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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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)

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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

19. Offices of the Provost & Deputy Vice-Chancellor (S&E) Any Questions and Feedback on Policies