Review of Established Programs
This policy describes the academic governance framework within which the Academic Board on behalf of Federation University Australia will oversee the review of the University's established sealed award Higher Education Programs not conducted solely by research.
This review process quality assures the content, teaching, academic integrity, academic standards, student experience and outcomes of Higher Education award programs at Federation University Australia and facilitates timely and purposeful improvement in a planned and systematic manner.
This policy applies to all established sealed award Higher Education programs not completed solely through research. This policy and related procedure for reviewing the established sealed award Higher Education programs forms part of University's quality assurance framework.
Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021
|Established Sealed Award Program||A Higher Education Program which has been approved by the University's Academic Board for delivery.|
|Program (HE)||Refers to an award program, non-award program, enabling program bridging for overseas trained professionals or cross-provider program undertaken at the University that is listed on Schedule 5.1.|
|Course (HE)||Refers to a subsidiary set of elements (previously referred to as units) that form a program.|
|Review (HE)||Refers to program reviews, which should normally be reviewed every five years.|
1. Reviews are intended to enable the University to:
- Assess the overall quality of the teaching and learning, and determine whether educational aims and learning outcomes have been achieved;
- Assess that academic learning support, student services and access assistance is sufficient;
- Identify areas where performance needs to be improved and strategies for improving performance in these areas; and monitor improvement over a given period of time;
- Consider the ongoing value and relevance of a program within the University’s academic profile.
- Consider whether the learning outcomes are appropriate for a particular program.
2. Reviews are conducted with reference to:
- The University's strategic directions and policies;
- The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) as published by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency;
- Data derived from program performance data and the results and analysis of student survey results;
- The application of learning outcomes;
- The views of academic and teaching staff peers, students, graduates, employers and other relevant stakeholders;
- External professional, industry and accreditation requirements.
3. Reviews will be conducted using the following methodology:
- Established sealed award programs should normally be reviewed every five years. In special circumstances such as newly emerging or rapidly changing fields of study, Academic Board may require a program to undergo a program review more frequently.
- The Review of Established Sealed Award Programs Schedule will be updated and maintained to show the next review date of all programs and the Higher Education Curriculum Committee (HECC) will notify the Executive Deans/Deans of program review timelines in a timely manner.
- Institutes/Schools will conduct a program Self-Review.
- A Review Panel will consider the information contained within the Self-Review report and interview key stakeholders to make affirmations, commendations and recommendations regarding the Program’s performance.
- As per the Review of Established Sealed Award Programs Procedure, set time frames will apply for the above processes and subsequent responses and progress reports from the Institute/School in relation to the panel's recommendations.
4. Reviews will be implemented consistently through the use of:
- Standard terms of reference for the Review Panel.
- Standard self-assessment and reporting templates as per the Review of Established Sealed Award Courses (Higher Education) Procedure.
5. The Institute/School Response to the Program Review Panel Report will be sent to the Higher Education Curriculum Committee and then to Academic Board for review and approval. The 12-month progress report will be sent to Higher Education Curriculum Committee for approval and for noting by Academic Board.
Academic Board (as the Approval Authority) is responsible for monitoring the implementation, outcomes and scheduled review of this policy and its accompanying procedure.
Chair, Learning and Teaching Quality Committee (as the Policy Sponsor) is responsible for maintaining the content of this policy as delegated by Academic Board.
The "Review of Established Sealed Award Courses (Higher Education) Procedure is to be implemented throughout the University in the form of notices via: