Guidelines for Academic Review

June 2001

1. Purpose

The purpose of academic review is to assist the university to assure itself of the quality of its academic endeavour and to utilise learning from this essentially developmental process in order to effect improvement. 

2. Guiding Principles for Review

The guiding principles for review fit within the values and principles outlined in Quality at Monash: Values and Principles. In that document, seven key areas of values and principle are identified including:

• creating the agenda for quality by recognising quality as concerned with ‘fitness for purpose’ in a unique and innovative university;
• recognition that quality is the professional responsibility of each individual and work team;
• the best way to effect quality assurance and accountability is through continuous quality improvement based on collaboration and the development of a learning organisation;
• a commitment to develop policy so as to assure comparable treatment in all areas of the university, while leaving room for different areas to develop implementation for their particular contexts;
• the value of an open and thoughtful approach to quality informed by international research and scholarship;
• a planned and systematic approach to quality including ensuring that the results of monitoring and review are fed back in order to effect improvement;
• recognition that both self-reflection and external points of reference provide valuable perspectives for further reflection and action.

In addition, a number of important guiding principles relating specifically to review are as follows.

(i) The strategic directions of the university are of central importance for all reviews.

(ii) Benchmarking leading to improvement is strongly encouraged, as is input from stakeholders.

(iii) Academic reviews consider the effectiveness of processes and procedures, particularly as they are demonstrated through outcomes. Effective processes are best demonstrated by successful outcomes and reviews encourage a focus on outcomes.

(iv) The importance and relevance of external professional and accreditation reviews is acknowledged. Duplication is avoided by identifying those areas of professional and accreditation reviews that address the terms of reference for Monash academic review. Remaining areas are considered by, for example, negotiating additional terms of reference for professional reviews or by a Supplementary Report produced at the same time.

3. Scope of Review

Academic review is an important part of the comprehensive review process by which the university systematically evaluates its activities and operations. The integrated nature of academic work means that all aspects of academic work are best considered at the same time. Academic reviews therefore include:

• courses (including teaching, learning and assessment);
• research and research training;
• professional and community activities;
• internal organisation, management, quality assurance and improvement.

4. Unit of Review

The ‘unit’ for review may be the whole faculty, schools and departments within the faculty, or any combination of these. Faculties may also wish to schedule other reviews, such as reviews of faculty-based centres with research or other academic responsibilities, or reviews of programs and courses. Other units with academic responsibilities but which lie outside of the faculty structure are scheduled for review by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor to whom they report. It is the responsibility of faculties and appropriate Deputy Vice-Chancellors to define units for review and to schedule reviews.

Throughout this document the term ‘unit’ is used to denote the entity being reviewed, which may be a faculty, school, department, centre or other organisational unit.

5. Review Cycle

Each area of the university’s operations is normally reviewed every 5 years although a shorter cycle is discretionary.

6. Review Schedule

Each faculty publicises the schedule of academic reviews on its web-site. This information is also linked to (and therefore accessible from) the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) review website. The schedule includes all reviews planned during the 5-year cycle. Non-faculty academic reviews scheduled by the respective DV-C also appear on the CHEQ review website.

7. Support

Quality assurance and improvement are core responsibilities for each faculty and budgeting for review is therefore part of the normal planning and budgeting process. Assistance in briefing staff who will be involved in reviews is available from CHEQ. Secretarial assistance for review panels may be negotiated through CHEQ on a cost-recovery basis.

8. Terms of Reference

Terms of reference ensure consistency of review across the institution. They also ensure that reviews meet the requirements of, and are aligned with, university strategic planning and policy documents. Reviews may also include other areas or issues not covered in the standard terms of reference. The standard terms of reference cover the areas of:

• organisational structure, management, planning, quality assurance and improvement;
• human and physical resources, support services, information technology;
• course and subject profiles;
• student profile, teaching, learning and assessment;
• research and research training;
• professional and community activities.

A full list of the standard terms of reference is included in Appendix I. Depending on procedures within particular faculties, some of these areas may be more appropriate for review at faculty level and some at school or departmental level.

9. Self-Review

Self-review is the first phase of the review process. It presents an opportunity for the unit to consider its directions, progress, achievements and strengths, as well as areas for development and improvement and the means of achieving these.

A self-review team is appointed by the dean of the faculty to lead the self-review and produce a self-review document. The self-review document forms the basis for the review that will follow. The self-review document is normally 10,000 to 12,000 words (with up to 20 additional pages of appendices) and is structured to reflect the terms of reference.

Appendix II outlines information, data and supporting documentation that is normally regarded as useful for the self-review document.

