1 Academic Planning and Quality Assurance: The Management and Evaluation of Coursework Teaching Approved by: Academic Board on [DATE] Date of effect: [DATE] CONTENTS PAGES (1) Policy...2 (2) Preface...2 (3) Activities and areas covered by this policy...2 Part 1 Quality Assurance in Teaching and Learning...2 Teaching and learning...2 Quality assurance a definition...2 Quality assurance at the University of Sydney...3 Academic Board Review Visits to Faculties...3 Part 2 - Academic Planning...4 Purpose...4 Academic Planning Teaching and Learning Plans...4 Faculty Self-Evaluation Reports...4 Units of Study...5 Unit of study outlines...5 Unit of study evaluation...5 Courses and Units of Study...5 Part 3 Roles and Responsibilities...7 Introduction...7 Academic structures and responsible devolution...7 Areas of Responsibility...7 Responsibilities at the University level...7 Responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor and the Academic Board...8 Faculties and deans...8 Responsibilities at the departmental level...9 Responsibilities of the members of academic staff...10 Responsibilities of individual academics...11 Responsibilities of supervisors...11 Responsibilities of course co-ordinators and unit of study co-ordinators...11 Responsibilities of students...12 (4) Authority...13 (a) Approval...13 (b) Development/consultation...13 (c) Management responsibility...13 (d) Implementation and monitoring...13 (e) Review...13 (f) Communication...13 (g) Contact...13 (5) Related information...13 (a) Policies...13 (b) Strategic Documents...13
2 (1) Policy This policy outlines the University of Sydney s commitment to ensuring the quality of all teaching and learning activities conducted under its auspices (whether web-based, interstate, offshore, face-to-face, etc) and applies to both undergraduate and postgraduate coursework teaching. (2) Preface Prior to 2001 the Academic Board reviewed its policies regarding the management of teaching, student involvement in feedback and evaluation and the code of practice for undergraduate teaching. This resulted in the formation of the document, Management and Evaluation of Coursework Teaching, which was intended to be the major policy statement on coursework teaching at the University. As part of the ongoing monitoring and review of Academic Board policies, the document has been revised with increased emphasis on how and why coursework teaching is to be managed and evaluated at the University. The revisions are also intended to strengthen the role of quality assurance as an integral aspect of the University s provision and evaluation of academic services. (3) Activities and areas covered by this policy This policy covers: all coursework activities undertaken at or on behalf of the University of Sydney, whether undergraduate or postgraduate; (should the policy cover both award and non-award courses?) all such activities offered at the University s campuses in Australia and other countries; all such activities offered by electronic means (including video conferencing and internet); and teaching services provided to HECS, local fee-paying and international students Part 1 Quality Assurance in Teaching and Learning Teaching and learning Teaching is an essential part of the University and possibly the most publicly visible of its many functions. Goal One of the University s Strategic Plan states that the University will maintain and enhance its position as an outstanding provider of high quality undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, both in Australia and internationally. In pursuing this goal the University s key objectives include attracting, fostering and graduating highachieving students from diverse background. To do this the University must ensure the quality of its teaching through a process of continual renewal and improvement informed by reflection, critical review and awareness of changing circumstances. The University is committed to creating an academic climate that fosters learning, scholarship and the application of research findings to improve teaching practice. Teaching includes the development and evaluation of courses and units of study; selection, development and application of suitable teaching-learning strategies and resources; assessment and examination; supervision and mentoring; evaluation of course outcomes and graduate attributes; consultation with students and other stakeholders (e.g. industry and professional bodies); and staff development to support quality teaching. The University s teaching programs aim to provide a rich diversity of formal and informal learning opportunities for its students which will challenge them and encourage them to reach their full potential. Quality assurance a definition Quality assurance is normally defined as a system and/or a set of tools used to measure and assess a set of standards in a particular area. This system, or set of tools, is designed to indicate whether or not
3 the required standards are being met, reviewed and enhanced, and should identify areas of best practice and areas that could be improved. Quality assurance at the University of Sydney A range of tools are already in use at the University to measure and assess the standard of coursework teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate level, including: Reviews at departmental and faculty level Annual reviews of strategic documents, such as Faculty Teaching and Learning Plans Faculty reviews of undergraduate and postgraduate coursework courses Student Course Evaluation Questionnaires (SCEQ) surveys and results Benchmarking with relevant Australian and overseas institutions Performance indicators such as Student evaluations Unit of study reviews Retention and progress rates Postgraduate employment rates Faculties with ties to industrial and professional organisations will also have access to other assessment tools, such as surveys of employer satisfaction, rates of professional accreditation, etc. Academic Board Review Visits to Faculties (the following section is a direct quote from the Quality Website: The Academic Board's policy structures are intended to encourage the maintenance and development of high standards of teaching, scholarship and research. To be confident that the policy structures properly sustain academic quality assurance and are appropriate to the University's needs, the Board must monitor their implementation and effectiveness. Much of this monitoring is effected through Academic Board initiated visits to faculties to review their teaching, learning and research training. The review process is formative and collegial. The aim is to provide constructive feedback on the quality of a Faculty's educational provision. The faculty reviews are being undertaken in two phases: Phase One evaluated teaching and learning and research training. Phase Two will provide an update on how faculties have responded to the recommendations of the Phase One process and will consider the scope of Faculty activity with particular reference to the Faculty's contribution to the achievement of the University's seven goals. A key aspect of the review process is the Self-Evaluation Report (SER). The SER addresses: key goals and outcomes in the management of quality in teaching processes for integrating research with undergraduate teaching processes for assuring the quality of student assessment and standards quality assurance for research training, and methods for monitoring student progress and recognising excellence in teaching The Phase Two Self-Evaluation Report will also address key goals and outcomes in relation to each of the University's seven goals. The visits to faculties, by a panel including the Chair of the Academic Board, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning), the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) and Faculty representatives, comprise structured interviews between the panel and students, staff and senior Faculty officers. In 2002 the Academic Board completed the Phase One visits to all faculties, building on initial work achieved in During 2003/2004 Phase Two reviews will be undertaken along similar lines, with reviews of all faculties completed by November Full details of the timeline and guidelines for current and pending Academic Board Review visits, and reports of past visits, can be accessed at the Review website:
