AQUA

Academic Quality Assurance Unit

Academic Programme Reviews

Please refer to the Academic Reviews Policy and Guidelines in the Policy Library.

The objective of an Academic Review is: to assure the University of the quality of a programme, by assessing whether the programme meets expected standards (i) at the University of Canterbury, (ii) nationally, and (iii) internationally and to determine ways in which the programme might be improved.

Additional objectives may be included which are specific to the programme, for example a determination of whether a programme might be offered by alternative teaching modes, or whether it is cost-efficient.  As well as the institutional objectives of benchmarking and enhancement, an academic review should therefore also be responsive to opportunities and constraints which provide the context in which it is offered.

The initial focus of a review is usually on outcomes, i.e. does the programme meet expected and relevant standards?

Underneath that, however a review might explore systems and processes, especially where it is considered there is a weakness or gap in an outcome. The review report should be able to identify the processes which need to be addressed in order to achieve the standard and any improvements recommended, and suggest steps for achieving these.

A programme includes an award (qualification), a suite of awards or a progressive series of courses in a defined discipline or set of disciplines. The key characteristic of a programme is that it is a group of courses which are connected and which exhibit a progressive sequence of study.
Reviews may be commissioned by the:

  • Vice-Chancellor
  • Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
  • Dean
  • Programme Convenor with the approval of the relevant Dean(s)
  • Other forms of academic review- for example reviews of financial viability may be commissioned by the Vice-Chancellor or College Pro-Vice-Chancellors.

The relevant Dean will identify the Terms of Reference for the Review and recommended members for the Review Panel.

The Terms of Reference and members the external panel are then approved by the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

The Review Panel will usually not exceed five people and will normally comprise:

  • Convenor (normally a UC senior academic staff member)
  • UC academic from a related discipline
  • One or two academics from the same discipline/faculty at another New Zealand tertiary institution (at least one must be from a university)
  • One academic from an overseas university
  • (If relevant) a member of the profession or an employer of graduates

Most of the Panel’s work will be electronic or paper-based. Site visits will normally be two or three days preceded by an evening meeting. The costs of Programme Reviews will be borne by the “Home” College of the Faculty responsible for the award or programme. An honorarium (determined by the College Manager on the advice of the Dean) will be paid to each panel member who is not a continuing academic staff member of the University of Canterbury. Reasonable travel and accommodation expenses will be reimbursed.

The Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic) can advise on the review process and the Quality Assurance Coordinator (Academic Programmes) can provide support.

Step One - Commission

The review is commissioned and the Terms of Reference established.

Step Two - Collation

The review portfolio is prepared (see Appendix A in Academic Review Policy and Guidelines). The self- review report is prepared by the nominated Programme Co-ordinator or Director (see Appendix B).

Step Three - Review

The Review Panel considers the Self-Review Report, Portfolio, interviews key stakeholders, and evaluates the programme against the Review Terms of Reference. The Panel then prepares a draft report and makes recommendations.
Comments by the Dean, College Executive and Pro-Vice-Chancellor on the draft report on matters of fact.

Step Four - Report

Submission of the Report to the AVC(Academic) with a copy to the relevant Dean.
Report distributed for comment on the recommendations to Academic Board, Academic Administration Committee, Learning and Teaching Committee, Research Committee (if appropriate)
Comments on the recommendations go back to the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

The Report and the comments on the recommendations, including any comments by the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and the Dean, then go to the relevant Faculty, via the Dean, for decisions on the recommendations.

If appropriate, the action plan will be presented by the Dean to the AAC, six months after the presentation of the review panel report. 

One year after the Report is received by the Faculty a follow-up report on actions taken or not taken, in response to the review’s recommendations, is to be made by the Dean to the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and the Academic Administration Committee. AAC examines each of the recommendations against progress made. The follow-up report should also be forwarded via AAC and LTC to SMT and the Academic Board for information.

Completed Reviews