JCU - Quality Assurance

James Cook University conducts a program of Course Reviews on five-year cycles for all courses of bachelor level (including honours). The term 'course' is used in this document to designate individual courses, or programs and courses clustered together by the University for the purposes of the Course Review. The term is taken to embrace the subjects and various clusters of subjects that make up the course. It is expected that a Course Review Committee will comment on the whole cluster or parts thereof at its own discretion unless otherwise directed by Academic Board. The two key purposes of Course Review are to:

• establish regular cycles of disciplined reflection and course enhancement; and

• provide information to Academic Board to enable it to assure the academic quality of courses to the University Council and to the community.

Academic Board will expect the Course Review to anticipate the interests of key stakeholders. The key stakeholders are taken to be students, the community (including the professions), and other academics working in the same field. In other words, underlying questions concern the appropriateness of the course and its constituent parts. Is this course appropriate for students? Does it appropriately address a community need or employment opportunities? Do the students attain appropriate academic standards in a legitimate field of enquiry and social practice? The Course Review Committee will include expertise capable of making informed judgments on these matters. To inform its work, the Committee will be provided with a body of evidence, and will consult directly with students and staff associated with the course.

Where courses are also subject to statutory external accreditation, in some cases it may be desirable to hold Course Reviews prior to or in concert with external accreditation in order to take advantage of a rationalisation of effort in the production of documentation. However, separating the two processes may allow for greater reflective discussion of course enhancement and strategic planning and link more closely with the university's quality assurance needs, especially in relation to the Australian Universities Quality Agency audit. The Course Review Committee appointed by Academic Board will report to the Board and thence to the Council. Academic Board will take into account the views of any relevant accreditation authority, and the Course Review Committee, in its assessment of a revised Faculty proposal for Course Approval.

Back

2. WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS FOR COURSE REVIEW?

1. Are the aims of the course appropriate to the University's role and mission?

2. How do the aims, processes, and assessment practices of the course comply with University aspirations for internationalisation?

3. Is the course appropriate to the stated aims of the academic unit?

4. Does the course attract students appropriate to its aims?

5. Are the completion, pass, and retention rates appropriate?

6. What are the destinations of graduates?

7. What are students' views of the course: are they satisfied with the organisation, structure, content and teaching (including flexible delivery) of the course?

8. What are the students' views about library support for the course?

9. What are the students' views about IT support for the course?

10. What are the students' views about other support services, that is, student administration, careers advice, study skills, counselling?

11. Are the organisation, structure, and content of the course appropriate?

12. Are the methods of delivery and assessment articulated with the objectives?

13. Is the course and subject documentation adequate?

14. Are academic standards appropriate?

15. How do the aims, processes, and assessment practices of this course comply with University objectives dealing with the attainment of Generic Skills?

Back

3. HOW WILL THE COURSE REVIEW BE CONDUCTED?

The Course Review process will extend over a five-year cycle. For a good part of that time, information will be set aside in preparation for the formal part of the Review which will take a few days. The early phase can be envisaged as the establishment of a series of files, which will aggregate into documentation to be provided to the Course Review Committee when it is appointed. To keep the task for the Committee and the compilers of the documentation manageable and realistic, some careful selection and organisation of information will be necessary. The documentation gathered will be provided to the Committee prior to its formal meeting at the University. The Committee will seek further information during its deliberations, primarily by interviewing and meeting (in focus groups) with staff and students participating in the course. The relevant Faculty and School will be responsible for the organisation of reasonably representative contact with staff and students.

The checklist of questions and sources of data presented below will guide the process of documentation and subsequently the program of contact with staff and students for the Course Review Committee.