4 On 24 March 2004 the Academic Board approved Guidelines for Academic Board Faculty Reviews which can be accessed at: Part 2 - Academic Planning Purpose The Academic Board advises the Senate and the Vice-Chancellor on all matters relating to and affecting the University s teaching and research activities and its educational programs, including general advice on the academic priorities and policies of the University. The Board s Standing Committees represent one important pathway for offering such advice, through ex-officio membership of these committees by members of the Senior Executive staff with central portfolios. Another important pathway is through the Board s direct report to each meeting of Senate. The Academic Board is required by Senate Rule to participate in a formal and regular program of reviews of academic activities of faculties. This requirement is satisfied by Academic Board participation in: any review commissioned by a senior officer of the university, at the invitation of that officer, and annual reviews of Faculty Teaching and Learning Plans annual reviews of Academic Quality Assurance Systems. The Academic Board s policy structures are intended to encourage the maintenance and development of high standards of teaching, scholarship and research. To be confident that the policy structures properly sustain academic quality assurance and are appropriate to the University s needs, the Board must monitor their implementation and effectiveness. Much of this monitoring is effected through the annual reviews mentioned above and the implementation of regular Academic Board Review visits (see Part 1 of this document). Academic Planning Teaching and Learning Plans Faculties are required to have Teaching and Learning Plans, normally maintained by the faculty Teaching and Learning Committee or equivalent body. Such plans must have an operational component, setting out goals in an assessable framework. Teaching and learning plans should also include proposed resource requirements for faculty ICT goals for the following two years. The University, through the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning), will provide faculties with an agreed set of performance indicators to assist in planning and quality assurance. Normally, these indicators will be published in mid-august, for the two preceding semesters. Faculties will provide the Academic Board s Teaching and Learning Committee with an annual report on teaching and learning, against the goals specified in the operational plans. These reports will be transmitted to the Board and to Senate, and elements will be captured in the University Annual Report. Normally, reports will be submitted in early September of each year. Faculties will undertake reviews and make desired revisions of their Teaching and Learning Plans annually. Normally, the outcome of the review and any revisions will be reported to the Pro-Vice- Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and the Teaching and Learning Committee by early October of each year. Faculty Self-Evaluation Reports Faculties are required to provide the Academic Board s Teaching and Learning Committee with an annual self-evaluation of academic quality assurance systems within the faculty. Normally, these reports will be required in early May. The following aspects of academic quality assurance should be addressed in the self-evaluation report, which normally will be 5-10 pages in length: How does the faculty ensure that each course and unit has an appropriate set of aims and outcomes, clearly communicated to and understood by students, and including generic as well as disciplinary skills?
5 How does the faculty ensure integration of research, including both disciplinary research and evidence about effective learning and teaching, into its undergraduate and postgraduate courses? How does the faculty ensure that student assessment is effective and contributes to learning, and that the assessment process is well understood by students? How does the faculty ensure that the provision of learning via learning management systems is stable and equitable? How does the faculty ensure the quality of its teaching and recognise good teaching? How does the faculty ensure the appropriate use of ICT in the student learning experience? What arrangements does the faculty have in place to monitor and support student progress? How does the faculty ensure the quality of research supervision and training? What are the faculty s arrangements for evaluation and quality improvement, including the use of student and graduate feedback and other performance indicator data to monitor and enhance performance? Units of Study Note: Reference should also be made to the Academic Board Resolutions: Creation, Variation and Deletion of Award Courses and Units of Study. Unit of study outlines Departments are responsible for providing, prior to the commencement of a unit of study, information about it to all students and prospective students. The minimum standard required is: a concise statement of the main aims of the unit expressed in terms of what students are expected to know by the end of it; a list of unit objectives expressed in terms of how that knowledge will be assessed; a concise statement of the links between these objectives and the University s generic attributes for its graduates; a brief description of the contribution to the unit of the different programs of study in which its students may be enrolled; advice on the attendance and class requirements, the methods of assessment to be used, and the weighting of that assessment, modes of learning and their weighting (eg 10% online, 90% face-toface); and basic factual information regarding names and contact details of teaching, ICT and administrative staff. Unit of study evaluation Units of study will be evaluated at least once every three years, at faculty level. Summaries of the results of student evaluations of units will be forwarded by heads of departments or faculty unit co-ordinators to deans for information and action if needed. Deans will refer nonconfidential information on the evaluations to Faculty Teaching and Learning Committees and to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) for advice and comment. Unit of study evaluations may be used to inform the University s internal quality audit process, including the annual faculty reviews conducted by Academic Board. Units of study may be evaluated by the standard survey form devised by the Institute for Teaching and Learning or another faculty-approved form. Co-ordinators, heads and deans must provide a summary of the results of the most recent student evaluation of units on a unit of study website or in handouts. This summary will refer to actions taken in response to student comments. Courses and Units of Study Award courses are planned, managed, delivered and reviewed by faculties and deans under the general authority of the Academic Board and the Vice-Chancellor. All award courses are developed and reviewed with the benefit of advice from relevant communities and, where appropriate, professional bodies.
