant professions, external persons or bodies contributing to the School’s offerings or research);

• on the full panel's final day, a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor, President of Academic Council, the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) and the Executive Dean to discuss the draft recommendations and the thrust of the report.

For the benefit of the members of the Review Panel the Schedule of Activities should identify clearly the role of each person.

 Previous Reviews

The School under review shall supply the review panel with the report of the previous review of the disciplines covered by the School together with the subsequent commentaries on that report provided under these guidelines (and their predecessors) by the Division, Academic Policy Committee, the Research & Development Board and Academic Council. (Should any other relevant external review of the School have occurred since the last review under these guidelines, that report should be drawn to the attention of the panel). 

 Students (including those taught off-shore) and staff in the School will be given an opportunity to make written submissions to the review panel. School staff and 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 an alphabetised list of relevant students in a manner which guarantees random selection. (Where students decline the offer to be involved, replacements will be selected following the same procedure). A notice shall be placed in On Campus 2-3 months before the review takes place, inviting submissions. If international students constitute more than 5% of the course enrolment, the panel shall invite the International Office to make a submission.

The Review Process

The School is responsible for conducting the Self-Review and preparing the review documentation, with the assistance of the Division. 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.

The members of the review panel will be expected to be available for three days for intensive interviews, discussions and deliberation.

The Chair of the review panel shall be responsible for coordinating the preparation of a report on the conduct of the review, its findings and its conclusions.

The Chair will be asked to stay an additional day, in order to complete the draft report before leaving Perth. This shall include the panel's overall assessment of the programme, a list of recommendations and the thrust of its argumentation. The draft report shall be focussed around the recommendations, which shall be numbered consecutively. In drafting the Report, the Chair shall take into account that the formal process that flows from the lodging of the Report will focus on the listed recommendations. With this in mind, the Chair shall ensure that action which the Review Panel believes should be considered is crystallised in specific recommendations. The draft report will also consider the merits of any recommendations or Action Plans contained in the Self-Review documents from the School.

The report shall include an executive summary which includes a full list of the numbered recommendations. The report should be written on the basis that it will become a public document; it is not a confidential report, though in rare cases the panel may attach a confidential appendix or mention additional matters in their meeting with the Vice-Chancellor. Most recommendations for change will have to be achieved by redeployment of the School’s existing student load and resources.

Reports shall be submitted to the President of Academic Council, in both electronic and paper form. Within two weeks of receipt of the draft report, the President, Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), Executive Dean and the School Head shall meet to review the draft report. The draft report will be marked as “CONFIDENTIAL” at this stage. If they discover errors of fact or they believe that the report needs reconsideration, clarification or to address additional matters, the President will advise the Chair of the panel. After consultation with the other panel members, the Chair will submit the final report within two months of the review. The “CONFIDENTIAL” marking will be removed from the document at this stage. The President shall distribute copies to the Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), the Executive Dean, the Office of Internal Audit, the Office of Policy and Planning and the Office of Records Management and Archives.

Schedule of Performance Indicators

The Performance Indicators used for School Reviews are:

Office of Policy & Planning’s SQIP ‘Vital Signs’ Performance Indicators

Teaching and Learning Effectiveness

Indicator 1:	All Coursework Programme Load
	All Coursework AOU Load
Indicator 5:	Student TLC Survey Responses
Indicator 9:	Program Load Student Progress Rate (SPR)
	AOU Taught Load Student Progress Rate (SPR)
Indicator 10:	Drop-out Rate
Indicator 13:	GDS Survey Combined Working/Further Study Indicator

Teaching and Learning Efficiencies

Indicator 15:

Expenditure per Successful EFTSU

Research Inputs and Outputs

Indicator 19:	Percent Research Quantum Allocation per 10 Research Staff FTE
Indicator 21:	Research Completions per 10 Research Staff FTE

Equity in Teaching

Indicator 27:

DETYA Equity Indicators

Interdisciplinary

Indicator 29:

Percentage Undertaking Two Programmes

Internationalism

Indicator 33:

International Coursework Programme Load

Management

Indicator41:

Percentage Permanent Staff Expenditure

University Standing

Indicator 42:

Percentage TISC 1st Preference Applications

Further details (plus a fuller set of indicators) are available at the following URL:

http://wwwplan.murdoch.edu.au/pi/sqip/

REVIEW OUTCOMES

Body/person

Responsibility

Timing

Executive Dean

• invite comments on the review panel’s final report from all staff in the School.

• ensure that the report is made available to students in the School and that comments are invited from them.

As soon as possible after receipt of the report.

As soon as possible after receipt of the report.

Divisional Board

After considering any comments received from staff and students, determine the Division’s response to each of the recommendations. The Divisional Board will present an Action Plan for each of the recommendations endorsed, along with a report on any changes made due to the self-review process, to be submitted with the response to recommendations.

Within 2 months.

Within 2 months.

Research and Development Board

Consider the recommendations of the panel which are relevant to research and research training and the Division’s response to these. Advise Academic Council whether or not each of these recommendations (or a modified version) should be accepted, and a process and timetable for implementation of each recommendation it supports.

Within 4 months.

President of Academic Council

After considering the advice of the Divisional Board and the Action Plan for recommendations, and advice of the Research and Development Board, provide Academic Council with a consolidated table recommending whether or not each recommendation (or a modified version) should be accepted along with the Panel Report, and a process and timetable for implementation of each recommendation supported.

Within 6 months.

Academic Council

Determine what action is to be taken on each recommendation of the panel, and how this is to be implemented.

Within 6 months.

Secretary to School Reviews

Forward to the Executive Dean (and, as a courtesy, to the members of the review panel) the table recording Council’s decision on the recommendations.

After the Council meeting.

Divisional responses to the report shall be submitted in standard electronic format, taking the form of a table listing each recommendation of the panel in the first column, and the Divisional response in the second. (A template can be obtained from the President’s assistant.) The recommendations of the Research & Development Board and of the President shall be reported in columns added to this table. The decision of Council shall be recorded on the table against each recommendation.

Eight months after Council's decision on the review report, and not more than twelve months after the report is published, the Executive Dean shall report to the President of Academic Council and to the Research & Development Board on progress in implementing the decisions of Council on the report. This follow-up report shall be reported in an additional column to the table recording the review outcomes. The President or the Board, if of the view that insufficient progress has been made, may recommend appropriate action to the Division or to Academic Council.

When making submissions during subsequent annual academic planning rounds, the School shall 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 School endorsed by Council in the School review.