4. COMPOSITION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

The composition will be:

" Chair of Academic Board or nominee (Chair). The Chair should not be involved with the course being reviewed;

" Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Student Services and Quality Assurance) or nominee;

" Normally two external, expert consultants (from the profession or field) appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, with advice from the Chair of Academic Board and the Executive Dean(s) (the expert consultants would be expected to have experience in conducting similar courses or programs);

" Up to two senior staff from other Faculties or from a Division, at least one of whom is currently a member of Academic Board may be nominated by The Vice-Chancellor, in consultation with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Student Services and Quality Assurance) and the Chair of Academic Board;

" A nominee of the President of the Student Association. The nominee is not to be involved with the course being reviewed. (It is noted that participation by a student will be a substantial time commitment, and that therefore this position on the Committee may not always be filled, or may be filled by an employee of the Student Association).

Secretarial and administrative support will be provided from the Chancellery and Student Services and Quality Assurance Divisions.

Back

5. WHAT ARE THE KEY SOURCES OF DATA FOR THE REVIEW?

The checklist of data sources presented here expresses a serviceable minimum of points of reference for the Course Review. A Course Review Committee will want to explore the meaning of the information presented to it and to seek further information and help from staff and students in drawing inferences about it. The Committee is not expected to make unnecessary work for course teachers and coordinators, but may be expected to delve more deeply into some areas than this abstracted description suggests. Of course, different emphases will be pursued with different courses. Each Course Review Committee should determine the most appropriate emphases for the course being reviewed. To ensure that the Review is comprehensive, a range of sources and types of information should be used. However, each Course Review Committee will be appraised of the need to be reasonable in any requests for further information. University representation on the Committee will facilitate this.

Aside from the basic data collection and Review process described here, Faculties will not be expected to conduct evaluations of courses, subjects or groups of subjects specifically for the Review. Nevertheless, there will be many existing external accreditation activities and other evaluations (including self-evaluations) of subjects, groups of subjects and whole courses which will be of interest and use to a Review Committee. Attention may be drawn to these as part of the documentation.

Academic Board has approved the policy on Honours Assessment – Compliance with Generic Requirements Section 19 of which states:

19 Benchmarking

Regular external benchmarking of honours theses is mandatory. A range of honours theses from each school or discipline should be externally examined every five years from 2001. Benchmarkers should include representatives from universities with established high reputations in the discipline(s) concerned.

Normally this benchmarking will be conducted so that recent information will be made available to the Course Review (possibly by making the Faculty PVC's compliance report to Academic Board available).

The Faculty PVC, together with the Head of School for each course under review, will be invited to arrange for the preparation of a document outlining the background and history of the course, the internal mechanisms for course enhancement, review and feedback, together with a summary of the main issues and details of any proposed changes to the course not yet reflected in the official documentation. The document should also address aspects of the Fifteen Key Questions for Course Review, including internationalisation, the development and articulation of generic skills, on-line development and flexible learning and information on the destinations of graduates. Copies of the School strategic plan, and any other existing School documentation including policies, guidelines, practices and procedures should be appended to this document. This will be distributed to the Review Committee with the course review documentation two to three weeks prior to the course review.

Back

6. REVIEW TIMETABLE

The Course Review Committee will normally meet for three days. The Faculty and School concerned will prepare a program of contacts with staff and students in consultation with the Committee Chair.

7. SAMPLING

7.1 Subjects

7.1 Subjects

The Course Review process involves sampling of student work in the document accumulation phase, and of students and possibly teaching staff for the interview phase. There will be wide variation across courses about how this will be done. Clearly the aggregation of vast amounts of student work is both onerous for staff and poor communication to the Course Review Committee. Sampling requires commitment to ‘representativeness' and the following principles should be kept in mind:

Key subjects should be sampled across years and across disciplines and fields.
A balance between compulsory subjects and electives should be achieved where this is relevant.
Levels of achievement should be sampled, especially illustrating the transition from one grade level to another.
An appropriate mix of assignments and examination papers should be selected. Staff should anticipate the need to keep copies of selected samples in the semester prior to review.
A representative sample of 10 Study Guides is to be included in the materials provided for the Course Review. Where the Study Guide is included in a published print or CD ROM resource as part of a learning resource package, these may be presented instead. For LearnJCU (on-line or other) materials subject names and codes will suffice.

