Subject Quality Review Procedure

Intent

This Procedure identifies the key areas and processes to be undertaken when evaluating the quality of a unit of study, namely modules, subjects or micro units, delivered by James Cook University (JCU; the University).

This Procedure addresses Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) standards 5.3.2-7.

Scope

This Procedure applies to all University staff involved in the delivery of coursework or research training at the module or subject level, with particular emphasis on core, capstone, and prerequisite or hurdle subjects. These staff members are responsible for contributing to Subject Quality Reviews and participating in assessment moderation, benchmarking, and calibration activities.

Definitions

Except as otherwise specified in this procedure, the meaning of terms used are as per the Monitoring, Review and Improvement Policy or the Policy Glossary.

Unit(s) – refers inclusively to subjects, modules, and micro-units.

Introduction

Whilst courses are reviewed annually, the units within provide the subject learning outcomes which make up the course structures and are the key elements to be addressed in the quality assurance process identified in the HESF. To ensure compliance with the TEQSA Australian University provider category, JCU is required to demonstrate ‘mature and advanced processes for the design, delivery, accreditation, monitoring, institutional quality assurance, review and improvement of courses of study, and the maintenance of academic integrity’.

Procedure

1. All Subject Coordinators are responsible for managing the quality and currency of the delivery of units allocated to them and are expected to self-review their units annually. Subject coordinators will liaise with other teaching staff who have contributed to the delivery of the subject. The following areas of curriculum and delivery will be the basis for their quality self-review.

1.1 Learning Outcomes and Delivery

1.1.1 Alignment with Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)

1.1.2 Accreditation implications:

• Any revisions necessary as a result of external accreditation; and
• Any stakeholder or benchmarking advice on Subject Learning Outcomes (SLOs).

1.1.3 New developments or innovations in the discipline which should be included or updated within the curriculum.

1.1.4 Progression implications, where pre-requisites have an impact on subject delivery, or where grade distribution reports highlight issues within the subject structure impacting on course completion expectations).

1.2 Assessment

1.2.1 Acquisition of learning must be assured through an assessment mapping process. Any changes to assessment must be factored into the subject quality review.

1.2.2 Reports on academic integrity over the annual delivery of the unit, identifying areas of assessment or locations of delivery that may require attention.

1.2.3 Benchmarking reports on assessment moderation, grade distribution, and calibration of assessment with an external institution. All subjects must seek some form of external review at least triennially.

1.3 Progression and cohort comparison

Reports on student success in the subject across the year and at all campuses and modes.

1.4 Student Feedback

1.4.1 Subject Coordinators are required to monitor internal student feedback though the YourJCU Subject Survey, reporting on participation and satisfaction levels and monitoring cohort performance at each campus.

1.4.2 Analysis between the previous year performance in QILT and SES and the current YourJCU Subject Survey will provide trending data to provide a student perspective on the subject performance.

2. Reporting

2.1 Subject Coordinators will report on their subject quality performance over the previous year using the Subject Quality Review template.

2.2 The subject quality report will be used by the Course Coordinator in the composition of the Course Performance Report. This may relate to generic or elective subjects delivered in multiple courses. These reports will be used by Course Coordinators or Academic Heads for planning and quality assurance purposes.

2.3 Where the subject quality report indicates heightened risk or underperformance, the Course Coordinator or Academic Head, will initiate a more formal subject quality review to be undertaken by an appropriately qualified panel utilising data listed in clauses 1.1-1.4. Any outcomes or recommendations from the formal review will be recorded in the CMS and reported to Curriculum Committee within the specified timeframe by the Course Coordinator or Academic Head.

2.4 The formal subject quality review report will be used to determine whether the subject should undergo a refresh, disestablishment or other recommendation/s listed in the report.

Related policy instruments

Learning Outcomes and Assessment Policy

Learning Outcomes and Assessment Procedure

Coursework Monitoring, Review and Improvement Policy

Course Performance Reports Procedures

Schedules/Appendices

Appendix 1 Subject Quality Review template

Administration

NOTE:  Printed copies of this procedure are uncontrolled, and currency can only be assured at the time of printing.

Approval Details

Revision History