Academic Program Reviews

Tags:teaching, Governance, UNSW, reviews, programs, quality-assurance
NOTE:  The information contained in these pages is currently under review.

Purposes

The purposes of Academic Program Review at UNSW are to:

  • ensure that learning, teaching, curricula and institutional infrastructure to support learning and teaching are monitored, reviewed and benchmarked as part of UNSW's quality assurance processes for learning and teaching
  • assure alignment between learning and teaching programs and practices with the University's goals, values and strategic objectives
  • identify areas of practice in learning, teaching, curricula or institutional infrastructure to support learning and teaching that are in need of improvement.

Academic Program Reviews complement and contribute to the University's annual Faculty Review of Learning and Teaching (FRLT) process.

Academic Program Reviews are a primary means by which faculties engage the wider community in the process of reviewing and revising their programs and courses.

Outcomes

The outcomes of Academic Program Reviews:

  • are recorded (in summary form) as part of the FRLT Portfolio submitted annually by each Faculty
  • inform the development of the Performance Reports required from each Faculty in their FRLT portfolios in the areas of Curricula, Learning, Teaching, and Infrastructure for Learning and Teaching
  • inform the revision of both UNSW and Faculty Learning and Teaching Enhancement plans and budgets.

Responsibility and Timing

The APR process requires that:

  • every UG program, every major or field of study in a large, generalist degree, and every PG coursework program be subject to comprehensive review through the APR process at least once every five years
  • the Associate Deans (Education) in each Faculty be responsible for scheduling the APRs for their faculty and that this schedule align with that of any external accreditation processes
  • for cross-faculty programs, the ADE of the coordinating Faculty be responsible for the timing and oversight of the APR for the program and for ensuring appropriate cross-faculty input into the review
  • Faculty Deans instigate an APR whenever they become aware of significant concerns over a program's viability and/or quality
  • APRs be overseen by ADEs through Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees. For School-based programs and majors/sequences of study, the School Learning and Teaching Committee should be responsible for conducting the quinquennial reviews and reporting the outcomes to the Head of School and ADE.
  • Review Teams be convened by the Chair of the School Learning and Teaching 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 or cross-faculty programs the relevant ADEs should determine the membership of the review team to ensure representation from all involved Schools/Faculties.
  • student and external (discipline experts, representatives of professional associations, accreditation bodies, employer groups) input be sought in all cases.

Foci for Academic Program Reviews

The APR process should comprise a broadly based and comprehensive review of the program of study that has as its goal an evidence-based evaluation of the program's:

Curricula

What are the program's desired learning outcomes? Are these aligned with the goals of the University? What should graduates of this program know/be able to do? What is unique about the program? Why should such a program be retained within the academic program of the University? Is the program's curriculum structure clear and appropriate? Is appropriate use made of gateway and capstone courses to ensure effective induction into the program and assessment of program learning outcomes on completion of the program? Does the program comply with UNSW's program rules? Is there alignment between program/course goals, learning activities and assessment tasks? How do current students experience the curriculum in this program based on CATEI and SES scores? Discuss the trends in these scores for the immediate past 5 years. Using UNSW CEQ, GDS, AUSSE or other graduate satisfaction data, discuss 5-year trends in graduate's satisfaction with the curricula associated with this program.

Teaching

Are the methods used to facilitate learning appropriate to support the achievement of the program's desired learning outcomes? Is the program's assessment regime appropriate? Does it comprise an appropriate mix of formative and summative assessment? Is feedback used appropriately to support learning? Is appropriate use made of new technologies/spaces to support learning and teaching? Does teaching in this program align with UNSW Beliefs About Learning that Inform Teaching? How do students experience the teaching in this program? What do they have to say about (1) the clarity of the goals and standards for learning required by the program, and (2) the assessment and feedback processes used in the program, based on CATEI and SES scores? Discuss the trends in these scores for the immediate past 5 years. Using UNSW CEQ, GDS, AUSSE or other graduate satisfaction data, discuss 5-year trends in graduates' satisfaction with teaching in this program.

Student Learning Outcomes

Using UNSW CLTI data from the UNSW L&T Dashboard, discuss 5-year trends in student retention, success and completion rates. Are students progressing effectively through the program? If not, what are the difficulties and where do they arise? Are the program's retention and completion rates appropriate and competitive? Based on GDS data and trends over the last 5 years, how effective has the program been in preparing graduates for the workforce or further study?

Infrastructure

How effective is the current infrastructure to support and enable the program? Are the program's governance/management arrangements appropriate for the future? Are appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure that all stakeholders have input into the planning and review of the program? Are Faculty and School budgets and resources deployed to ensure that appropriate administrative, educational, technical and technological support is available to enable and support the delivery/facilitation of the program and each of its courses?

Viability

After consideration of all UNSW CLTI data - including student quality, student load, student/staff ratios, student demand and input from other key stakeholders, particularly those external to the University - discuss the future viability of the program and its associated courses. Should the program be continued in its present form? Should the program be continued in a different form? Should the program be discontinued?