The idea here is to provide evidence that standards are observed and that some thought has gone into the distinctions between performance at different levels. The examples are not ‘representative' but rather indicative of assessment practice and standards. A total of approximately 50 samples of students' work would be an upper limit for all courses. Where the products of student work are not amenable to inclusion in a document portfolio, a display during the meeting of the Committee may be appropriate as a complement or substitute. Evidence of benchmarking of Honours assessments should also be included.

Back

8. GUIDELINES FOR FOCUS GROUPS

8.1 The Purpose of Focus Groups

The purpose of holding ‘focus groups' for separate sessions of staff and students during the course review process is to enable the Review Committee to obtain information that will assist them in answering some of the fifteen key questions to be addressed in their report.

This will be both supplementary and complementary to other sources of information that will include university mission statements, handbook entries, subject descriptions, statistical data, written submissions, sample assessments and survey data.

Properly constituted focus groups will provide the Review Committee with first hand accounts of the course under review. They have the potential to contradict or authenticate other evidence presented to the review committee and allow it interrogate aspects of the course more rigorously. They can also be used to clarify or elaborate on issues raised in other evidence to the panel. In some circumstances the Review Committee will rely entirely on the focus groups to receive information on certain aspects of the fifteen key questions.

8.2 Organisation of Focus Groups

It is recommended that one person, usually from within the School that has responsibility for the course under review, be appointed to co-ordinate the focus groups and the documentation aspects of the course review. This person would be designated the Course Review Coordinator. It is the responsibility of the designated ‘Course Review Coordinator' for each review to prepare a program of contacts with staff and students in consultation with the Course Review Chair (Chair of Academic Board or nominee).

The main role of the ‘Course Review Coordinator' will be in constituting the focus groups, and briefing them prior to the review. Liaison with staff and students in both Townsville and Cairns (where appropriate) will be necessary.

8.3 Staff Focus Groups

It will be more efficient if the review committee meets with staff as a group and openly discusses issues raised in the key questions. The ‘Course Review Coordinator' should ensure that all staff are aware of the purpose of the review, and distribute copies of relevant key questions prior to the scheduled meeting. The Review Committee may, however, decide to depart from the listed questions.

The ‘Course Review Coordinator' should ensure that a cross-section of staff is represented in both Townsville and Cairns (if appropriate). This should include a range of teaching staff across academic levels A-E, and from a range of subjects within the course. Honours coordinators should be included. Between 6-8 staff members in each group should be sufficient to represent the course. Staff should be free to express their views but should indicate to the Committee the level of support they have for those views among their colleagues.

The ‘Course Review Coordinator' should prepare a profile of all staff members for distribution to the Committee and indicate to the Committee which staff members will be available for the focus groups. This staff profile should include the following aspects: academic level, qualifications, subjects taught and the address of any existing personal web page.

The Review Committee may request to interview other staff not represented in the focus group if deemed appropriate in a follow-up session.

8.4 Key Questions for Staff Focus Groups

How do the aims, processes and assessment practices of this course comply with University aspirations for internationalisation?

Does the course attract students appropriate to its aims?

Are the organisation, structure and content of the course appropriate?

Are academic standards appropriate?

How do the aims, processes and assessment practices of this course comply with University objectives dealing with attainment of Generic Skills?

8.5 Student Focus Groups

Students will be an important source of information for the Course Review Committee. The identification of participants should ensure that a range of voices is heard, and that individuals have some authority to speak on behalf of others. Student participants should be encouraged to solicit input from others. Between 8-12 student participants should be included in each group.

The ‘Course Review Coordinator' should ensure that student focus groups are a representative and demographic sample from participants in the course. (While ‘convenience sampling' will sometimes be unavoidable, this should be combined with ‘judgement sampling'.)