10. Review Panel

Review panels are selected by the dean of the faculty (in consultation with the head of unit to be reviewed, as appropriate) and are approved by the DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D). Selection of panel members is based on their experience and expertise with regard to the terms of reference. Panels normally include the following: 

two senior academics from relevant areas but external to Monash University (an international perspective is encouraged);

• a senior Monash academic external to the unit and usually external to the faculty;
• member of an appropriate professional association or society;
• an appropriate industry or employer group member;
• a senior student or recent graduate.

The dean nominates the chair of the review panel and additional members as appropriate. The secretary to the committee may be the faculty manager, his or her internal nominee, or an externally appointed person.

It is recognised that in special circumstances the normal composition of a review panel may need to be varied to meet the particular circumstance.

11. Review Process

The review process includes panel members receiving the self-review document, asking for further documentation if necessary and then convening for the review visit. During the visit the panel will meet with interested parties, tour facilities, receive submissions and requests for interviews, and at the end of the visit, present preliminary findings. A typical calendar of events is presented as Appendix III and assignment of responsibilities in Appendix IV.

Responding to the multi-campus and international nature of Monash is a matter for each review to consider in developing the review process. Possible responses include locating the review on one campus and having people travel from other campuses, short visits by review team members (as a whole or in subgroups) to other campuses or the organisation of different days of the review at different campuses. Self-reviews conducted as part of the Monash Off-Shore Quality Assurance Committee (OQAC) process, together with OQAC reviews and reports, normally form the basis for the review of international teaching and learning activities. 

12. Review Report

The chair of the review panel working closely with the secretary drafts the review report and sends this to the dean for comment. The dean receives the final report normally within two months of the review visit.

The review report is usually between 8,000 –10,000 words with up to 10 pages of appendices. There is an executive summary of no more than 3 pages. Major headings normally follow the terms of reference and self-review document, with one or two paragraphs for each finding. A copy of the review report is also lodged with CHEQ (for training, development and best practice purposes). The usual format for the report is shown in Appendix V.

13. Post Review Implementation

On receiving the review report, the dean, in consultation with the head of unit), or in the case of a faculty review, in consultation with the DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D):

• decides priorities, develops an implementation plan and if necessary modifies the Faculty Operational Plan. As well as prioritising actions, the implementation plan assigns responsibilities, assesses resource implications and provides a time scale for implementation (see Appendix VI);
• reports major issues or findings to the DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D);
• reports major issues or findings to relevant university and faculty committees;
• has ongoing consultation with the head of unit, or in the case of a faculty review, the DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D), concerning progress of the implementation plan;
• reports to the Vice-Chancellor on the status of reviews and progress on major issues, normally within the context of the annual performance management review.

Appendix I

Standard Terms of Reference for Academic Reviews

Academic reviews consider outcomes together with the effectiveness of processes and procedures in the following areas.

1. Organisational structure and management

• appropriateness and effectiveness of organisational structure
• leadership in maintaining and developing academic standing and reputation
• implementation of previous review findings

Effectiveness of processes and procedures for:

• alignment of objectives with university strategic directions, policy and planning documents, including: Leading the Way; Learning and Teaching Plan; Research and Research Training Management Plan; Support Services Directions; Global Development Plan; and alignment with national policies if appropriate
• systematic quality assurance and improvement including planning, monitoring, reviewing and using feedback for improvement in all areas
• financial management including alignment of planning, budgeting and funding
• consulting with staff, students, professional associations and others to gain feedback for planning and improvement
• identifying, considering and taking appropriate action with regard to problems raised by staff, students and other stakeholders
• induction and mentoring of new staff; staff training and development
• performance management
• realisation of equity objectives
• developing promotional activities and materials

2. Human and Physical Resources, Support Services including Information Technology

• academic, administrative, professional and technical staffing profile in relation to objectives and plans
• provision and utilisation of appropriate teaching, research and administrative accommodation and equipment
• appropriate provision and utilisation of support services
• appropriate provision and utilisation of information technology

3. Course and Subject Profile

• the range and scope of courses (eg majors) and subjects
• alignment of courses and subjects with faculty, school/department, course, program and university objectives
• course structures and relationship of courses and subjects with other faculty or university offerings
• currency and relevance of subjects and courses with regard to industry and professional needs
• development of flexible entry, exit and pathway opportunities
• processes and procedures for introducing, resourcing, revising and rationalising courses and subjects to ensure effective use of resources
• appropriateness and equivalence of courses of the same academic value offered in different contexts (eg interdisciplinary, joint, partnership, multi campus, off-shore)
• effectiveness of course advising

4. Student Profile, Teaching, Learning and Assessment

Processes and procedures to monitor, maintain and develop:

