• Section 1 - Overview and Scope
• Part A - Education Quality Assurance Activities
• Part B - Detailed School Monitoring and Review Activities
• School Monitoring
• School Review
• Part C - Detailed Course Monitoring and Review Activities
• Course Monitoring Activities
• Course Review
• Part D - Other Key Monitoring and Review Activities
• Unit Monitoring
• Unit Review
• HDR Course Review
• Third Party Education Provider Review
• Section 2 - Authority and Compliance
• Authority
• Compliance
• Section 3 - Quality Assurance
• Section 4 - Defined Terms specific to this document

Section 1 - Overview and Scope

(1) The University of New England (UNE) promotes and supports the achievement of research excellence, educational and learning outcomes and an outstanding student experience. To enable this, as a self-accrediting university, the UNE undertakes Education Quality Activities as part of the Academic Quality Assurance Policy. These continuous improvement activities provide a foundation for excellence via monitoring and review.

(2) The scope of this Policy are the assurance activities for the monitoring and review of:

1. Functional and thematic academic and professional areas;
2. Teaching and learning, including within courses and units and via student evaluations;
3. Research, research training and knowledge development; and
4. Academic partnerships comprising third party arrangements.

(3) Within this Policy:

1. Part A – outlines UNE’s education quality assurance activities;
2. Part B – details the School monitoring and review activities;
3. Part C – details the Course monitoring and review activities
4. Part D – provides an overview of other key academic quality monitoring and review activities.

Academic Quality Cycle

(4) Academic Quality provides a foundation for excellence via the process of continuous improvement and is realised through the four-stage quality cycle of Plan, Act, Evaluate, and Improve.

1. ‘Plan’ includes defining what is intended to be achieved and determining an approach for achieving strategies and goals of the university.
2. ‘Act’ includes actions undertaken to achieve strategies and goals of the university.
3. ‘Evaluate’ includes monitoring and review, and internal and external benchmarking, designed to assess how the university is progressing against its strategies and goals, and demonstrate that quality has been attained or sustained.
4. ‘Improve’ includes acting on the matters identified through evaluation, to more successfully meet the strategies and goals of the university, or to a higher standard.

(5) This Annexure to the Policy directs the Evaluate and Improve phases of the quality cycle. The Plan phase is guided by the UNE Governance Framework and Academic Quality Assurance Policy. The Act phase is covered by detailed individual associated policy documents and procedures related to the relevant business activity.

Academic Governance

(6) Academic Governance provides assurance of academic oversight and leadership, through establishment of benchmarks and appropriate monitoring, review and reporting activities as detailed in the Part A.  This assurance includes regular self-monitoring and periodic external reviews of academic governance at least every seven years.

Part A - Education Quality Assurance Activities

(7) Academic Quality Assurance activities that are undertaken by UNE that fall under the lifecycle stage of ‘Evaluate’ and are defined in Table 1:  

Table 1: Academic Quality Assurance Activities

(8) Each of the ‘evaluate’ activities embeds actions designed to realise the ‘improve’ stage of the quality assurance lifecycle, that are then discussed, endorsed, and approved by the relevant oversight authority. Outcomes from evaluation activities may inform better practice and opportunities for innovation across all University activities, findings at a minimum inform admission policies and criteria, approaches to course and unit design, teaching, supervision, and learning and academic support.

(9) In addition to this Policy, Higher Degrees by Research has specific quality assurance processes, including regular course monitoring and cyclical course reviews, defined in the HDR – Graduate Research Training Quality Management Rule.  

(10) The process and activities used for thematic reviews is determined based on the needs identified for the thematic review.

Part B - Detailed School Monitoring and Review Activities

School Monitoring

(11) Monitoring of school performance is undertaken through an annual report on key metrics to Academic Portfolio Executive Committee and Academic Board.

School Review

(12) Based on annual School monitoring, based on strategic or operational reasons the Deputy Vice-Chancellor may determine that a school be reviewed by a review panel in the review cycle.

Table 2: Summary of Functional School Review Approach

(13) If a school review is determined to be required, the Head of School recommends to the Executive Dean no later than 8 weeks in advance of any suggested date:

1. Proposed timeframes for the review,
2. Any variation to the standard Terms of Reference; and
3. The panel membership including suggested Chair.

Terms of Reference – School Review Panel

(14) The standard Terms of Reference (ToR) scope and functions for a School Review Panel are to:

1. Examine the School's performance, its current practice, improvements made since its previous review, and achievements in:
   1. teaching and learning;
   2. research;
   3. community and industry engagement;
   4. management and innovation in course profile;
   5. risk management;
   6. compliance management;
   7. sustainable management of resources; and
   8. management of third-party relationships;
2. Benchmark the School's current management, structures, activities and performance nationally and internationally wherever possible;
3. Examine the key relationships and dependencies between the School and other schools and administrative directorates of the University;
4. Examine the effectiveness of the working and learning environment for staff and students; and
5. Make recommendations on the future direction of the School in terms of opportunities, the University's strategic priorities and compliance requirements

Panel Membership – School Review Panel

(15) The panel membership for the school review comprises:

1. Chair;
2. At least two (not more than three) external members with nationally and/or internationally recognised expertise from relevant disciplines or professional fields;
3. One Head of School from a different discipline; and
4. Where applicable, at least one (not more than two) non-academic representative/s of the relevant profession/s or employer group/s.

