|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The current, official version of this policy and associated procedures is
maintained on this Policies and Procedures Database. Printing this policy
or transferring it into another electronic format will result in the
document being an uncontrolled copy which might not be current.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. POLICY
1.1 Purpose
1) To meet the objectives of the Swinburne University of Technology Quality Management System and to assure stakeholders of the quality of academic programs offered at Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak (SUTS)
2) To achieve academic
equivalence between programs offered in the Higher Education sector,
Swinburne University of Technology (
3) To facilitate the
opportunity offered to students of the University, whether in
4) To assist the realization of the University’s strategic goal for Swinburne’s staff and students to be “international in their outlook”
5) To enable SUTS to attract, retain and professionally develop staff of the highest calibre in a professionally satisfying university environment that values academic endeavour and research involvement
6) To develop the capacity of SUTS and its staff to function with the autonomy appropriate to other sectors of the University in a manner consistent with:
a) its Foreign University Branch Campus status in
b) the University’s contractual obligations to provide
intellectual property to its joint venture partners in SUTS (the
government of
c) both the internal and external (professional) accreditation status of its programs where relevant and
d) the level of experience, seniority and expertise of its staff
1.2 Scope
The Higher Education sector which includes Swinburne University of
Technology,
1.3 Definitions
SUTS Academic Quality Assurance Policy & Procedures
All University policies and processes, whether applying specifically to
the interactions between Swinburne University of Technology (
2. PROCEDURE
2.1 KEY QA RESPONSIBILITIES
Several key individuals have direct responsibility for the management of the SUTS QA system. These include:
2.1.1 Director of SUTS Quality Assurance (DSQA)
The Director of SUTS Quality Assurance, is a
2.1.2 Education Quality Coordinator, SUTS (EQC)
The Education Quality Coordinator is a SUTS-based appointment reporting
to the DAS. The EQC organizes and delivers professional development
opportunities to improve learning and teaching practices among SUTS
staff. This position is responsible for organizing periodic
peer reviews of the teaching of SUTS staff and monitoring the
outcomes of student feedback on units (SFS) evaluations, activating
peer reviews of teaching where SFS results indicate that such action
would be useful.
The Education Quality Coordinator at SUTS works closely with the Dean
(Learning and Teaching) at SUT to assist with the successful
implementation of relevant Higher Education curriculum initiatives at
SUTS.
Learning and teaching issues and problems which are identified as a result of the normal operation of the QA process may be addressed by the Education Quality Coordinator in follow-up professional development activities. As part of the QA process, the EQC works with the Academic Development Advisors (ADAs) of the relevant Faculties to help to ensure that delivery of common units of study between SUT and SUTS achieve the same agreed learning outcomes.
2.1.3 Deans of relevant Faculties
The Deans of Faculties at SUT are responsible for oversight of the academic activities of all Higher Education activities in their teaching programs, whether at SUT or SUTS. They are responsible for the provision of strategic and operational advice and assistance in the development of SUTS programs and for oversight of Faculty responsibilities for SUTS QA process.
2.1.4 Deputy Deans of relevant Faculties
For the purpose of this policy, it is assumed that Deputy Deans are delegated by their Deans to act as managers, within their Faculties, of the relationship between the Faculty and SUTS. On a day-to-day basis, the DSQA will liaise directly with the relevant Unit Convenor at SUT, via the relevant Deputy Dean and relevant Program Coordinator, but may also seek to resolve significant issues through the Deputy Deans Committee.
2.1.5 Program Coordinators
Program Coordinators are appointed within SUT faculties to have QA oversight of those programs and/or discipline streams to be delivered at SUTS as they are being implemented and developed. They work with Deputy Deans to monitor and assist the QA activities of Unit Convenors and to identify and assist in rectifying problems as the SUTS programs develop. Program Coordinators endeavour to ensure that program-level and professional outcomes and standards are being achieved, and unit outcomes and standards are also achieved.
Program Coordinators must complete a Program Coordinator Report Form (see attached) each semester identifying any issues requiring attention in regard to the SUTS program and its component units. These reports must be approved and signed by the Dean or Deputy Dean of Faculty prior to forwarding to the DSQA for final approval and signature. The Dean or Deputy Dean will ensure that any issues for SUT raised in visit reports are followed up and actioned as necessary. The DSQA will forward scanned copies of program reports to the Director, Academic who will ensure that any issues for SUTS raised are followed up and actioned as necessary.
