Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Evaluation and
Review at UTAS
Dr Sara Booth
Dean Mundey
Amanda Turner
Workshops 6th, 7th & 10th February, 2012
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New policies, procedures and guidelines
Key drivers
OADRI Cycle
Quality Management Framework
Key principles underpinning these policies
Key changes to new policies on reviews and evaluation
Overview of new policies, procedures and guidelines
Key contact staff for evaluation and reviews
New organisational unit to support L&T evaluation and review
Questions and feedback
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
New policies, procedures and guidelines:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quality Management Policy (approved)
Reviews Policy (approved)
Course Review Procedure (draft - out for feedback)
Course Review Guidelines (draft – out for feedback)
Organisational Unit Review Procedure (1st draft)
Organisational Unit Review Guidelines (1st draft)
Learning and Teaching Evaluation Policy (draft - out for
feedback)
Benchmarking Policy (draft - out for feedback)
Benchmarking Procedure (draft - out for feedback)
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Key Drivers for Evaluation and Review
National and International drivers:
• TEQSA and other HE academies, Higher Education Standards
Framework, Academic Standards Panel
• Focus is on standards, quality assurance, accountability,
transparency and outcomes based activities
UTAS initiatives:
• Quality Management Framework, Open to Talent, new
performance expectations in Research and Learning & Teaching;
Faculty performance drivers linked to budget; UTAS Academic
Standards; Business Intelligence Project (in Research and
Learning &Teaching); benchmarking projects
• UTAS AUQA Cycle 1 (2005) audit findings on reviews and
benchmarking
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
OADRI Cycle
• Underpins the Quality Management Framework
• Seeks to develop a culture of quality improvement and
enhancement:
•
•
•
•
•
Setting the Objectives (O)
Planning the Approach (A)
Deploying the Approach (D)
Systematically monitoring and evaluating the results (R)
Undertaking improvement based on evaluation (I)
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Key Principles underpinning these Policies
•
•
•
•
Evidence-based
Aligned to University Planning
Purposeful
Commitment to meaningful change and sharing good practice
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Key Changes to new Policies
•
•
•
Responsive – based on triggers
Justification for reviews and evaluation
Reporting requirements depending on purpose of
evaluation/review
• Quality Committee
• Planning, Performance and Review Committee (PPRC)
• Learning and Teaching Evaluation Sub-Committee
• Academic Standards Sub-Committee
• Aim is for less reviews, but greater impact
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Reviews Policy
• Reviews must be purposeful: meaningful and worthwhile
change OR assurance that change is unnecessary
• Reviews are based on triggers; reliance on cyclical reviews will
be an exception
• Internal audits remain the responsibility of Council, through the
Audit and Risk Committee
• Academic reviews, most commonly course reviews, are the
responsibility of Academic Senate
• Administrative reviews, most commonly organisational unit
reviews, are the responsibility of the Planning, Performance and
Review Committee (PPRC)
• Academic Senate and PPRC will work together
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance
Manual to be replaced
• Reviews policy, Course and Organisational Unit Review Procedures and
Guidelines supersede T&L Quality Assurance Manual
• All chapters to be replaced over time by updated policy and procedure
documents
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Course Review Procedure and Guidelines
• Includes annual course reports and targeted academic reviews
such as entire course, major, RHD program, or theme
• Triggers identified through regular performance monitoring and
annual reporting and planning cycles
• Reviews can be proposed by organisational units
• One or more different methodologies could be required for the
review:
• Self-review
• Internal or external panel review
• External consultancy
• Internal or external audit
• Professional accreditation
• Methodology will be specified by the Academic Senate subcommittee (PPRC for organisational unit reviews)
Course Review Procedure and Guidelines
Example: Targeted Course Review
• Academic Senate sub-committee identifies and prioritises areas for
targeted course review based on triggers
• Organisational unit prepares targeted course review proposal and
submits for approval
• Targeted course review conducted
• Dean (or equivalent) receives review report and prepares an initial
response
• Academic Senate sub-committee considers review report and initial
response and determines which recommendations to act upon and
who will be responsible
• Organisational unit prepares implementation plan
• Organisational unit prepares follow-up reports as per agreed timeframe
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Organisational Unit Review Procedure and
Guidelines
• Includes school, faculty, section, division, function and themed
reviews
• Triggers identified through regular performance monitoring and
annual planning cycle
• Reviews can be proposed by organisational units
Example: School Reviews
• Deans have responsibility
• Deans negotiate with PPRC the terms of reference,
methodology, panel members (if external review)
• Deans, or their nominee/s, lead any self-review process
• Report to PPRC: response to review recommendations and
subsequent implementation
• Guidelines provide templates to assist with the above
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Learning and Teaching Evaluation Policy
• A framework to enhance and improve teaching, curriculum and the
student learning experience
• Aspiration to develop a culture of evaluation for the purposes of
continual improvement and the pursuit of excellence
• Sits alongside Reviews and Benchmarking policies
• Evaluation both informs and is informed by formal review,
benchmarking and assessment activities
• Underpins the UTAS Academic Standards Framework
• Evidence-based approach to decision making
• Acknowledges the different purposes and approaches to
evaluation
• Supported by the Course Review Procedure and Guideline
• Good Practice Evaluation Guide under development
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Benchmarking Policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nature of benchmarking-data comparison/investigative
Organisational level
Partnership basis-formal/informal
Membership relationship (CAUDIT, CAUL)
Approval
Reporting of benchmarking activities
Support for benchmarking
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Benchmarking Procedure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scope of Activity
Decide on Type of Benchmarking
Select and Secure Benchmarking Partners
Levels of Approval and Support
Develop a Project Plan
Undertake a Self Review
Undertake a Peer Review
Implement the Potential Improvements
Report Results
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Key Contact Staff for Evaluation and
Reviews
• Amanda Turner, Course Reviews
• Dean Mundey, Organisational Unit Reviews
• Dr Sara Booth, Student Evaluation, Review and Reporting Unit
(SERRU)
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Introduction of new unit in learning and
teaching
• Student Evaluation Review and Reporting Unit (SERRU)
• Development of webpage
• Internal/External surveys, Benchmarking, Standards, Academic
Reviews, Learning and Teaching Dashboard
• Staff include Dr Sara Booth, Michele Groombridge, Gheeta
Chandra Krishnan, Justin Philips, Dr Cassie Saunders
Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)
Any Questions and Feedback on Policies