The following categories should be addressed in constituting the groups:

Students from a range of subjects that reflect the course as a whole
Students from different years, including honours
Students who are mature age and school leavers
Students from Townsville, Cairns and regional origin
International students
Gender balance
Different abilities - high, average and low achievers

A profile of the focus group participants (with the exception of the last category) should be provided to the Review Committee. This profile should be seen to be not dissimilar to the profile of the course participants provided to the Review Committee in their documentation. The Review Committee may ask to interview a particular category of student during their follow-up sessions.

Students should be free to express their views but should indicate to the Committee the level of support they have for those views among their colleagues.

8.6 Key Questions for Student Focus Groups

What are the students' views of the course: are they satisfied with the organisation, structure, content and teaching (including flexible delivery) of the course?
What are the students' views about library support for the course?
What are the students' views about IT support for the course?
What are the students' views about other support services, that is, student administration, careers advice, study skills, counselling?
Are the organisation, structure and content of the course appropriate?
Are academic standards appropriate?
How do the aims, processes and assessment practices of this course comply with University objectives dealing with attainment of Generic Skills?

8.7 Briefing Session for Focus Groups

Prior to the focus groups, the ‘Course Review Coordinator' should hold separate briefing sessions to inform staff and students as to the purpose and aims of the course review. They should explain the procedure of the focus groups and distribute the key questions. This will maximise the time available in the focus groups by eliminating the need for focus group participants to address questions to the Review Committee. In the case of students it will also allow time to canvass views widely on the key questions.

8.8 Focus Group Procedures

It is intended that all Committee members will be present at all the focus groups. These should be structured around the key questions and be semi-formal in nature.

The focus group will be coordinated by the Chair of the Review Committee (or nominee) and should allow enough time to address all the key questions. Administrative staff will record the key statements at these focus groups for review by the Committee.

Each focus group will be typically 50 minutes duration.

8.9 Recommended Total Number of Participants in Focus Groups

The following numbers of focus groups participants are recommended:

Staff:

Location	Size	Number of Meetings	Total participants
Townsville	6-8	2	12-16
Cairns	6-8	1	6-8
Total	-	-	18-24

Students:

Location	Size	Number of Meetings	Total participants
Townsville	8-12	2	16-24
Cairns	8-12	1	8-12
Total	-	-	24-36

Back

9. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

The Course Review Committee will be expected to take written submissions from any staff member or student who wishes to do so. These will be solicited in time to include in the Review Committee documentation (minus 2-3 weeks from review) or tabled during the review. Time will be set aside to interview the authors of written submissions during the review process if necessary. The Committee will protect the anonymity of authors of submissions where this is requested. Such authors should mark their submission “Confidential”. The Committee will be responsible for the confidential disposal of such information immediately the final report is complete and accepted.

10. HOW WILL THE COURSE REVIEW BE REPORTED?

The report of the Course Review should be concise enough to be included as part of Academic Board papers. The portfolio of documentation prepared for the Course Review Committee should be available to Academic Board, as if it were an appendix to the report. The appendix should be kept in the Faculty for future reference. The Report should attend explicitly to the questions above, but present a precis of the key findings.

It is expected that a preliminary draft version of the Review Report will be prepared before the Committee breaks. The author of the report will be an Executive Officer appointed to service each Course Review Committee. The draft report will be circulated to the Committee members to be checked for fairness, relevance, and accuracy. Once finalised, the report will be sent to the Faculty to be checked for factual accuracy and in order for the Faculty PVC to prepare a response to the report. The Chair of the Course Review Committee will have the right and responsibility to mediate claims against these criteria.

10.1 Components of the report

Commentary on the aims and objectives of the course, and on how individual subjects contribute to those aims and objectives.
A summary of relevant performance indicators for the course and how well they are achieved.
A synthesis and summary of the issues arising in the Review, and of the strengths and weaknesses of the course, together with an account of the degree to which the course is internally coherent and contributes to University and Faculty goals.
Recommendations concerning any changes to the course to be considered by Academic Board.
An executive summary of the most recent external accreditation report and response (where applicable).