2.1.6 The Role of the DVC Advisory Committee (DAC) & Deputy Deans’ Committee
The DVC (Academic) chairs the Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory
Committee (DAC), which includes the Deans of Faculties, the PVC (
The Deputy Deans’ Committee (DDC) is a subcommittee of the DVC's Advisory Committee (DAC). DDC advises the DVC (Academic) through DAC on proposals for program accreditation and review, plus strategic and operational issues relating to curriculum development, program delivery, and learning, teaching and curriculum issues generally within Higher Education and across the University.
The following description of Quality Assurance procedures for SUTS builds upon the excellent foundation provided by the QA interactions which have taken place between Swinburne SUT and SUTS staff over the years since the inception of Swinburne Sarawak. As SUTS has evolved, its academic activities and programs have matured, and this Policy and Procedure document recognizes and formalizes the changed QA environment and requirements between SUT and SUTS.
QA interactions between
Equivalence between SUTS and
In the following Sections, equivalence with respect to program delivery
is defined in terms of equivalence of the specified Learning
Objectives for any unit of study delivered both at
Under this policy and procedure, the approach for ensuring equivalence with respect to program delivery replaces previous QA practice, where equivalence of delivery of units of study delivered both at SUTS and SUT required the course content to be essentially identical, while allowing for minor variations where case studies, etc, could be presented within a local context.
The previous QA practice of requiring equivalence of delivery in terms
of course content shall apply to any units of study being offered for
the first time in SUTS or where required by external professional
bodies.
The SUTS QA system is targeted at units of study and seeks to ensure that new units introduced to SUTS quickly reach equivalence with their SUT counterpart units and maintain that equivalence on an ongoing basis thereafter. To this end,
These modes of QA operation are described below, with the specific details of the component QA procedures (italicized) detailed in the following section.
This process is to be activated for at least the first occasion that the unit is taught at SUTS, and must include the following components:
The SUT Unit Convenor will complete a Developmental QA Unit Convenor Report Form (see attached) reporting on the above matters at the end of the semester. This report must be approved and signed by the Program Coordinator and Dean or Deputy Dean prior to forwarding to the DSQA for final approval. The Dean or Deputy Dean will ensure that any issues for SUT raised in unit reports are followed up and actioned as necessary. The DSQA will forward scanned copies of visit reports to the Director, Academic who will ensure that any issues raised for SUTS are followed up and actioned as necessary.
In situations where a unit is being taught at SUTS but not in the same teaching period as at SUT, Developmental QA processes are basically as above, however the SUT Unit Convenor will supply teaching and online website materials, unit outlines and assessment material from the last teaching period in which the unit was offered at SUT.
This process represents the norm and is expected to be less intensive than the Developmental QA process, seeking primarily to ensure that units do not drift apart in terms of learning objectives over time, while allowing scope for locally applicable content and teaching approaches at SUTS:
The SUT Unit Convenor will complete an Ongoing QA Unit Convenor Report Form (see attached) reporting on the above matters at the end of the semester. This report must be approved and signed by the Program Coordinator and Dean or Deputy Dean prior to forwarding to the DSQA for final approval. The Dean or Deputy Dean will ensure that any issues raised for SUT in visit reports are followed up and actioned as necessary. The DSQA will forward scanned copies of unit reports to the Director, Academic who will ensure that any issues raised for SUTS are followed up and actioned as necessary.
In situations where a unit is being taught at SUTS but not in the same teaching period as at SUT, Ongoing QA processes are basically as above, however the SUT unit convenor will supply such materials as required, including unit outlines and assessment material, from the last teaching period in which the unit was offered at SUT.
It is recognized that SUTS academic staff are recruited through a rigorous process that seeks to maintain a high-calibre staff profile at SUTS comparable to SUT (see Section 5.7). The expectation is that SUTS staff will therefore be just as capable of delivering a unit to an acceptable standard as their SUT counterparts.
SUTS staff who can demonstrably meet this expectation will be included
on the QA Teaching Register. Inclusion on the QA Teaching Register
indicates formal recognition, by both SUTS and SUT in
The QA Teaching Register is to be maintained by the EQC. The DSQA, together with the EQC, will decide which staff are placed on the Register and may review this periodically. Criteria for being placed and remaining on the Register will include some or all of the following:
Prior to the beginning of each teaching semester, each SUTS Program Coordinator will compile a list of the units to be taught that semester, including recommendations (with sufficient justification) as to the appropriate QA mode to be activated for each unit. The SUTS Program Coordinators should consult with their counterpart SUT Program Coordinator in making these recommendations, prior to forwarding the proposals to the DSQA. The DSQA, in consultation with SUT Deputy Deans and Program Coordinators, will give final approval for the forthcoming semester’s QA program, including any intended QA visits by SUT staff to SUTS in support of SUTS programs. Possible visits by SUTS staff to SUT will also be discussed for later finalisation by the DSQA in consultation with the DAS.