School Review - Activities, Roles & Responsibilities  

(16) The Executive Dean is responsible for recommending to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor the proposed timeframe for the review, Terms of Reference for the review, and the panel membership including Chair.

(17) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor approves the proposed timeframe for the review, Terms of Reference for the review, and the panel membership including Chair.

(18) The Head of School is responsible for the completion of the School Self-Review Report, addressing the Terms of Reference:

1. Using the approved template that addresses the School Review Panel’s scope limited to thirty (30) pages plus appendices.
2. Submission of the self-review report to the School Review Panel no less than 2 weeks prior to the scheduled review date.

(19) The Review Panel is responsible for the operation of the review panel meeting to:

1. consider and discuss the School's Self-Review Report;
2. meet with and/or interview relevant stakeholders; and
3. when required, conduct in private and, as far as permitted by law, treat oral submissions as confidential.

(20) The Review Panel is responsible for providing a draft of their School Review Panel Report to the Executive Dean and Head of School to enable corrections.

(21) The final School Review Panel Report is provided to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Executive Dean, and the Head of School by the Review Panel.

(22) The Head of School is responsible for preparing a response to the final School Review Panel Report identifying actions and a developing an Implementation Plan to address the Report's recommendations for endorsement by the Executive Dean, and approval by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

(23) Education Quality is responsible for providing the approved response to the School Review Panel Report and Implementation Plan to Academic Board for noting.

(24) Twelve (12) months after endorsement of the response to the Review, the Head of School is responsible for the preparation of a progress report on the actions and implementation activities, for endorsement by the Executive Dean, and approval by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

(25) Education Quality provides the approved progress report to Academic Board for noting.

(26) Education Quality are responsible for the development and publication of templates used for the School Review activities.

Part C - Detailed Course Monitoring and Review Activities

Course Monitoring Activities

(27) In addition to university-wide cohort monitoring, course monitoring is undertaken through a Course Advisory Board (CAB) which meets at least annually. Cognate courses may be considered together under one CAB.

(28) Membership and functions of a CAB are defined in the relevant Terms of Reference – Course Advisory Board.

Course Review

(29) A schedule of courses for review is developed annually by Education Quality, endorsed by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and approved by Curriculum Committee. Cognate courses may be grouped for the purpose of review, and the timing of external processes for courses with professional accreditation requirements will be incorporated when the schedule is developed.

(30) Courses are reviewed via completion of a rubric and an external review, unless the Deputy Vice-Chancellor determines that a panel-based review is appropriate. Reasons for undertaking a panel-based review may include but are not limited to the existence of third-party arrangements, consistently high attrition or fail rates, persistent failure to implement recommendations from rubric based reviews, evidence of worsening of problems despite recommendations being implemented, or identification of areas of concern by students, staff, or alumni of the university

(31) Where a course is externally accredited, and the quality of a review will not be compromised, the documents required to be evidenced in a course review may be amended by the Director, Education Quality to align with external requirements and eliminate duplication of work

Table 3: Summary of Course Review Approach

Benchmarking - Activities, Roles & Responsibilities

(32) UNE undertakes assessment and grading benchmarking to ensure quality in its teaching and learning delivery, and continuous improvement and enhancement for unit and assessment design, and the student experience. Feedback from the benchmarking reviewer is used as a piece of evidence when undertaking a course review.

(33) Prior to undertaking a course review, benchmarking of grading and assessment of a capstone or final year unit for a cognate group of courses is undertaken using the Benchmarking of Assessment and Grading Form. For the benchmarking exercise:

1. The Course Coordinator is responsible for nominating potential external benchmarking reviewers from other universities, being academics at Level B or higher and not having worked at UNE within the last 5 years;
2. Education Quality is responsible for formal engagement of the nominated external benchmarking reviewers and organises any required confidentiality documents;
3. The Course Coordinator is responsible for compiling the Benchmarking of Assessment and Grading Form and providing the form to the External Benchmark Reviewers; and
4. The Course Coordinator ensures that the feedback from the benchmarking reviewer is used to inform the course review and any amendments to the unit.

Course Review via Rubric - Activities, Roles & Responsibilities  

(34) A rubric based course review looks at the quality of a course against both objective and subjective measures including the design and content of each course, the learning outcomes, the methods for assessment of those outcomes, the extent of students’ achievement of learning outcomes, and also takes account of emerging developments in the field of education, modes of delivery, the changing needs of students and identified risks to the quality of the course of study, to develop recommendations for improvement.

(35) The Associate Dean, Teaching and Learning is responsible for identification and nomination of an appropriately qualified external reviewer from a university other than UNE for each school. The reviewer:

1. must not have been employed by UNE within the last 5 years; and 
2. should have experience in course coordination.

(36) Education Quality is responsible for obtaining the approval of an external reviewer by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and formal engagement of the nominated individuals.

