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 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 (1 st draft) Organisational Unit Review Guidelines (1 st draft) Learning and Teaching Evaluation Policy (draft - out for feedback) Benchmarking Policy (draft - out for feedback) Benchmarking Procedure (draft - out for 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 (1 st draft) Organisational Unit Review Guidelines (1 st 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 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) 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)

Key Principles underpinning these Policies Evidence-based Aligned to University Planning Purposeful Commitment to meaningful change and sharing good practice 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 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 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 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 sub- committee (PPRC for organisational unit reviews) 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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