Approved on	17 March 2004	by	Academic Council	Res. No.	AC/53/2004
Last Amended	n/a	by	n/a	Res. No.	n/a
Next Review Date	March 2006
Keywords	Bridging, Enabling, Review
Responsibilities, Related Materials / Policies & Revision History

Review of Bridging and Enabling Courses

DEFINITIONS

ENABLING COURSE

DEST Definition:
An Enabling Course is a programme of study which:

	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.

BRIDGING COURSES prepare students not otherwise eligible for admission to University.

DEST Definition:
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.

SUPPLEMENTARY COURSES provide support through extra tuition to students enrolled in tertiary courses.

DEST Definition:
A supplementary programme is provided for students subsequent to their commencement of a formal award course in a student place that is funded either partially or fully by the Commonwealth, and which is undertaken concurrently with that course. Such programmes provide supplementary teaching in the form of a separate, discrete programme which is systematic and structured and aimed at addressing difficulties experienced by particular types of disadvantaged students undertaking the award course. 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 supplementary programmes.

DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS

DEST Definition:
The particular types of students for whom enrolments and student load may be reported as being in respect of enabling courses are those who have a disadvantage as a consequence of:

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.

Further DEST Guideline:
When a student is enrolled in a bridging programme the institution will provide formal confirmation that satisfactory achievement in the programme will qualify the student for enrolment in a specified award course in a student place that is funded either partially or fully by the Commonwealth, and the institution will provide a definition to the student of what comprises satisfactory achievement.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING BRIDGING AND ENABLING COURSE REVIEWS

1.1	Reviews of Bridging and Enabling Courses 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.

1.2	The review process will emphasise self-evaluation by the Coordinators of Bridging and Enabling Courses and will be conducted with full participation of the staff and students of the Bridging and Enabling Courses under review. The review process should be a time of critical self-reflection for the Coordinators. 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.

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

TIMING OF REVIEWS

2.1	All Bridging and Enabling Courses should be reviewed once every five years. The President of Academic Council will determine a schedule for the reviews, after consultation with the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), the Director of DoSSMIA and each Executive Dean concerning reviews of courses in their Division.

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

COMPOSITIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF REVIEW PANELS

3.1	Review panels shall be appointed by the President of Academic Council, after considering the nominees the coordinators of the Bridging & Enabling Courses, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic), the Director of DoSSMIA and the Executive Deans of the Division in which the Bridging and Enabling Courses are located. These nominations shall be submitted in confidence to the President, after appropriate consultation. 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.

3.2	Each panel shall normally consist of three members, but may include as many as five members where it is warranted. Each panel shall normally include:

	(a)	a Chair external to the University;

	(b)	one or more persons with expertise in some of the disciplines covered by the Bridging and Enabling Courses;

	(c)	a senior member of the academic staff of the University from a Division other than that in which the Bridging & Enabling Courses are located (if courses are offered by all the Divisions, the senior member shall be selected from the Division offering the least number of courses;

	(d)	a member capable of addressing any distinctive aspects of the Bridging and Enabling Courses roles and vision.

	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 Bridging and Enabling Courses. (This will exclude, for example, members from outside the School who serve on School committees within the School).

3.3	The University shall pay the Chair an honorarium of $1,500 and other external members of the panel $300 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 shall be met by the Division.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

4.1	The review shall consider the past and present performance of each course (as listed immediately below) in terms of the stated role, objectives, strategies and outcomes, as well as commenting on the appropriateness of plans for the future (the list of courses shall be amended as required for each review cycle).

	EngFocus Koora Kudidj Pre-Law Program Kulbardi Aboriginal Tertiary Entrance Course (KATEC) Professional Education Program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students (Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences) (PEPA) Kulbardi Wangkiny Pre-Media Program UniAccess UniFocus UniQuest UniTrack Wangkiny Boodjar (Pre-Sustainability Course)

4.2	The review shall be conducted in the context of the strategic plans of the University. Each course under review, and the courses overall, 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 course has participated.

4.3	Where the course 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.

4.4	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:

	(a)	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 and its continuing relevance

	(b)	Review the academic content, structure, and level of the course(s) and the learning objectives

	(c)	Review the continuing appropriateness of the assessment practices and criteria to the aims and objectives of the course(s) offered

	(d)	Review the lines of responsibility for the conduct, management and academic oversight of the course(s) offered.

