Course Reviews

There are four main steps to a course review:

1 - Benchmarking of grading and assessment

Benchmarking of grading and assessment must be conducted for a final year unit, such as a capstone unit.

Course Coordinators are to nominate potential external benchmarking reviewers to EQD, who will then formally engage the chosen external benchmarking reviewer.

Course Coordinators are then responsible for preparing and sending the Benchmarking of Assessment and Grading form (DOCX, 47.03 KB) to the external benchmarking reviewer.

Upon receipt of the completed Benchmarking of Assessment and Grading form, the Course Coordinator will then use feedback from the external benchmarking reviewer to inform the course review and recommendations.

2 - Completion of the course review rubric

The Course Coordinator is responsible for the completion of the relevant fields in the Course Review Rubric (DOCX, 76.14 KB).

3 - Review of that rubric by an external academic

The ADTL is responsible for nominating to EQD an appropriate external reviewer from another university who has not worked for UNE within the past 5 years, and has experience in course coordination.

EQD will seek the DVC’s approval of the external reviewer and formally engage with them.

The external reviewer will provide feedback on the rubric completed by the Course Coordinator alongside a set of recommendations for the course.

Once the external reviewer has returned the completed rubric, the Course Coordinator must then endorse the recommendations to the Head of School, who will endorse the recommendations to the DVC for approval.

4 – Implementation

After the approval of the completed course review rubric, it is the Course Coordinator’s responsibility to implement any recommendations arising from the review.

Implementation reporting (DOCX, 38.02 KB) occurs after a course review to ensure the ongoing improvement of the course.

EQD develops the course review schedule based on input from Course Coordinators regarding the preferred timing for review.  Each course must undertake a course review at least once every seven years according to HESF standard 5.3.1.

The main process of a course review, from benchmarking of grading and assessment to approval of recommendations at Curriculum Committee, should be completed within the year (12 months) in which the review is scheduled to occur.

Implementation reports are then required to be provided to the DVC at 6 and 12 months after the review.

Please see the below table for the suggested timeline for a course review over 12 months:

A course review will incorporate QILT, attrition, retention, student success, student load and completion data.

Most of the required data is available on the Course Monitoring dashboard on PowerBI.

Please contact quality@une.edu.au if you are experiencing difficulties in retrieving the data for your course.

Rubric review

A rubric review is the standard approach to a course review. It involves collecting necessary data and feedback from external reviewers and developing recommendations for the quality improvement of a course.

The course review rubric (DOCX, 76.14 KB) includes guidance on how each part of the rubric should be filled.

Panel review

A panel review (DOCX, 50.41 KB) is triggered when a course is deemed higher risk. The DVC determines when a panel review is necessary. Reasons that a course could be deemed higher risk include, but are not limited to:

• the existence of third-party arrangements
• consistently high attrition or fail rates
• persistent failure to implement recommendations from rubric based reviews
• evidence of worsening of problems despite recommendations being implemented
• identification of areas of concern by students, staff, or alumni of the university

What are the expectations for course review recommendations?

Recommendations should be linked to the feedback received from external reviewers. They should be measured and achievable within a set amount of time.

The recommendation approval process underwent a change in policy in 2022.

From 2022, recommendations are no longer approved by the DVC, rather, they go to SEC and FEC for endorsement, and then to Curriculum Committee for approval.

After the recommendations have been approved by Curriculum Committee, the Course Coordinator is then responsible for implementing the recommendations.

Current recommendation approval process. (PDF, 57.94 KB)

Implementation reports are due at 6 and 12 months after the completion of a course review. The Course Coordinator is responsible for the implementation of recommendations arising from a course review, and must report progress to the Head of School by using the Implementation Report form (DOCX, 38.02 KB).

The Head of School is then required to endorse the Implementation Report to the DVC for approval.

Benchmarking of grading and assessment is a vital process in evaluating the effectiveness of the learning scaffolding within a course. By implementing benchmarking techniques, educational institutions can ensure that their units and courses are meeting the desired standards and objectives. To initiate the benchmarking process, course coordinators are typically requested to submit two units for assessment. One of these units is a capstone unit, which serves as a comprehensive representation of the course's overall objectives and outcomes. The second unit is chosen by the course coordinator to provide further insight into specific aspects of teaching and learning. By using this approach, UNE can gain valuable insights into various components of its courses, including curriculum design, constructive alignment, assessment methods, and student engagement. Through comparative analysis with similar courses or industry benchmarks, areas for improvement can be identified and recommendations can be made to enhance student learning experiences. Overall, benchmarking provides a holistic view of how well a course aligns with its intended learning outcomes. It enables schools to continuously improve teaching methodologies and promote excellence in education through evidence-based decision-making.

EQD is responsible for contacting potential reviewers for the benchmarking process. But, in some cases, when reviewers do not engage with EQD officer in responding to the invitation sent to them, EQD will ask course coordinators to directly contact the reviewers and ask for their availability to do the review. This has proved to be successful in many cases as some reviewers would prefer to liaise someone they know. When a reviewer accepts the invitation to do the review, the course coordinator can CC the EQD officer in their email for EQD to take it from there by sending a confidentiality agreement to sign and then sending them the documents through a cloud platform like SharePoint.

When it comes to benchmarking of grading and assessment, having an unbiased and knowledgeable reviewer is essential. To ensure impartiality and a fresh perspective, it is advisable to involve an academic from a different institution. Furthermore, selecting a reviewer of level A or B Academic can contribute valuable insights and expertise in the field.

It is important to note that the ideal reviewer for benchmarking should be more involved in teaching rather than research. While both aspects are undoubtedly important, prioritizing someone with a stronger focus on teaching will ensure a more thorough assessment of the assessment methods and grading practices being benchmarked. It is not suitable to pick an industry representative for this role.