3.10.13 Curriculum and Teaching Quality Appraisal and Academic Program Review - Handbook of University Policies and Procedures at The University of Queensland

Policy Number:	3.10.13
Policy Name:	Curriculum and Teaching Quality Appraisal and Academic Program Review
Contact Officer:	Director, Academic Administration
Date Approved by Senate:	20/11/2008
Date of Next Review:	20/11/2011
Related Policies:	1.40.2

1. Overview:

This policy sets out the processes for appraising teaching quality and undertaking curriculum reviews of the University’s undergraduate and postgraduate coursework programs. The processes have been developed following the 2006 review of the former Teaching Quality Appraisal (TQA) process and the 2007/ 2008 review of both the TQA and the former Curriculum Review process. A substantive outcome of those reviews was the recommendation that the two former processes be combined and streamlined to remove duplication and provide greater clarity to the steps required in the relevant processes.

Appraising the quality of teaching and undertaking regular reviews of curriculum are two key elements of the quality assurance framework of The University of Queensland, particularly as it relates to teaching and learning and program development. The Curriculum and Teaching Quality Appraisal (CTQA) process and the Academic Program Review (APR) processes provide the mechanism for the systematic and regular review of curricula and programs within The University of Queensland.

The aim of the Curriculum and Teaching Quality Appraisal process is to ensure that the programs and curricula are reviewed annually and align with the University’s Strategic Plan.

The aim of the Academic Program Review process is to ensure that the major generalist degrees are reviewed every 7 years, and that all other teaching programs (or suites of programs) are reviewed comprehensively every 5 years.

2. Curriculum and Teaching Quality Appraisal (CTQA)

2.1. Responsibility and Timing

The CTQA process will be conducted annually by the School Teaching and Learning Committee, and overseen by the Associate Dean (Teaching & Learning), through the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee.

The process will be completed by the end of September each year, to align with the availability of core teaching and learning indicator data from the previous year and the timing of faculty operational planning.

The CTQA is conducted at the school-level, so that on an annual basis, schools will be considering the available teaching and learning indicators across the range of programs that they co-ordinate. This level of analysis is used because of the complexities of obtaining teaching and learning indicator data for all programs. Moreover, a school-level process avoids a fragmented approach that may ensue if schools do not consider their programs as a whole.

2.2. Scope of Analysis for the CTQA

The CTQA comprise a focused evidence-based reflection on the overall quality of the school’s teaching programs with attention being given, where appropriate, to relevant internal benchmarks and Go8 benchmarks. The CTQA should involve short and focused reviews of readily available data on student demand, retention, success, satisfaction (among both current students and graduates), and graduate destinations across the school’s teaching programs/majors.

Schools need to identify the strengths of their teaching programs (as reflected on the core teaching and learning indicators), areas for improvement, and the proposed strategies and timeline to address the latter areas. As part of their review of key T&L indicators, schools are required to compare first-year attrition rates with other comparable UQ degrees and to consider the Go8 comparisons on the CEQ for the field/s of education that most closely fit the school’s programs.

2.3. Core Teaching and Learning Indicators

The CTQA process utilises the following core teaching and learning indicators:

student load (total EFTSL; breakdown by international vs. domestic; U/G, P/G coursework and HDR);
student: staff ratio;
student demand for U/G programs co-ordinated by, or contributed to heavily, by the school (admission levels/trends);
student retention (attrition rates after first year of study for U/G programs) with comparison to other relevant UQ programs;
student success (pass rates, completions and grade distributions);
current student satisfaction for U/G and P/G courses offered by the school (iCEVALs);
graduate satisfaction and destinations (GDS outcomes, CEQ scales: good teaching, generic skills, overall satisfaction for most relevant field/s of study and benchmarked against Go8;
UQSES results for first and final year U/Gs in programs/courses co-ordinated by the school (results available at both the school and program level).