On finalisation of the Course Review Report it will be considered by Academic Board along with a response from the Faculty PVC of the relevant Faculty.

10.2 Appendices to report

Appendices to the report will include the information provided to the Course Review Committee and identified on the Information Sources Checklist. Other information provided to the Committee (for example, evaluation studies done on subjects, majors and the like) should be included for reference. The most recent external accreditation reports, responses and documents should be provided. Submissions to the Review unless specifically marked “confidential” should be included. Submissions marked “confidential” must be shredded immediately on completion of the Review.

Back

APPENDIX A: Summary of Course Review Tasks and Responsibilities

Stage 1: Review Panel Constituted

Task	Who responsible	Who approves	Comments/ Follow up action
Date of Review set	Faculty PVC & PVC SSQA	Chair Academic Board	Confirmation that key personnel available
Nomination of 2 external reviewers	Executive Dean & Chair of Academic Board provide advice	Vice Chancellor	-
Invitations to external reviewers	Vice Chancellor	-	Book Travel & Accommodation
Appointment of review panel - internal	PVC SSQA Chair Academic Board	Vice Chancellor	Invitations to: 2 senior staff from other faculties, at least 1 from Academic Board 1 nominee of President of Student Association not from course
Facilities booked - TSV & Cairns (if appropriate)	Administrative	PVC SSQA	-

Stage 2: Documentation Folder generated

Task	Who responsible	Who approves	Comments/ Follow up action
Faculty PVC invited to arrange for the preparation of background paper on the course.	PVC SSQA
Briefing meeting with Faculty PVC and School Course Review Coordinator ( CRC )	Representative of PVC SSQA		Action list compiled and assigned
Sample courses decided	ED & CRC	PVC SSQA
Sample student work scoped	Representative of PVC SSQA, Faculty PVC & CRC	PVC SSQA	Maximum 50 samples of students' work plus Honours
Sample student work selected	CRC	PVC SSQA
University mission statement assembled	Administrative
Course documentation assembled	CRC	PVC SSQA	Course proposals Handbook descriptions Subject descriptions Assessment practices Other School policies, guidelines, practices and procedures
Honours Assessment Benchmarking (or ED's Compliance Report)	CRC	PVC SSQA
Any external accreditation/reporting documentation included.	CRC
Compilation of any existing reviews	CRC
Folder completed at minus 2-3 weeks	Faculty PVC & CRC	PVC SSQA

Stage 3: Statistical information generated (previous 5 years data where available)

Task	Who responsible	Who approves	Comments/ Follow up action
Course codes identified and agreed	Manager, Statistics	Faculty PVC	-
International student enrolment profile, Student profile with OP, Completion, pass and retention rates, Honours profile, Staff/student ratios, Staff profile, qualifications and student load	Manager, Statistics	-	-
Graduate Destination Survey	TLD (Rose Rapson)	-	-
Course Evaluation Questionnaire	TLD (Rose Rapson)	-	-
SFS 2000-	Quality Assurance Officer		Executive Officer to summarise

Stage 4: Timetable for staff and student focus groups developed

Task	Who responsible	Who approves	Comments/ Follow up action
Students selected	‘Course Review Coordinator’ (CRC)	-	Including Cairns if appropriate
Staff selected	CRC	-	Including Cairns if appropriate
Timetable developed	Representative of PVC SSQA with CRC	PVC SSQA	-

Stage 5: Pre-Review actions

Task	Who responsible	Who approves	Comments/ Follow up action
Written submissions invited and assembled, including confidential submissions	PVC SSQA	-	-
Agenda prepared and distributed to panel	Rep PVC SSQA	PVC SSQA	-
Documentation folders distributed to panel at minus 2-3 weeks	Rep PVC SSQA	PVC SSQA	-
Travel to Cairns & accommodation or Videolink booked if appropriate	Administrative	-	-
Catering organised	Administrative	-	-