• understanding of the student profile including changes and trends
• student progress and achievement
• Monash graduate attributes
• student-centred and flexible approaches to learning and teaching
• appropriate educational use of technology
• internationalisation of the curriculum and learning opportunities
• cross and interdisciplinary opportunities
• the scope, purpose, range of assessment tasks and alignment with learning objectives and outcomes
• the regular provision of feedback to students
• student learning and other support services
• academic excellence in teaching, learning and assessment

5. Research and Research Training

Processes and procedures to monitor, maintain and develop:

• excellence in research and research training
• the range and scope of research activity
• alignment of research with faculty and university plans
• implementation of Monash University Research Policy
• interrelationships and mutual support between teaching and research
• collaborative research with other university units, and externally with other institutions and with industry and professional organisations
• academic freedom with regard to research
• intellectual property provisions
• research supervision
• induction, training and opportunities for interaction among postgraduate students
• induction and support for staff new to research

6.  Professional and Community Activities

Processes and procedures to monitor, maintain and develop:

• professional and community access to expertise and resources
• links with professional associations, employer groups, public and private sectors, the local community staff participation in local, national and international professional societies and activities
• public awareness of the contribution to society made by the unit
• contact with alumni

Appendix II

Information, Data and Support Documentation

In developing the self-review document, the following information and data are normally required for a faculty, school or department. Data relating to students may not be appropriate for some research centre and other unit reviews.

• mission statement and plan
• organisational structure or chart
• performance indicators, stakeholder consultation, survey results (as available) graduate information including Graduate Destination and Course Experience data
• information on subjects and courses
• subject evaluation data
• research performance data (eg publications, grants, higher degrees by research student load and completions)
• professional and community engagement information
• budget data including income sources, reserves and financial viability of operations and courses
• space, equipment, information technology and library resources
• student data including enrolment, progression and achievement
• staffing profile (including age, level, gender, qualifications and workload)
• staffing ratios (eg staff/student; academic/administrative)
• staff training and development activities
• examples of promotional materials

The review panel will also require copies of the following support documentation.

• Monash Direction 2025
• Global Development Plan
• Education and Research Policies
• Faculty Operational Plan
• School, department, Centre or Unit Plan (if appropriate)
• Faculty, school or departmental annual reports (since the last review)
• Previous review report
• Off-Shore Quality Assurance Committee reports (if appropriate)

Appendix III

Typical Calendar of Events

Organisational and functional differences mean that different organisational units will schedule review activities somewhat differently. In the following examples, a hypothetical review visit has been scheduled for September. Reviews may be scheduled at any time during the year although teaching (but non-examination) times may be preferred in order to ensure student input.

Example A (below) outlines a typical calendar of events for faculty, school or departmental review. Example B is more appropriate for research centre review.

Appendix IV

Areas of Responsibility

Typical areas of responsibility concerning the conduct of academic reviews are as follows.

Dean

• determine and publish schedule of reviews
• consult with head of unit on composition of self-review team
• consult with head of unit on review panel membership and gain approval of DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D)
• meet with review panel
• receive review report
• consult with head of unit, or for a faculty review, with DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D), on an implementation plan
• report major issues or findings to the DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D);
• report major issues or findings to relevant university and faculty committees
• send copy of report to CHEQ (for training and development)
• consult with head of unit, or for a faculty review, with DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D), on progress of implementation plan
• report to Vice-Chancellor on major findings, issues, implementation progress

Head of Unit

• consult with dean on membership of self-review team
• consult with dean on membership of review panel
• meet with review panel
• consult with dean on implementation plan
• consult with dean on implementation progress

Chair of Review Panel

• consult with dean on augmenting review panel if necessary
• following receipt of the self-review document, coordinate requests for extra information from panel members
• consult with unit on review panel visit program
• facilitate and lead the review panel visit
• coordinate drafting of the review report
• ensure receipt of review report by dean within two months of panel visit

Review Panel Members

• participate fully in the review process and assist the chair wherever possible
• following receipt of the self-review document, request additional information, if necessary
• assist in drafting the review report

Review Panel Secretary

• publicise the review
• call for internal submissions
• take notes during review panel visit meetings
• organise support for the review panel
• play a central role in drafting the review report

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (A&P) and (R&D)

• approve review panel membership
• for faculty review, consult with dean on development and progress of implementation plan
• establish patterns and trends in review reports
• determine implications and findings of university-wide importance
• bring general issues and concerns to the attention of university committees and other bodies as appropriate

Vice-Chancellor

• monitor progress of reviews in each faculty (normally through the annual performance review)
• monitor progress made on general issues and concerns identified by DV-C (A&P) and DV-C (R&D)

Appendix V

Typical Review Report Format

Appendix VI

Typical Format for Implementation Plan

The following is the typical format for an Implementation Plan.

Download this document as a  (Word document) (PDF document)