6 Academic pathways to the University s award courses require students to select appropriate sequences of units of study, the building blocks of award courses. In some faculties, units of study are managed by the faculty itself. In other faculties, units of study are managed by departments and heads of departments under the general supervision of faculties and deans. Many units of study are available to students in more than one award course. It is common for students of one faculty to take units of study supervised by another faculty. The interests of such students are guarded by mandatory cross-faculty consultative arrangements.
7 Part 3 Roles and Responsibilities Introduction The following guidelines should be read in conjunction with the AVCC Guidelines for Effective University Teaching and with the University regulations for particular courses, the defined role of faculties/deans and departments/heads of departments, and Academic Board policies on teaching and learning. Academic structures and responsible devolution The University is a large, comprehensive institution offering a remarkable diversity of learning opportunities. The University is committed to offering the advantages of its comprehensive diversity to students in academically appropriate ways, unhindered by unnecessary administrative barriers or complexity. The University has made gains in responsiveness and financial efficiency through the devolution of academic, administrative and financial responsibilities. It aims to continue to promote devolution of responsibility and authority wherever further gains are indicated. Responsible devolution requires clear and comprehensive delegations of authority to undertake normal administrative action. The framework for responsible devolution is set out in the documents: Delegations of Authority Administrative Functions Delegations of Authority Academic Functions. These documents provide guidance for making decisions within the policy framework of the University, and also within unusual and exceptional circumstances not covered by existing policy. The devolution of academic responsibilities and authorities takes place primarily through the collegial structures of faculties and departments, and their respective academic leaders, the deans and heads of departments. The University s three Colleges, and the College Pro-Vice-Chancellors, have a key role in aligning the allocation of resources with the academic directions of the Colleges. The University may establish boards, centres, institutes and other structures to promote its aims. The responsibilities and authorities of these structures are established by relevant policies and terms of reference. While embracing the advantages of devolution, the University maintains a number of its functions centrally, particularly in situations involving cross-disciplinary academic activities, institutional accountability or where widely adopted practices can lead to economies of scale. The Academic Board is responsible for many of the University s centralized academic functions. Areas of Responsibility The University, Vice-Chancellor, Academic Board, faculties, and departments have separate and linked responsibilities in assuring the quality of teaching activities. These roles encompass monitoring, evaluating and enhancing the quality of teaching. Responsibilities at the University level The University has the responsibility: (1) to ensure that appropriate University policies in respect of teaching, learning, assessment and ICT are developed, kept under review and are effectively promulgated; (2) to abide by the University's policies on occupational health and safety so that students study and work in a safe and healthy environment; (3) to ensure that adequate development opportunities in teaching, learning and assessment practices are available to teachers through the Institute for Teaching and Learning, and through programs developed by departments, faculties and clinical schools; (4) to ensure that clear policies exist with respect to the intellectual property rights of students and that students are aware of those rights; (5) to ensure that all students are free in all matters relevant to enrolment, assessment and membership of the University community from discrimination or harassment on the basis of
8 race, gender, age, political or sexual preference, marital status, religion, disability or personal beliefs; (6) to uphold the AVCC Guidelines for Effective University Teaching; (7) to have students on appropriate University committees, who will be provided with the same information as all other committee members to allow effective participation; (8) to uphold information privacy principles relevant to personal student information in accordance with the University's policy on privacy and current legislation, including Freedom of Information; (9) to provide a timetabled study vacation period of at least one week before each end of semester examination period except in those faculties where this practice is inappropriate; (10) to ensure a quality learning environment, including appropriate and properly maintained facilities. (11) to ensure the provision of access to physical space and other facilities such as library facilities, a learning management system and learning assistance and information technology, and advice to prospective candidates of what facilities will be made available; (12) to ensure that mechanisms exist to ensure that candidates are accurately advised in a timely fashion of their HECS and any other fee liabilities; (13) to ensure that effective mechanisms exist for the approval of new award courses and the review of existing award courses; and (14) to provide resources for handling the administrative implications of this Code of Practice. Responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor and the Academic Board The Vice-Chancellor and the Academic Board have the responsibility to: (1) define responsibilities for quality assurance at the level of the University, faculties, departments and individual staff and students; (2) assist faculties to formulate, implement and review faculty-specific quality assurance mechanisms; (3) identify and develop procedures to ensure that information needed to monitor the quality of teaching activities at all levels is available annually and is reviewed regularly in terms of its utility and effectiveness; (4) ensure that regular reviews of all aspects of teaching are included in cyclic reviews of departments and faculties; (5) ensure that the University learning management system provides a stable service to faculties and a benchmark for the standards of faculty learning management systems; (6) ensure that staff development policies include provision for addressing teaching activities and their organisation and management; and (7) encourage further activities to recognise and reward quality