	(e)	Review the organisational positioning of each course within the University to determine whether academic and administrative support is adequate.

4.5	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.

4.6	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.

4.7	The review shall consider confidential submissions and reports submitted by the Schools with respect to any significant non-DEST funding. Consideration needs to be given to any implications for research as well as teaching. (The University Policy and Procedure on Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students will be supplied to the Panel with Review Documentation).

4.8	The President, after consultation with the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and the Executive Deans may approve additional or amended terms of reference, or specific questions, agreed by the President, the pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) 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

5.1	Each Bridging and Enabling Course Coordinator shall undertake a Self Review of their Course(s). This will involve preparing the following documents: A Role and Resources Report (see 5.7) A Self-Assessment Report (see 5.8) A Plan for the Future (see 5.9) These Self Review documents, together with: A Schedule of Activities for the review (see 5.10) The report and subsequent commentaries from the previous review of Bridging and Enabling Courses (see 5.11) will be passed to the panel.
5.2	All documentation should be kept concise and to the point. Use should be made of the data available in the statistics section of the University’s website and other available statistics.

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

5.4	All staff involved in the Bridging and Enabling Courses should be consulted in determining what is the collective submission, as reflected in the review documentation.

5.5	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 Executive Dean(s), 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 any additional material should be provided in the documentation. The President of Academic Council shall advise the Coordinators of the Bridging and Enabling Courses of the outcomes of that meeting. The Coordinators of the Bridging and Enabling Courses shall also have the opportunity to provide the review panel with comments on these matters.

5.6	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.

5.7	Role and Resources Report

	The Role and Resources Report shall have the following format:

	(a)	Role statement A copy of the current Role Statement or a statement as to the aims and objectives of the Bridging and Enabling Course. This shall broadly outline the overall role of the Bridging and Enabling Course, 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 Course sees itself as fulfilling a particular niche in terms of the University’s stated Strategic Goals. Copies of the University Strategic Plan should also be made available with the Review Documentation.

	(b)	Resources statement This shall briefly summarise the resources available to the Bridging and Enabling Course to carry out its role, making reference to staffing, equipment and accommodation to support teaching and community-related activities. Where there is any significant non-DEST funding in a Course (as defined by the University Policy and Procedure on Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students), the Course Coordinator 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 Course Coordinator 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 Course 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.

5.8	Self-Assessment Report

	The Self-Assessment Report shall have the following format:

	(a)	Performance Against Designated Indicators The School shall report on its performance against the performance indicators set out in the attached schedule (see page 7), as approved from time to time by the President of Academic Council. For each of the designated indicators, the Self-Assessment shall, in tabular form and with succinct comment: duplicate the table and time series supplied, 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 Bridging and Enabling Course’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 Course locally, nationally and internationally, where appropriate.

5.9	Plan for the Future This shall set out the Bridging & Enabling Course Coordinator’s plan for the next 5 years, in terms of revisions to the course’s role, objectives, strategies and qualitative and quantitative outcomes for each significant area of activity, consistent with the University Strategic Plan. Where the process of Self-Review has brought a Bridging and Enabling Course Coordinator to a realisation of the need for change, then the Bridging and Enabling Course Coordinator 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.

5.10	Schedule of Review Activities The schedule of activities proposed by the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), in consultation with the President of Academic Council and Executive Dean(s) shall include (but not be limited to): at the panel’s first session, a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor, President of Academic Council and the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) 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 offering of Bridging and Enabling Courses); on the full panel's final day, a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor, President of Academic Council, the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Director of DoSSMIA and Executive Dean(s) 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.

5.11	Previous Reviews The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) shall supply the review panel with the report of the previous review of Bridging and Enabling Courses together with the subsequent commentaries on that report provided under this policy (and their predecessors) by the Division, Academic Policy Committee and Academic Council. (Should any other relevant external review of the Bridging and Enabling Courses have occurred since the last review under this policy, that report should be drawn to the attention of the panel).

