Responsible officer: Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Designated officer: Director, Teaching and Research Services
Council approval: C05/43, 7 June 2005
Last amended: Council C07/25, 20 March 2007
Related policies:
- Evaluation and Improvement of Teaching Policy
Overview
The academic profession upholds the values and practices of constructive feedback, self-evaluation, peer review and ethical professional conduct. This applies to all aspects of academic work, including curriculum design and delivery. This policy commits the University to a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of programs and courses, and a system of student feedback on courses, that are firmly based on these values and professional practices.
Policy
1.International standards
The University of the Sunshine Coast pursues international standards of excellence in learning and teaching. The University’s approach to program review and course evaluation plays a major role in the pursuit of these standards.
2. Definitions
Programs are the coherently scoped, sequenced and structured series of courses undertaken by students to meet the requirements for the award of a degree, including any majors and minors, and including all of the named variants of that degree.
Courses are the coherently scoped, sequenced and structured units of study, four of which are normally undertaken by students in each semester/teaching period, that together constitute a program, often as parts of majors, minors and other elements of program structures.
Majors are suites of 8 courses that, as key elements of the structure of programs, provide coherence, depth and breadth in specific discipline, field or professionally related areas.
Dual majors are two distinct 8 course majors from different disciplines, fields or professionally related areas.
Double majors are two 8 course majors from the same discipline, field or professionally related area.
Extended majors are suites of 12 courses that, as key elements of the structure of programs, provide coherence, depth and breadth in specific discipline, field or professionally related areas.
Minors are suites of 4 courses that, as elements of the structure of programs, provide some coherence, depth and breadth in specific discipline, field or professionally related areas.
3. Purpose
The purposes of this policy on program review and course evaluation are to:
- Maintain and improve the standards, currency, and overall quality and soundness of all programs and courses
- Receive and respond to peer, expert and student feedback on the quality of programs and courses; and
- Assure the University Council, Vice-Chancellor and other interested parties of the high standards, currency, and overall quality and soundness of the University’s programs and courses.
4. External program review
All programs will be externally reviewed at least every seven years.
Program reviews will be conducted by a panel with an external chair and a majority of external members appointed by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the relevant Dean.
Panels will review appropriate clusters of closely related programs within faculties.
The review panel will normally not exceed seven members, but this may be varied by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
Faculties will provide all materials and staff time required by the review panel, and will meet the financial costs of program reviews.
The Office of Learning and Teaching will facilitate the review process on behalf of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
Program reviews will examine program standards and currency, the appropriateness and quality of the courses of which programs are comprised, the appropriateness and quality of majors and minors, and any other program structures, and the overall quality and soundness of programs.
The chair of the review panel will provide the Deputy Vice-Chancellor with a written program review report.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor will provide the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean with a copy of the program review report.
The program coordinator will present the program review report to the faculty learning and teaching committee.
The Dean will present the program review report, and a faculty response to the report, to the Academic Board.
The Vice-Chancellor will present the program review report, and decisions in relation to the review report and its recommendations, to the University Council.
The Deans will be responsible to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for the implementation of the Vice-Chancellor’s decisions in relation to the review report and its recommendations.
5. Course evaluation
All courses will be internally evaluated on a three to four year cycle.
Course evaluations will be conducted by a panel chaired by the course coordinator and other staff, including at least two academic staff, appointed by the Dean whose faculty is responsible for the delivery of the course.
The evaluation panel will normally not exceed five members, but this may be varied by the Dean.
Course evaluations will examine course standards and currency, and the overall quality and soundness of courses.
The course coordinator will provide the Dean with a written course evaluation report.
The Dean will provide the Deputy Vice-Chancellor with a copy of the course evaluation report.
The course coordinator will present the course evaluation report to the faculty learning and teaching committee.
The Faculty Learning and Teaching Coordinator will present the course evaluation report to the Learning and Teaching Management Committee.
The Dean will present the course evaluation report, and decisions in relation to the evaluation report and its recommendations, to the Academic Board.
The Dean will be responsible to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for implementation of the Dean’s decisions in relation to the review report and its recommendations.
6. Student feedback on courses
Student feedback on courses is vital information for course evaluations.
To support course coordinators in collecting and responding to student feedback on courses, the University provides a system entitled Student Feedback on Courses (SFC). SFC includes a student feedback instrument and a standard process for collecting feedback, processing the information, and reporting results to course coordinators.
The SFC instrument is designed to obtain student feedback in relation to key aspects of course design and delivery. This is in contrast to Student Feedback on Teaching (see Evaluation and Improvement of Teaching Policy) that provides student feedback on individual teaching performance.
All course coordinators are required to ensure that student feedback on courses is collected, using SFC, at least once each year the course is conducted. Note that this requirement has been suspended until 24 February 2010.
Course coordinators are encouraged to gather feedback on courses from a range of sources using a variety of instruments and processes.
Course coordinators are responsible for initiating SFC, but Deans, Heads of School and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor may initiate SFC.
SFC results are provided to the course coordinator who initiates SFC, and the Dean and the Head of School of the faculty responsible for the course. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor will be given access to SFC results upon request.
The University will use SFC results for quality assurance purposes and maintain up to date postings of aggregated SFC results on the University web page.
END