At least 2 weeks prior to the beginning of the semester, the SUT Unit Convenor responsible for the QA for a specific unit must contact the SUTS Unit Convenor to finalise details of the unit as it will be taught that semester. These details will be covered in the Unit’s Subject Outline, including curriculum details, recommended texts, readings lists, an assessment outline and schedule etc., as specified in the University’s Assessment and Appeals Policy & Procedure.
Some variation in these details from that which is covered in the same unit delivered at SUT is expected and may be justifiable. These variations may be best judged by their expected impact on the agreed student learning outcomes for that unit, which must remain equivalent.
When these details are agreed, the SUT unit convenor must sign the unit’s Subject Outline to signify agreement, and return this to the DSQA. Failure to reach agreement between the SUT and SUTS Unit Convenors will require the intervention of the relevant Deputy Dean and Head of School, adjudicated by the DSQA if required.
The SUT unit convenor is expected to provide some support to the SUTS unit convenor prior to delivery of the unit and throughout its delivery over the semester. This support includes:
The most significant part of any QA process for academic programs is in developing and maintaining professional and personal relationships between the parties. In the Developmental QA mode, the SUT Unit Convenor will normally visit SUTS to establish effective relationships with his or her counterpart, the unit panel and other colleagues at SUTS and gain a detailed knowledge of the operation of units, the facilities in laboratories and general supporting infrastructure at SUTS. An academic visit is expected to be for at least 5 working days. Opportunities for provision of seminar to SUTS colleagues should be encouraged. Also supported within this QA process are visits by non-academic staff as may be required to support the academic program, such as technical staff in Engineering.
At the end of each visit, the visitor is required to complete an Academic Visit Report Form [SUT staff] (see attachment), which details the activities undertaken and recommendations by the visitor in connection with the relevant unit(s), or indeed, any other matters deemed pertinent to the maintenance of academic standards at SUTS. This report must be approved and signed by the Program Coordinator and Dean or Deputy Dean prior to forwarding to the DSQA for final approval. The Dean or Deputy Dean will ensure that any issues for SUT raised in visit reports are followed up and actioned as necessary. The DSQA will forward scanned copies of visit reports to the Director, Academic who will ensure that any issues for SUTS raised are followed up and actioned as necessary.
Visits by SUT Deans, Deputy Deans and Program Coordinators to SUTS are also considered as important in assisting the QA process and the development of the SUTS campus generally.
As part of the Ongoing QA process, SUTS academic staff who are on the QA Teaching Register may be supported to visit SUT in Melbourne to become familiar with SUT-based activities of the University, to foster collegial relationships with colleagues in SUT, to develop cooperative research activities and to experience (and, where appropriate, take part in) learning and teaching activities in the Australian environment. Opportunities for provision of seminar to SUT colleagues should be encouraged. Equally important will be occasional visits to SUT by senior SUTS staff, intended to build relationships and understanding of SUT’s culture and educational approach.
At the end of each visit, the visitor is required to complete an Academic Visit Report Form [SUTS staff] (see attachment), which details the activities undertaken and recommendations by the visitor in connection with the relevant unit(s), or indeed, any other matters deemed pertinent to the maintenance of academic standards at SUTS. This report must be approved and signed by the SUTS visitor’s Head of School and Director, Academic prior to forwarding to the DSQA for final approval. The Director, Academic and Head of School will ensure that any issues for SUTS raised are followed up and actioned as necessary. The DSQA will forward scanned copies of visit reports to the relevant Dean or Deputy Dean who will ensure that any issues for SUT raised are followed up and actioned as necessary.
Moderation of SUTS unit Final Assessment instrument, typically in the form of an examination paper, is essential to maintain equivalence in the outcomes of the unit with SUT. Alternatives to an examination might include a project assessment for example. (In the case of a project or other forms of Final Assessment other than an examination, mention of ‘marking schedules’ in this Policy and Procedure refers to the provision of detailed, written assessment criteria.)
The SUTS Unit Convenor will provide the Final Assessment, together with
a detailed marking scheme, to the SUT Convenor in a timely manner.