teaching, both by individuals and teams, and oversee their implementation. Faculties and deans Faculties and deans are required to determine all matters concerning teaching programs in that faculty, subject to the authority of Senate and the Academic Board. These requirements include planning, organizational and managerial responsibilities, as well as responsibility for quality assurance. Faculties and deans are authorized to establish structures to plan, manage and review faculty teaching programs, provided that such structures address statutory requirements (including those of accreditation bodies) and the requirements of the University. Faculties are required to establish a Postgraduate Board of Studies, or equivalent, and a Teaching and Learning Committee, or equivalent, to align with University planning and reporting procedures. Deans have executive academic responsibilities pursuant to resolutions of Senate, Academic Board, and faculties. They also have management responsibilities assigned by the Vice-Chancellor and other senior officers. The management responsibilities include oversight of academic quality assurance for the faculty s teaching programs. Deans ensure that faculty offices maintain and update all documentation for policy and procedures relating to the faculty s academic programs, including documentation for courses and units of study.
9 Faculties and deans have responsibilities to: (1) assure the quality of all award courses and units of study offered by the faculty; (2) monitor and advise departments on quality assurance matters for all units of study available in the faculty s award courses; (3) establish structures to assure quality in the faculty s teaching program, consistent with statutory requirements and University policy. It is University policy that each faculty should have a Teaching and Learning Committee (or similar body) as a main component of these structures; (4) ensure that faculty offices maintain and update policy and procedure documents related to quality assurance within the faculty; (5) engage in planning cycles, normally annually, that integrate quality assurance systems and processes and the academic development of the faculty. The University encourages the use of objective, verifiable goals in these planning cycles; and (6) be responsible for the quality assurance standards of faculty learning management systems. The faculty also has the responsibility: (7) to ensure that literature is available for applicants concerning each of the award courses offered by the faculty which accurately describes the entry requirements, the courses outcomes, the content, the teaching methodology, what is expected of students and the assessment practices and criteria to be used; (8) to ensure that applicants admitted to candidature are properly qualified with respect to the minimum requirements for entry to the course concerned and with respect to the particular program of study proposed; (9) to ensure the appropriate timing of compulsory units and the availability of sufficient optional units so that a student passing all units at the first attempt may complete the course of study within the specified minimum time; (10) to contribute to course, curriculum and academic staff development through conducting regular evaluation processes, including student evaluations. Reports on the results of student evaluations will be made available to students participating in curriculum development activities; (11) where appropriate, to have students on faculty committees, and to provide student members with the same information as other committee members to enable effective participation; (12) to adhere to the policies and procedures established by the Academic Board for creating, varying or deleting courses and units of study; (13) to adhere to the policies and procedures established by the Academic Board for ICT and learning management systems; (14) regularly review assessment practices, including compliance with the Academic Board s Resolutions on Assessment and Examination. (15) to ensure that any academic adviser or supervisor appointed is properly qualified; and (16) to ensure that support is provided for co-ordinators of award courses, where appointed. Responsibilities at the departmental level These responsibilities are those of the head of department. They may however in many instances be delegated or given as agencies to co-ordinator or be exercised through a departmental committee. Such delegations and agencies must be established in accordance with the rules expressed in the University s Delegations of Authorities documents. Some faculties have no internal departmental structure. In such faculties, the responsibilities of departments and heads of departments are undertaken by faculties and deans, respectively. The Department has the responsibility: (1) to encourage staff to participate in workshops, seminars and fora relating to teaching (including those that relate to teaching cross culturally and acquiring skills in nondiscriminatory teaching practice), learning, assessment and ICT organized by departments, faculties, clinical schools and the Institute for Teaching and Learning; (2) to provide no later than the first class for a unit accurate written information concerning all relevant aspects of chosen units and to further provide written advice of the aims and
10 objectives of each unit, mode of attendance and class requirements, the methods of assessment to be used and the weighting of that assessment; (3) to ensure that all relevant requirements of the Academic Board s resolutions regarding Assessment and Examination are satisfied; (4) to grant special consideration or make special arrangements where performance is adversely affected by documented illness, disability or other serious cause, consistently with Academic Board and faculty policy; (5) to provide access by appointment to academic staff outside timetabled class time; (6) where appropriate, to have students on departmental committees, and to provide student members with the same information as other committee members to enable effective participation; (7) to ensure that units of study are taught using relevant teaching and learning strategies, including, where appropriate, ICT contemporary information and learning technology tools; (8) to determine the facilities likely to be required for any particular candidature or group of candidates and to ascertain whether they will be available and whether any projects proposed are appropriate to the course; (9) to ensure that applicants are correctly advised as to the availability of facilities, including access to physical space and other resources, and the availability of options within courses in a particular year, and are correctly advised as to the financial support that is likely to be available to them; (10) to ensure that adequate, appropriate