(37) Education Quality is responsible for the creation a rubric document for the course being reviewed.

(38) The Course Coordinator is responsible for completing the rubric.

(39) The external reviewer is responsible for providing feedback on the review with a set of recommendations.

Panel-Based Review - Activities, Roles & Responsibilities

(40) No less than 8 weeks from a scheduled review, the Head of School is responsible for recommending to the Executive Dean:

1. Proposed timeframes for the review;
2. Any requested for amendment to the standard Terms of Reference for a course review by panel; and
3. The composition of the course panel membership including suggested Chair.

(41) The standard Terms of Reference (ToR) scope and functions for a Course Review Panel are to evaluate and make recommendations on:

1. the overarching philosophy of the course(s);
2. the structure of the course including how the Course Learning Outcomes and Graduate Attributes are being achieved (requires course mapping);
3. the quality of the teaching and learning including learning materials (requires student feedback, survey data from units, results of course monitoring and results of unit and assessment benchmarking) as well as student retention, progression and completions;
4. the relevance of the Course(s) to the requirements of employers, and to students, including the capacity of the courses to equip students for ongoing participation in changing communication environments;
5. the relationship of the Course to the strategic goals of the University, including the potential for the Course(s) to form the basis of productive collaborations with other organisations;
6. future directions for the Course(s) and the staffing profile required to meet these future needs; and
7. any other matters the Course Review Panel Chair considers appropriate.

(42) The panel membership for the school review comprises, at a minimum comprising the following roles. A single panel member may fill more than one of the roles:

1. Chair;
2. An external member with nationally or internationally recognised expertise from a relevant discipline or profession;
3. At least one external Course Advisory Board member or representative of an external stakeholder body;
4. Course Coordinators for any courses being reviewed;
5. Chair of the School Teaching and Learning Committee responsible for the course; and
6. The Course Manager of the school responsible for the course.

Course Review Outcomes

(43) On receiving recommendations from a rubric-based or panel-based course review, the Head of School in conjunction with the Course Coordinator is responsible for the development of the school response to the panel report, including:

1. Preparing the response to the recommendations using the appropriate template; and
2. Providing the report to Education Quality within 15 working days from receipt of the recommendations.

(44) Recommendations arising from a course review are:

1. Endorsed by the School Education Committee
2. Endorsed by the Faculty Education Committee
3. Approved by the Curriculum Committee.

(45) The Course Coordinator, in consultation with the Head of School, is responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Course Review and reporting progress to the Head of School using the Implementation Report. These Reports are provided to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor at six months and twelve months after the initial submission of the response to the Panel’s recommendations.

(46) Unless otherwise approved, Course Coordinators are responsible to ensure that the planning and implementing of Course Review recommendations are finalised within twelve months of approval of the initial response to the recommendations and that this is reported on the appropriate templates.

(47) Education Quality is responsible for reporting a summary of recommendations, responses, and progress of implementation to Curriculum Committee.

(48) Education Quality is responsible for the development and publication of templates used for the Course Review process.

Part D - Other Key Monitoring and Review Activities

Unit Monitoring

(49) Unit monitoring is undertaken through:

1. collection of unit evaluations, and provision of that information to the Unit Coordinator and Head of School; and
2. regular reporting through to Teaching and Learning Committee.

Unit Review

(50) Schools will develop a cycle of review of their units that best suits the School's needs. Normally, units will be reviewed on a three-year cycle.

(51) The schedule for unit reviews and progress of unit reviews is noted annually by Teaching and Learning Committee.

(52) A unit review involves an evaluation and review of currency of content and learning outcomes, relevancy for the courses that it relates to, and pedagogy and assessment.

(53) Education Quality is responsible for the development and publication of templates used for the Unit Review process.

HDR Course Review

(54) HDR Course monitoring and review is undertaken in accordance with the HDR – Graduate Research Training Quality Management Rule.

Third Party Education Provider Review

(55) Monitoring of third-party arrangements is provided for under the Third Party Education Provider Agreement Procedures.

Section 2 - Authority and Compliance

Authority

(56) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor makes this Policy.

(57) The Director, Education Quality is authorised to make procedures, that are consistent with this Policy, for the effective implementation and operation of this Policy.

Compliance

(58) UNE Representatives must observe this Policy in relation to the implementation institution-wide quality assurance activities.

(59) This Policy provides assurance of the satisfaction of professional accreditation requirements where applicable and statutory obligations under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the Higher Education Standards Framework 2021, the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) (updated 2018), the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes 2013, and the University of New England Act 1993 (NSW).

(60) This Policy operates as and from the Effective Date.

(61) Previous policy documents on the quality assurance procedures for school monitoring, courses and units (coursework) review are replaced and have no further operation from the Effective Date.

(62) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Policy, the Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer may approve an exception to this Policy where the Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer determines the application of this Policy would otherwise lead to an unfair, unreasonable or absurd outcome. Approvals by the Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer under this clause must be documented in writing and must state the reason for the exception.

Table 4: Summary of Academic Quality Assurance Roles and Responsibilities