The SUT Unit Convenor must moderate this assessment and the marking
schedule and communicate promptly with the SUTS Unit Convenor on any
issues or concerns. The SUTS Unit Convenor must address any
issues identified and respond appropriately. This moderation process
will apply equally in the Developmental and Ongoing QA
processes. Current deadline dates for the initiation and
completion of these final assessment moderation activities will
normally be posted on the SUTS QA website by the DSQA. The DSQA
will also normally alert Program Coordinators at SUT and Heads of
School at SUTS by email of impending deadlines to facilitate local
communication and follow-up of any problems. The responsibility
for ensuring that moderation deadlines are met lies with individual
Unit Convenors at both SUT and SUTS, SUT Program Coordinators and
SUTS Heads of School.
Given that a significant proportion of a student’s final result in a
unit can be based on assessments undertaken during the teaching
semester, it is important that at least the major assessments are
also moderated from SUT, although it is recognized that what is
considered as major for these purposes may vary from program to
program. Moderation of these major assessments will depend on the
nature of the assessment and therefore may or may not include a
marking scheme. The SUTS Unit Convenor will provide the written
assessment, together with a detailed marking scheme if appropriate,
to the SUT Convenor well before the assessment is given to the
students. The SUT Unit Convenor must moderate this assessment and the
marking schedule and communicate promptly with the SUTS Unit Convenor
on any issues or concerns. The SUTS Unit Convenor must address
any issues identified or respond appropriately.
SUTS staff can gain significant insights into the academic standards manifest at SUT by moderating Final Assessment from the SUT Unit Convenor. Maintenance of equivalent standards and professional development of SUTS staff can thus occur via this ‘reverse moderation’. It is expected that this would usually only occur when a unit is in the Ongoing QA phase. Reverse moderation could be initiated by either SUT or SUTS, but must be agreed by both the relevant SUT Dean and SUTS Head of School.
SUT Unit Convenors and Program Coordinators liaise with their SUTS counterparts on a regular basis. Maintenance of collegial relationships between SUT and SUTS is vital to the smooth operation of the QA process and to its success.
Where SUT Unit Convenors or Program Coordinators have concerns about the delivery and assessment of SUTS units and programs that cannot be rectified by collegial advice, these concerns should be documented and discussed with Deputy Deans. Deputy Deans will liaise with the PVC (SUTS) and DAS about such matters and these matters will be actioned via the EQC and/or the SUTS Heads of School or otherwise as appropriate.
Correspondingly, where SUTS Unit Convenors or SUTS Heads of School have concerns about SUT input into the QA process that cannot be rectified by collegial advice, these concerns should be documented and discussed with the DAS, who will liaise with the relevant Deputy Dean(s) to action these matters within the SUT Faculty structures as appropriate.
In either case, the DSQA will be kept fully informed of the progress of any issue of dispute, and of their agreed resolution. In the event of an issue arising where satisfactory resolution is not achievable by these means, the DSQA will intervene, and if the issue remains unresolved, refer it to the DVC (Academic) who will determine a resolution of the issue, in close consultation with the PVC (SUTS). The DVC (Academic) may elect to consult the DDC and/or DAC in this process.
External oversight and evaluation of the quality of a number of SUTS
programs is provided where professional accreditation is
involved. Professional accreditation for programs delivered at
SUTS has been sought and achieved for appropriate programs from the
Institute of Engineers (
Swinburne University of Technology conducts a schedule of reviews of organizational units as part of its approach to quality management. The purpose of these unit reviews is to identify good practices and opportunities for improvement. Each review is conducted by an external panel supported by the Strategic Planning and Quality Unit, as described in the Swinburne's Policy and Procedure on Unit Reviews. These reviews are expected to encompass the organizational units’ involvement in SUTS academic activities, including the QA process.
Policies and procedures affecting the Swinburne Higher Education sector generally apply to SUTS, with occasional slight variations to meet the particular needs and circumstances of the campus or to conform to the requirements of Malaysian law. Those most directly affecting the academic QA outcomes of SUTS are listed below under Related Material. The key University-wide normal QA processes that apply and are processed through the Academic Board are:
As SUTS staff become familiar with the content of any unit, it is anticipated that they will be able to identify possible improvements to the details of that unit in such areas as curriculum. These recommended changes will be passed through the DAS to the relevant Deputy Dean for consideration, which may result in a minor or major course change proposal being made to Academic Board.
