Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)

Offi

ces

of th

e P

rovo

st &

Dep

uty

Vic

e-C

hanc

ello

r (S

&E

)

Evaluation and Review at UTAS

Dr Sara BoothDean 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


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)


Key Drivers for Evaluation and ReviewNational 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


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)


Key Principles underpinning these Policies

• Evidence-based • Aligned to University Planning• Purposeful• Commitment to meaningful change and sharing good practice


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


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


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


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 sub-committee (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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


Any Questions and Feedback on Policies

Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)

Documents

Transcript of Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E)