Stage 6: Review

Task

Who responsible

Who approves

Comments/ Follow up action

Review Panel meets, as per agenda

Review panel

Including trip to Cairns or Videolink if appropriate

Designated staff and students available to review panel

Report drafted

Executive Officer

Chair

Stage 7: Post Review

Task	Who responsible	Who approves	Comments/ Follow up action
Draft report sent to Review Panel	Chair	Chair Review Panel to mediate claims	-
Draft report sent to Faculty PVC to be checked for factual accuracy	Chair	Chair Review Panel to mediate claims	-
Final Review Panel Report sent to Academic Board	Chair	-	With documentation as appendix (minus confidential submissions)
Written response to Review Panel Report by Faculty PVC sent to Academic Board	Faculty PVC	-	-
Disposal of confidential submissions	PVC SSQA	-	-
Copy of Report and Documentation held by Faculty	Faculty PVC	-	-

APPENDIX B: Information Sources Checklist

CRITERIA	Document Review	Peer Review	Graduate Survey	Employer Survey	Visiting Committee Interviews	Student Survey	Bench-marking	Performance Data
1. Are the aims of the course appropriate to the University's role and mission?	Mission statement Course proposal Handbook entry	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2. How do the aims, processes and assessment practices of this course comply with University aspirations for internationalisation?	Course proposal Course information for students Assessment tasks	Course proposal Course information for students Assessment tasks	-	-	Staff interviews Student interviews	-	-	International student enrolment statistics
3. Is the course appropriate to the stated aims of the academic unit?	Mission statement Course proposal	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
4. Does the course attract students appropriate to its aims?	Student profile	-	-	-	Staff interviews Student interviews	-	-	OP
5. Are the completion, pass and retention rates appropriate?	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Internal and DETYA statistics
6. What are the destinations of graduates?	-	-	GDS	-	-	-	-	GDS
7. What are students’ views of the course: are they satisfied with the organisation, structure, content and teaching (including flexible delivery) of the course?	-	-	CEQ	-	Student interviews	SFS	-	-

CRITERIA	Document Review	Peer Review	Graduate Survey	Employer Survey	Visiting Committee Interviews	Student Survey	Bench-marking	Performance Data
8. What are the students’ views about library support for the course?	-	-	-	-	-	SFS	-	-
9. What are the students’ views about IT support for the course?	-	-	-	-	-	SFS	-	-
10. What are the students’ views about other support services, that is, student administration, careers advice, study skills, counselling…?	-	-	-	-	Student interviews	SFS	-	-
11. Are the organisation, structure and content of the course appropriate?	Handbook entry Course information	Handbook entry Course information	CEQ	-	Staff interviews Student interviews	-	-	-
12. Are the methods of delivery and assessment articulated with the objectives?	Handbook entry Course information Assessment tasks (samples)	Handbook entry Course information Assessment tasks (samples)	-	-	-	SFS	-	-
13. Is the course and subject documentation adequate and easily accessible?	Documents above	Documents above	-	-	-	-	Comparator contacts	-
14. Are academic standards appropriate?	Completed, & assessed student work Grade distribution for key subjects	Completed & assessed student work Grade distribution for key subjects	-	-	Staff interviews Student interviews	SFS	Comparator contacts	-

15. How do the aims, processes and assessment practices of this course comply with University objectives dealing with attainment of Generic Skills?

Course proposal

Course information for students

Assessment tasks

GSA

Course proposal

Course information for students

Assessment tasks

GSA

Employer survey

Employer participation

Staff interviews

Student interviews

Acronyms and terms

CEQ Course Evaluation Questionnaire
GDS Graduate Destination Survey
GSA Graduate Skills Assessment (ACER reports when these are available)
SFS Student Feedback about Subjects (from late 2000: incorporating subject feedback and CEQ style items)

Comparator

Universities selected for comparison, usually University of Newcastle,University of Wollongong, University of Tasmania.