supervision or advice is made available for any particular candidate or group of candidates, for monitoring the supervision load of members of staff within the department, for ensuring that proper recognition of that load is given in the overall allocation of duties within the department; (11) to ensure that the candidate receives proper supervision or advice throughout the candidature and to ensure that there are mechanisms to allow candidates to receive academic feedback and advice at hours appropriate to the offering of formal classes; (12) to ensure that the respective roles of academic advisors, supervisors and course co-ordinators are properly defined and understood and that they have access to information defining their responsibilities; (13) to ensure that where a course co-ordinator or equivalent has been appointed the duties and responsibilities of the position are properly defined, adequate resources are provided to assist in the performance of those duties and proper recognition is given to the workload these duties entail; (14) to ensure that necessary approvals are obtained from the faculty in respect of conditions of candidature, that coursework scholarship reporting requirements are met and that candidates receive all due entitlements; (15) to ensure that teachers within coursework award courses are encouraged to participate fully in any teaching development programs and activities and that any special needs of teachers are addressed; and (16) to ensure that proposals for new award courses are prepared in timely fashion in accordance with the University s policies and that the department co-operates with the Faculty in the review of existing courses. Departments and heads of departments also have responsibilities to: (17) assure the quality of all units of study offered by the department; (18) establish structures to assure quality in the department s teaching programs, consistent with faculty and university policy; (19) provide proper advice for all degrees in which the department participates, including details of the staff member responsible for dealing with student enquiries regarding each degree; (20) maintain and update policy and procedure documents, including unit of study documentation, related to quality assurance within the department; and (21) provide reports on quality assurance systems as required by faculties or the Academic Board. Responsibilities of the members of academic staff In this section there are some responsibilities that apply to all academic staff concerned with teaching in a coursework award program. Some or all of these responsibilities may be carried out by an academic co-ordinator. In addition, there are some responsibilities that are specific to the role of an
11 academic supervisor of a major research project undertaken as a part of a coursework award program. It is important that all parties are clear as to where these responsibilities lie. Responsibilities of individual academics Staff teaching in a coursework program have a responsibility to: (1) demonstrate a commitment to effective university teaching, including attention to the special needs of graduate coursework students and undergraduate students as appropriate; (2) make appropriate time available for giving advice to individual students; and (3) be aware of the problem-solving mechanisms and the support services for students which exist within the University and should ensure that the head of department and the faculty or college are kept informed as necessary if problems occur during the candidature. Responsibilities of supervisors Academic staff concerned with teaching in a graduate coursework or an undergraduate honours program may have a number of roles including that of supervisor of a dissertation. In this context the Supervisor is the member of the academic staff appointed to supervise a dissertation, treatise or long essay component of a coursework award program. For many programs there is no such component. The term dissertation is used throughout but should be taken to refer to dissertations, essay, or treatise as appropriate. The supervisor has a responsibility before undertaking the supervision of the dissertation element of any coursework award candidature to ensure to the best of his or her ability that the candidate is prima facie capable of undertaking the project proposed and that the proposed supervisor is both suitably qualified to carry out the supervision and has sufficient time and resources available. The supervisor has a responsibility: (1) to ensure that the candidate is aware of the standards expected for the award course concerned and for identifying with the candidate the particular research skills that will need to be acquired and the most appropriate data-gathering and analysing techniques; (2) for reaching agreement with the candidate on the contact that will be necessary between them. This will include agreement upon indicators of progress being made and submission of appropriate written work, interim reports or research results. Written work is to be returned by the supervisor with constructive criticism as expeditiously as possible; (3) to ensure that facilities identified as necessary do eventuate, to encourage the candidate to extend his or her contacts within the department and elsewhere. (4) to provide feedback on progress to the candidate and to ensure that the candidate is made aware of inadequate progress or of standards of work below that generally expected and in such instances to identify the problems and to suggest ways of addressing them. (5) to ensure that he or she gives appropriate and timely advice on requirements regarding content, style, presentation and production of the dissertation. (6) with the candidate, to monitor progress made within the context of the overall research plan and to ensure that sufficient time is left for writing up the dissertation and that, if necessary, the scope of the project is reduced to meet the time available; (7) to identify the various course and other administrative requirements and to advise the candidate as necessary; (8) to advise each candidate of applicable government and institutional guidelines for the conduct of research, including requirements relating to ethical approvals for studies on human or animal subjects, and the use of potentially hazardous agents (reference should be made to the University s Code of Conduct for Responsible Research Practice and Guidelines for Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct. As far as possible, supervisors should ensure that the work submitted by candidates is their own and that data are valid); and (9) to give thought to the suitability and availability of examiners in good time before the dissertation is submitted and to advise the head of department of the necessity to take action. Responsibilities of course co-ordinators and unit of study co-ordinators Academic staff concerned with teaching in a coursework program may have a number of roles including a co-ordination role for a unit of study, a larger component of an award program, including overall co-ordination of an entire award program. In this context the Co-ordinator is the member of
