Course review is the process for evaluating the academic, strategic and business aspects of an accredited course, its past and present effectiveness, as well as its future direction, in accordance with the University’s quality assurance mechanisms and quality standards.
The course review process fulfills the University’s legislative requirement, before TEQSA, of conducting periodic and comprehensive reviews of all courses at least every seven years; and ensures that all University’s course offerings contain up-to-date curriculum and contemporary teaching, learning and assessment methods.
When reviewing a course the Course Review Procedure must be followed.
The course review process normally takes 18 to 24 months.
Course reviews are normally scheduled to start 2 years before the accreditation end date of a course.
The complete list of scheduled course reviews is available at: Course Review Schedule
The process usually has three stages:
- Pre review – the evaluation of a course to critically review its performance (self-review). This is undertaken by the managing faculty. This stage usually takes 6 to 12 months.
- Review - the formal evaluation of a course. This is undertaken by an independent group of experts (independent review panel) nominated by the managing faculty and approved by the DVC (Education) (or delegate). This stage usually takes 2 to 3 months.
- Post review - the response to the recommendations of the review in the form of an action plan to deliver course improvements (faculty response). This is undertaken by the managing faculty. This stage usually takes 6 to 9 months.
Note: the length of a course review may vary to accommodate the review requirements in an offshore location (please refer to Review of Courses offered in overseas locations) or to align with external accreditation/registration requirements (please refer to Application for Alternative Arrangements).
Please refer to sections 2.1 - 2.11 of the Course Review Procedure
Course Reviews involving a course offered in an overseas location must address both the review requirements of the University and the country where the course is offered.
The managing faculty, in consultation with the overseas location, is responsible for determining how best to manage a course review to ensure that both of these requirements are met.
Please refer to sections: 2.6, 5.3, 6.3 - 6.4 of the Course Review Procedure
Faculties can request permission to follow an alternative approach to complete a course review, usually, to minimise duplication of effort and time when a course is also subject to an external professional accreditation process.
Managing faculties wanting to request permission to follow an alternative arrangement should refer to section 10 of the Course Review Procedure.
The data analysis report is a single document that, independently of the self-review report, objectively analyses and interprets the business intelligence data of a course.
The purpose of the report is to highlight points that can be explored and discussed by both the Self-Review Team and the Independent Review Panel.
As minimum the report should include the following data:
- Academic standards including entry levels and grade distributions (ATAR distributions for domestic undergraduates and GPAs for graduate entry).
- Student experience and employer ratings (e.g Student Evaluations of Teaching and Units (SETU) and relevant national QILT program indicators)
- Graduate outcomes including satisfaction, employment and progression to further study (e.g relevant national QILT program indicators).
- Student academic outcomes including progression, retention, success and completion rates.
- Course profitability trends and financial performance.
- Demand, enrolments and load trends also addressing inclusion and diversity.
- should be analysed by relevant subgroups (e.g. low SES/Indigenous/population; domestic/international; full time/part-time; campus; country of origin; gender).
- must be compared against similar level courses within the faculty, the University and against at least one appropriate comparable external institution (national or international).
For further information refer to Benchmarking or external referencing.
The report should be no more than 10 pages, but courses with many specialisations and/or majors, or where a suite of cognate courses are reviewed as a package, the report can be up to a maximum of 20 pages.
For information on the Data Analysis report refer to section 4.3.2 of the Course Review Procedure.
Benchmarking, or external referencing, is the comparison of different aspects of a course (e.g. design, course learning outcomes, operational outcomes) with an external comparator (e.g. courses offered through comparable institutions nationally and internationally or external standards such us AQF) to understand the performance of a course and identify areas of improvement.
The minimum requirements are listed in section 2.12 of the Course Review Procedure.
The Self-Review Report is the written narrative which draws upon the evidence-based outcomes of the critical peer review discussions facilitated by the Self-Review Team and the feedback provided by key stakeholders.
The Self-Review Report should be no more than 10 pages for a single course, but up to 20 pages for courses with multiple specialisations or majors that require disaggregation. The report must include the requirements listed in section 4.3.9 of the Course Review Procedure.
The Independent Review Panel is the group of experts responsible for:
- reviewing a course pursuant to the Monash terms of reference, considering the evidence provided in the course review portfolio and the information gathered during the review event;
- providing recommendations to deliver improvements to a course; and
- advising Academic Board of the quality, standard and viability of a course.
For information on the independent Review Panel’s membership requirements refer to section 5 of the Course Review Procedure.
Note: compensation is not to be provided to the Independent Review Panel for their service on the panel, however, costs associated with accommodation, travel, meals can be covered by the faculty.
During the review event the independent review panel will interview relevant course stakeholders, discuss the course's past and present effectiveness and deliberate about its future directions.
The event should be no longer than three days, however, the norm for a single course is two days. The event is normally conducted face-to-face at one or more of the teaching locations but it can also be conducted fully online or in a mixed mode.
For information about the event structure refer to section 6 of the Course Review Procedure.
The Independent Review Panel is expected to deliver a report after the review event which addresses each of the terms of reference based on the evidence presented in the course review portfolio and gathered at the review event. The report encapsulates the conclusions of the review panel and provides commendations as well as recommendations to deliver improvement.
Please refer to section 7 of the Course Review Procedure.
The faculty response report records the faculty’s responses to the recommendations and concerns raised in the independent review panel report.
In the response report, the faculty needs to:
- accept or reject the recommendations raised by the panel; and if rejecting provide an explanation.
- address any concerns raised in the review report that did not translate to a formal recommendation.
- identify actions in response to the recommendations or concerns. These actions should deliver improvements to the course.
- identify desired outcomes.
- identify completion dates.
The faculty response report will also be used by the Academic Board to monitor the progress and implementation of the actions and/or improvements planned. The faculty will be required to provide a written update twelve months after a course has been re-accredited.
Please refer to section 8 and 9.3 of the Course Review Procedures.
If the managing faculty is not able to complete a course review before the current accreditation expiry date, the faculty must request an extension of the current accreditation period.
If the managing faculty decides not to complete the review and application for re-accreditation, the faculty must submit an application to disestablish the course.
These tasks should be submitted through the curriculum management system (Courseloop) for approval by the DVC (Education).
Please refer to sections 6.5 - 6.8 the Course Accreditation Procedure.
Please refer also to Course Disestablishment.
Parent policy and procedures
Course Governance and Design
Learning and Teaching