5.12	Students (including those taught off-shore) and staff involved with the Bridging and Enabling courses will be given an opportunity to make written submissions to the review panel. Bridging and Enabling Course staff and representative students will be invited to meet the panel. Representative students will be selected from an alphabetised 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). A notice shall be placed in On Campus 2 to3 months before the review takes place, inviting submissions.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

6.1	The Bridging and Enabling Course Coordinators are responsible for conducting the Self-Review and preparing the review documentation, with the assistance of the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) and the President of Academic Council. The Teaching and Learning Centre can assist if additional information is needed on student surveys of teaching and course experience.

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

6.3	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.

6.4	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 Bridging and Enabling Courses, 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 that 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 Bridging and Enabling Course Coordinators.

6.5	The report shall include an executive summary that 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 existing student load and resources.

6.6	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), Director of DoSSMIA, Executive Deans and any relevant School Heads 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), the Director of DoSSMIA, the Executive Deans, 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 Bridging and Enabling Course Reviews are:

Number of students enrolled.
Completion rate (The number of students that completed the course as a percentage of the total that commenced the course).
Proportion of students completing an enabling course that enter university (Murdoch University and other Universities).
Proportion of students successfully completing Part I as compared to normal school leaver entrants.
Student survey responses on how the course met their expectations.

REVIEW OUTCOMES

7.1

Decisions on implementation of the recommendations of the review panel will be determined by the following process:

Body/Person	Responsibility	Timing
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic)	Invite comments on the review panel’s final report from all staff in the Bridging & Enabling Courses, the Director of DoSSMIA and from Executive Deans. Ensure that the report is made available to students in the Bridging and Enabling Courses and that comments are invited from them.	Invite comments on the review panel’s final report from all staff in the Bridging & Enabling Courses, the Director of DoSSMIA and from Executive Deans. Ensure that the report is made available to students in the Bridging and Enabling Courses and that comments are invited from them.
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic)	After considering any comments received from staff and students, the Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) will convene a meeting of the Coordinators of the Bridging & Enabling Courses, the Director of DoSSMIA and concerned Executive Deans to develop an action plan for each of the recommendations endorsed along with a report on any changes made due to the self review process.	Within 2 months.
Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic)	Transmit the response to the President of Academic Council, after consideration by the Coordinators of the Bridging and Enabling Courses, the Director of DoSSMIA and the Executive Deans. This should include a reference to any difference between that response and the comments submitted by staff and students in the Bridging and Enabling Courses.	Within 2 months.
President of Academic Council	After considering the advice of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and the Action Plan for recommendations, 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(s) and the Coordinators of the Bridging and Enabling Courses (and, as a courtesy, to the members of the review panel) the table recording Council’s decision on the recommendations.	After the Council meeting.

7.2

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 Pro Vice-Chancellors (Academic) response in the second. (A template can be obtained from the President’s assistant.) The recommendations 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.

7.3

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

7.4

Any submissions during subsequent annual academic planning rounds concerning Bridging and Enabling Courses, shall refer to how any changes proposed relate to the plan for the future set out in its most recent review and the direction endorsed by Council in the Review of Bridging and Enabling Courses.

Contact details

President of Academic Council, Assoc Prof Michael A Borowitzka
Telephone: (08) 9360 2333	Email: M.Borowitzka@murdoch.edu.au

Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Ms Jane Powell
Telephone: (08) 9360 2634	Email: J.Powell@murdoch.edu.au

Assistant to President of Academic Council, Ms Cheyrlie Doyle
Telephone: (08) 9360 6902	Email: cdoyle@murdoch.edu.au

Quality Audit Projects & Administration Officer, Ms Cheryl Jones
Telephone: (08) 9360 2382	Email: C.A.Jones@murdoch.edu.au

RESPONSIBILITIES:
Responsible Officer	President of Academic Council
Implementation Officers	President of Academic Council, Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic), Director of DoSSMIA, Executive Deans, Bridging and Education Course Coordinators
Information Contact Officer	Quality Audit Projects and Administration Officer

RELATED MATERIALS / POLICIES:

Current Academic Planning Guidelines
DEST Enabling Courses, Continuing Education Courses and Award Transition Units
University Policy and Procedure on Non-DEST Funds for Teaching Staff, Teaching Resources or the Enrolment of Students

REVISION HISTORY:
Approved / Amended / Rescinded	Date	Committee	Resolution Number

Quality

Review of Bridging and Enabling Courses