12 the academic staff delegated to have responsibility for the co-ordination of a specified component of a coursework award program. These responsibilities are those of the head of department which have been delegated or given as agencies to a co-ordinator. Such delegations and agencies must have been established in accordance with the rules expressed in the University s Delegations of Authorities documents. The co-ordinators responsibilities are those listed above in section on Responsibilities at the departmental level, as are relevant to the level of co-ordination. Responsibilities of students Note: Reference should also be made to the Student Code of Conduct. Each student has a responsibility: (1) to be familiar with all legislative and other requirements for the course as set out in the faculty handbook, unit of study outline, or any other published departmental, faculty and University guidelines; (2) to ensure that all administrative requirements of the faculty and University, such as reenrolling each year, are met; (3) to satisfy attendance and assessment requirements that are prescribed by the University, faculty and department; (4) to adhere to the relevant by-laws and rules relating to ethical behaviour and good conduct that are prescribed by the University and relevant professional bodies; (5) to devote sufficient appropriate time to the candidature; (6) where a supervisor has been appointed in respect of a dissertation or similar component of the award course, to establish with his or her supervisor agreed methods of working and then to fulfil his or her side of any agreement including attending as agreed for consultation and providing evidence of the progress being made; (7) to plan and execute any dissertation project within the time limits defined for the award course in question; (8) to adopt at all times safe working practices relevant to the field of study and to take note of the University s Occupational Health and Safety Policy; (9) to draw to the attention of the instructor, supervisor or course co-ordinator any difficulties being experienced, to be aware of the mechanisms that exist for helping with such difficulties and to take advantage of the mechanisms if necessary; (10) The candidate is solely responsible for the content, style and presentation, and for the production, of any dissertation that is finally presented and has a responsibility to make any emendations required after examination in a timely fashion.
REGULATION 5.1 HIGHER DOCTORATES, THE DOCTORAL DEGREE (RESEARCH), THE DOCTORAL DEGREE (PROFESSIONAL) AND THE MASTERS DEGREE (RESEARCH) PART A GENERAL PART B HIGHER DOCTORATES PART B THE SCHEDULE PART C
Doctor of Philosophy (Clinical Psychology) Working Rules THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY) Definitions WORKING RULES
Introduction The Learning and Teaching Strategy outlines Victoria University s commitment to high standards of learning and teaching. It outlines ways in which these standards are identified, maintained
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION FOR MSc in Advancing Nursing Practice Awarding Institution: The University of Edinburgh Teaching Institution: The University of Edinburgh Programme accredited
Higher Degree by Research Graduate Research Coordination Policy Responsible Officer Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Approved by Vice-Chancellor Approved and commenced January, 2015 Review by January,
Responsibilities for quality assurance in teaching and learning This section is intended to provide an overview of the responsibilities of both university staff and students for quality assurance in teaching
Common Rules Courses leading to the Awarding of a Professional Doctorate (Research) Doctor of Version: 3.00 Approved: Council Date: 20 June 2008 Administered: Governance Next Review: June 2011 COMMON RULES
AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY POLICY ON PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE DEGREES 1.0 PREAMBLE This policy sets out the general conditions for the award of Professional Doctorates by Australian Catholic University.
REGULATION 5.1 HIGHER DOCTORATES, THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATES AND MASTERS DEGREES BY RESEARCH PART A GENERAL PART B HIGHER DOCTORATES PART B THE SCHEDULE PART C THE DEGREE
I List of Contents Foreword Page II Introduction 1 A. General Principles 1 B. Institutional By-Laws and Regulations 2 C. Specific Guidance 3 I FOREWORD The purpose of this Code of Practice is to provide
National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Standards for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions November 2009 Standards for Institutional Accreditation in
A17.0 Research Higher Degree Programs Policy Policy Category Academic Document Owner Vice Chancellor and President Responsible Officer Academic Director Review Date 1 January 2015 File Number Staff Code
Research Services Higher Degree by Research Handbook Prepared by: Research Services Contents About This Handbook... 3 Support Structures... 3 The Graduate Centre... 3 International Student Support... 3
PGCert/PGDip/MA Education PGDip/Masters in Teaching and Learning (MTL) Programme Specifications Faculty of Education, Law and Social Sciences School of Education December 2011 Programme Specification PG
Proposal for Academic Development Amendment to an existing course Faculty/Board of Studies: Faculty of Economics and Business Contact person: Associate Professor Deborah Brennan, Chair of Discipline of
JOB DESCRIPTION 1. JOB TITLE: Senior Lecturer in Electronic and Electrical Engineering 2. HRMS REFERENCE NUMBER: HRMS/13173 3. ROLE CODE: FINSLTSR4 4. DEPARTMENT: Department of Electronic and Electrical
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION COURSE TITLES: PgD Manufacturing Management MSc Manufacturing Management PgC Engineering (Exit award only) PLEASE NOTE: This specification provides a concise summary of the main
BA (Hons) Business Administration (level 6 only) Programme Specification for Bulgaria Primary Purpose: Course management, monitoring and quality assurance. Secondary Purpose: Detailed information for students,
Academic Board September 2015 Australian Catholic University Research and Professional Doctorate Degree Regulations Effective 30 September 2015 CONTENTS Preamble 1. Definitions 2. Application of Regulations
Australian ssociation Practice Standards for Social Workers: Achieving Outcomes of Social Workers Australian Association of Social Workers September 2003 Contents Page Introduction... 3 Format of the Standards...