2.4. The CTQA Process

A ‘dashboard’ has been developed in the Data Warehouse to facilitate the CTQA process. The dashboard presents, on separate screens, information on student load, undergraduate demand, attrition, success, current satisfaction, and graduate satisfaction and destinations.

The data from the dashboard is used in conjunction with an electronic template that has been developed to support the process (see Appendix A) and to streamline reporting.

Schools be required to:

(i) summarise the outcomes of their review of their programs on the core teaching and learning indicators;

(ii) identify the strengths of their teaching programs;

(iii) identify areas for improvement;

a) this must include all instances where the teaching and learning indicator reflects less than 70% agreement (‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’), or where the CEQ data indicate that programs in the school’s areas are not in the top three GO8 universities on any one of the focal CEQ scales.

(iv) outline the proposed strategies and timeline to address the identified areas for improvement;

(v) describe any other proposed T&L initiatives; and

(vi) report on an new program/s or sequence/s of study introduced in the past 2 years.

3. Academic Program Review (APR)

3.1. Responsibility and Timing

The APR process requires that every undergraduate program (with the exception of the BA and BSc – see below), every major or field of study in a large, generalist degree, and every suite of postgraduate coursework programs be subject to comprehensive review through the APR process at least once every 5 years.

For the major generalist degrees, that is the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science, a comprehensive review is required every 7 years.

The Associate Deans (Academic) are responsible for scheduling the APRs for their faculty so as to ensure that all of the faculty’s undergraduate programs and suites of postgraduate coursework programs are reviewed at least once every 5 years. Alignment of that schedule with any external accreditation processes is recommended.

In the case of cross-faculty programs, the Associate Dean (Academic) of the co-ordinating faculty will be responsible for the timing and oversight of the APR for the program, and for ensuring appropriate cross-faculty input into the review.

If an Executive Dean becomes aware of significant concerns over a specific program’s viability and/or quality, the Executive Deans may request that an Academic Program Review be conducted earlier than would otherwise be required.

Academic Program Reviews are overseen by Associate Deans (Academic), through the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee. For school-based programs and majors/sequences of study, the School Teaching and Learning Committee will be responsible for conducting the quinquennial reviews and reporting the outcomes to the Head of School and to the Associate Dean (Academic).

The review teams will ordinarily be convened by the Chair of the School Teaching and Learning Committee or nominee and include at least two other members of academic staff including the convenor/director of the program under review. In the case of cross-school and cross-faculty programs, the relevant Executive Dean/s/Associate Deans (Academic) will determine the membership of the review team, in such a way as to ensure representation from all involved school/faculties.

In all cases, both student and external input into the review must be sought. Such input could be sought from student and external representatives on school-level and program committees, or more specific mechanisms to seek input (e.g., student focus groups; interviews/meetings with key external stakeholders and employers) into the review may be put in place. If considered appropriate, the Executive Dean/Associate Dean (Academic) and/or Head of School may recommend external membership of the review panel. Such representation is required for all undergraduate programs or major sequences of studies (subject to Academic Program Review) not subject to external accreditation processes, and is strongly recommended for postgraduate coursework programs in this category.

3.2. Scope of Analysis of the Academic Program Review Process

The Academic Program Review Process will comprise a broadly-based and comprehensive review of a program of study that has, as its goal, an evidence-based evaluation of the viability, quality, structure, focus and outcomes of the program. Using the CTQA dashboard, the process should consider 5-year trends in:

student load and demand;
student retention and success (pass rates, completions and grade distributions);
current student satisfaction (iCEVALs) and UQSES results for first and final year students (for reviews of U/G programs);
graduate satisfaction and destinations (GDS outcomes, CEQ scales: good teaching, generic skills, overall satisfaction for most relevant field/s of study and benchmarked against Go8).

In addition, the Academic Program Review Process should review the program in terms of its distinctiveness, mechanisms for external stakeholder input, curriculum developments, graduate attributes, internationalisation, governance, and assessment requirements. To focus the process on the core issues, a template has been developed to support the process (see Appendix B).