SUTS academic organisation includes a separate School of Language & Foundation with well qualified and experienced staff offering foundation courses, supplementary English programmes and various extra-curricular activities for students at all levels to improve their English language abilities and to ensure that they can cope with their studies. The Head of School monitors student English standards and advises the PVC (SUTS) on issues of English language competence and strategies for improving the English language proficiency of SUTS students. SUTS students commencing higher education programs must meet the same minimum requirements of English proficiency applicable to international students studying at SUT.
The School of Language & Foundation provides the mechanism by which any problems or issues with English proficiency identified in the QA system may be addressed.
The success of SUTS is ultimately dependent on the ability of the campus to attract and appoint good staff, to retain them in a professionally stimulating and career-enhancing academic environment and to develop them professionally to the highest standards. The SUTS QA system supports this goal, while ensuring that equivalent standards of appointment and promotion apply across the University. These measures will facilitate the goal of the University to operate as one university spanning two countries, with academic leadership in teaching and research occurring in either location.
Appointments at the level of Professor or Associate Professor must involve the appropriate Dean of Faculty in SUT or his or her nominee in the selection process, including the final selection round. All appointments at the level of Professor or Associate Professor, whether in SUT or SUTS must be given final approval by the Vice-Chancellor. The PVC (,SUTS) may request similar assistance from SUT for other appointments as deemed necessary.
Promotions to the level of Professor or Associate Professor are processed via the University’s normal promotion rounds in SUT utilising the same criteria.
Promotions to the level of Senior Lecturer are processed at SUTS. The DVC (Academic) is the Chair of SUTS Promotions Committee. The University’s high-bandwidth and other communication links between SUT and SUTS may be used to assist these processes.
Managerial Responsibility
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
Pro Vice-Chancellor (SUTS)
Director of SUTS Quality Assurance, SUT
Other Responsibilities
Dean (Learning and Teaching)
Deans & Deputy Deans, Higher Education Faculties,
Program Coordinators, Higher Education Faculties, SUT
Education Quality Coordinator, SUTS
Director, Academic, SUTS
Heads of School, SUTS
Nil
SUTS Quality Assurance Site
http://blackboard.swinburne.edu.au/webapps/login/
For the related material below, see Policies & Procedures Database/ Educational & research Program Management - http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/default.htm
Accreditation & Re-accreditation – Higher Education Sector
Awarding of Honours Grades at
Conferral of Aegrotat and Posthumous Awards
Course Advisory Committees (CACs) - Higher Education Sector
Course Performance Reporting - Higher Education Sector
Credit Points System
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Industry Based Projects - Industrial Doctorate
Dual Award Programs – Administration
Educational Philosophy Statement
Guidelines for Dual Qualification Course Structure
Guidelines for Supervision of Higher Degree by Research Candidates
Guidelines for the Preparation of a Subject [Unit] Outline
Industry Based Learning
Intellectual Property Policy
Joint Awards
Management of Changes to Higher Education Programs
Masters by Coursework (Honours)
Nested Programs - Higher Education Sector
Policy for Registration of Research Student Supervisors
Policy for the Degree of Master by Research and Thesis
Policy on the Conduct of Research
Review of Education Programs and Learning and Teaching Processes - Higher Education Sector
Student Charter - Minimum Standards of Education
Student Feedback on Subjects [Units] – SFS
For the related material below, see Policies & Procedures Database/ Human Resources - http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/default.htm
Academic Promotions Policy
Code of Conduct
For the related material below, see Policies & Procedures Database/ Quality System & Strategic Management - http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/default.htm
Unit Reviews
Benchmarking at Swinburne
Service Feedback
Student Life Cycle Surveys
For the related material below, see Policies & Procedures Database/ Student Information & Services - http://ppd.swinburne.edu.au/default.htm
Assessment and Appeals - Higher Education
Equal Opportunity Policy
General Grievance Procedures for Students
General Misconduct
Leave of Absence - Higher Degree by Research Students
Leave of Absence - Higher Education Sector
Maximum Allowed Duration - Higher Degree by Research
Minimum Course Component for a Higher Education Undergraduate Award
Minimum Requirements for a Postgraduate Coursework Award - Higher Education
|
Current Status: |
|
|
Version Number |
Two |
|
Approving Authority: |
Academic Board |
|
Approval Date: |
|
|
|
|
|
Version Number |
One |
|
Approving Authority: |
Academic Board |
|
Approval Date: |
|
Print this procedure