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY GRADUATE STUDIES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK Approved by March 13, 2007 PREAMBLE St Francis Xavier University offers a limited range of high-quality graduate programs
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION MSc Psychology 1. Awarding institution/body University of Worcester 2. Teaching institution University of Worcester 3. Programme accredited by British Psychological Society 4. Final
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY On-Campus; Online MPHIL AQF 9 OVERVIEW The Master of Philosophy (MPhil) is a higher degree by research which aims to develop students independent research skills under academic supervision.
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION MSc Psychology of Education Awarding Institution: Institute of Education, University of London Teaching Institutions: Institute of Education, University of London Details of accreditation
Nottingham Trent University Course Specification 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Basic Course Information Awarding Institution: School/Campus: Final Award, Course Title and Modes of Study: Normal Duration: UCAS Code: Nottingham
2015 2016 one year courses digital image creation for luxury brands undergraduate programmes one year course digital image creation for luxury brands 02 Brief descriptive summary Over the past 78 years
MSc Educational Leadership and Management Programme Specification Primary Purpose: Course management, monitoring and quality assurance. Secondary Purpose: Detailed information for students, staff and employers.
UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION PgCert/PgDip/MSc in Healthcare informatics PLEASE NOTE: This specification provides a concise summary of the main features of the course and the learning outcomes
JOB DESCRIPTION 1. JOB TITLE: Senior Lecturer in Art Education 2. HRMS REFERENCE NUMBER: HR14486 3. ROLE CODE: FINSLTSR5 4. DEPARTMENT: Faculty of Education and Children s Services - Department of Initial
B1: Programme Specification PROGRAMME TITLE: MSc in Applied Sport and Exercise Psychology/MSc Sport and Exercise Psychology (with PgDiploma exit award) PLEASE NOTE. This specification provides a concise
Human Resources Enabling Plan Introduction The Human Resources Enabling Plan (HREP) is a strategic human resource plan for Charles Sturt University (CSU). It has been developed to support and facilitate
School of Architecture 2014-2015 Graduate Handbook CONTACT: Graduate Program Director Ramesh Krishnamurti firstname.lastname@example.org Graduate Program Coordinator Darlene Covington-Davis email@example.com Graduate
IV. Masters Degree Progress Regulations, Taught and Research (excluding MPhil programmes) These regulations shall be understood in conjunction with requirements laid down in the General Regulations and
POLICY FOR MASTER S AND DOCTORAL DEGREES 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This policy should be understood and read in conjunction with the University s Tuition, Research, Admission, and Assessment Policies and the
2014 2015 one year courses cosmetic and fragrance marketing & management undergraduate programmes one year course cosmetic and fragrance marketing & management 02 Brief descriptive summary Over the past
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WORK Strategic Plan for Teaching and Learning 2000-2004 (Revised February 2003) 1 Part 1. Faculty Strategic Plan for Teaching and Learning 2000-2004 (Revised February 2003)
Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Degrees 2015-2016 This Code of Practice must be read in conjunction with the General Regulations for Students, the Postgraduate Research Degree Regulations and
UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION COURSE OR HONOURS SUBJECT TITLE: BSc Hons Information Technologies with/without DPP/DPP(I)/DIAS with CertHE and AB exit awards (FT) BSc Hons Information Technologies
Disability Action Plan 2014-2019 The University of Adelaide Disability Action Plan 2014-2019 1 Disability Action Plan 2014-2019 Dear Colleague The Disability Action Plan 2014-2019 reflects goals and intentions
JOB DESCRIPTION 1. JOB TITLE: Senior Lecturer in Business and Management 2. HRMS REFERENCE: HR/15117 3. ROLE CODE: FINSLTSR5 4. DEPARTMENT: Business Strategy, Finance and Entrepreneurship 5. ORGANISATION
PROGRAMME REGULATIONS Professional Doctorate Regulations 1. Regulations for Professional Doctorate Qualifications 1.1 Summary 1.1.1 These regulations apply to all Professional Doctorate degrees at Unitec.