APPENDIX C: Checklist of Documentation to be Assembled & Submitted

This tabulated checklist will provide the template/contents list of the Documentation Folder to be assembled at least four weeks prior to the review.

Documentation	Section Responsible
University Mission Statement	Chancellery
Course Proposal	Secretary Academic Board/Faculty
Course Handbook Entries	Registrar
Background paper on course under review	Faculty PVC to arrange
Course Information for Students	School
Completed and Assessed Student Work*, (maximum 50 samples) 3-10 Honours Theses of different standards	School
Grade Distribution for Key Subjects (last 3 years)	Resources Office (Statistics)
Student Profile (OP last 5 years)	Resources Office (Statistics)
Statistical Profile of Course (last 5 years): Completion, Pass and Retention rates Course Evaluation Questionnaire Graduation Destination Survey	Resources Office (Statistics)
SFS results: Item summaries of key subjects (3 years) Course summaries by item (3 years)	Student Services and Quality Assurance Division
Staff Profile – level, qualifications, subjects taught	School
Focus Group Participant Profiles	School
Written Submissions by staff and students (including confidential submissions)	PVC SSQA
Other Reviews of Course, including recent external accreditation reviews, and recent documents relating to external accreditation and reporting	School

*where student work is not amenable for inclusion in a folder, an exhibition should be arranged for the Review Committee

Academic Board Course Reviews

Checklist of Material to be submitted by Heads of School

Part 1: Submission Date:

1	A document outlining the background and history of the course, together with a summary of the main issues and details of any proposed changes to the course not yet reflected in the official documentation.
2	Copy of most recent external accreditation submission and related papers, if course externally accredited
3	Faculty Strategic Plan
4	School Strategic Plan
5	Copies of any other School documentation, eg policies, guidelines, practices, procedures
6	Subject Outlines for all Subjects in the course
7	Guides to the course including compulsory units, electives, majors
8	Sample minutes of staff/student consultative meetings
9	Sample minutes of external liaison meetings
10	Curriculum Vitae for all Academic Staff who teach the course with details of academic qualifications, refereed publications and grants attracted
11	A summary table of Staff workload distribution
12	Any graduate employment details collected independently of Graduate Destination Survey
13	Student work samples - representative range of assessments, (eg essays, examinations and tests), across different types and levels of subjects and from different teaching staff in both TSV and CNS. This should number about 50 samples in total, and include multiple examples to show HD/D/C/P/F.

Part 2: Submission Date:

14	List of staff who will attend scheduled meetings with Review Committee
15	List of students who will attend scheduled meetings with Review Committee with details of course, year
16	Honours Theses – about 3 to show different grades

Back

Course Reviews

[1]	The assistance of Professor Christine Ewan, University of Wollongong, in the design of this plan is gratefully acknowledged.

Quality Assurance

Course Reviews

GUIDELINES FOR UNDERGRADUATE COURSE REVIEW (including Honours)

Revised June 2007

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

2. WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS FOR COURSE REVIEW?

3. HOW WILL THE COURSE REVIEW BE CONDUCTED?

4. COMPOSITION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

5. WHAT ARE THE KEY SOURCES OF DATA FOR THE REVIEW?

6. REVIEW TIMETABLE

7. SAMPLING

7.1 Subjects

8. GUIDELINES FOR FOCUS GROUPS

8.9 Recommended Total Number of Participants in Focus Groups

Staff:

Students:

10. HOW WILL THE COURSE REVIEW BE REPORTED?

APPENDIX A: Summary of Course Review Tasks and Responsibilities

Stage 2: Documentation Folder generated

Stage 3: Statistical information generated (previous 5 years data where available)

Stage 4: Timetable for staff and student focus groups developed

Stage 6: Review