JOB DESCRIPTION 1. JOB TITLE: Senior Lecturer (MA Special Educational Needs) 2. HRMS REFERENCE NUMBER: HRMS/13233 3. ROLE CODE: FINSLTSR5 4. DEPARTMENT: Faculty of Education & Children s Services, Department
2015 2016 preparatory courses design pre-master s postgraduate programmes preparatory course design pre-master s 02 Brief descriptive summary Over the past 78 years this course at Istituto Marangoni has
FACULTY OF TECNOLOGY School Of Computer Science & Informatics Lecturer (VC2020) in Information Systems Full Time, Permanent Grade F: Salary Range 32,277-35,256 As part of our VC2020 Lectureship programme,
HIGHER EDUCATION STANDARDS FRAMEWORK TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the Higher Education Standards Framework... 1 PART A: Standards for Higher Education... 3 Introduction to Part A... 3 1 Student Participation
HANDBOOK FOR MANAGERS/SUPERVISORS OF PROFESSIONAL/GENERAL STAFF Section 1: Managing and Developing People at CSU... 3 Section 2: People Management, the Broad Structure... 3 Section 3: Principles... 4 Section
PROPOSAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT NEW COURSES SECTION 1 1. Name of Award Course MASTER IN STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS GRADUATE CERTIFICATE IN STRATEGIC PUBLIC
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION 1 Awarding Institution Newcastle University 2 Teaching Institution Newcastle University 3 Final Award MSc / Postgraduate Diploma 4 Programme Title Sustainable Chemical Engineering
LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY Course Specification MA Physical Education 2016-17 (MPHYE) Our courses undergo a process of review periodically, in addition to annual review and enhancement. Course Specifications
HR Policy Appointments: Graduate Teaching Assistants and Teaching Assistants Purpose This policy defines and governs the employment relationship between the University, Graduate Teaching Assistants and
Rules for the PhD Programme at the Graduate School, Arts Table Of Contents 1. Purpose, structure, etc.... 1 1.1. Purpose... 1 1.2. Organisation... 1 2. Admission etc. to the PhD programme... 2 2.1. The
MSc Construction Project Management Programme Specification Primary Purpose: Course management, monitoring and quality assurance. Secondary Purpose: Detailed information for students, staff and employers.
Programme Specification MSc Children s (Pre-Registration) Valid from: September 2014 Faculty of Health and Life Sciences SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Awarding body: Teaching institution and location:
Summary Guidelines for Quality Assurance of UWS Offshore Programs These summary guidelines can be read in conjunction with the Quality Assurance Implementation Guidelines from UTS August 2004 1. Selecting
QUALITY ASSURANCE OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK The University of Liverpool Liverpool, L69 7ZX And INTRODUCTION Laureate The Institutional Agreement is between (1) the University of Liverpool ( UoL ) whose registered
Australian Medical Council Limited Procedures for Assessment and Accreditation of Medical Schools by the Australian Medical Council 2011 Medical School Accreditation Committee These procedures were approved
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION MA English Education Awarding Institution: Institute of Education, University of London Teaching Institutions: Institute of Education, University of London Name of final award Master
STANDARDS: MASTERS AND DOCTORAL DEGREE BY RESEARCH AREA 1: VISION, MISSION, EDUCATION GOALS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES The vision, mission education goals and learning outcomes of the HEP guide its research
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION 1 Awarding Institution Newcastle University 2 Teaching Institution Newcastle University 3 Final Award MSc 4 Programme Title MSc International Spatial Planning 5 Programme Code 5177
Administrative and Faculty Governance Committee/Council Charges Proposed Revisions ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES AND COUNCILS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Serves as the executive leadership and collaborates with the
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT SECTION ONE: GENERAL INFORMATION Programme Title/ Subject Title: Master of Public Health Award title and Interim awards: Postgraduate Certificate in Public Health Postgraduate
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH DEGREES Contents Page 1. Introduction 2. Admission to the Doctoral School 3. The stages of the doctoral programme 4. The responsibilities of the supervisor and the student
PROCEDURE Area covered ADMISSION TO HIGHER DEGREEE RESEARCH PROGRAMS This Procedure is University-wide Version 2.0 Approval date 16 March 2016 Effective date 16 March 2016 Next review date March 2019 Policy
LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY Course Specification MSc Accounting 2016-17 (MSACT) Our courses undergo a process of review periodically, in addition to annual review and enhancement. Course Specifications are
Programme Specification PG Cert/ PG Dip/ MA Integrative Counselling 1. Awarding institution/body University of Worcester 2. Teaching institution The Iron Mill Institute, Exeter PCI College, Dublin 3. Programme
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION PROGRAMME TITLE: Postgraduate Certificate in Veterinary Public Health PLEASE NOTE: This specification provides a concise summary of the main features of the course and the learning
Steering us in the right direction towards research training quality In Australian Higher Education (HE) institutions, there is wide variation in Higher Degree by Research (HDR) policies and procedures
MBA in Construction and Real Estate UCAS Code: N/A For continuing students entering in: September 2011 Awarding Institution: The University of Reading Teaching Institution: College of Estate Management
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION Doctor in Education Awarding body: Institute of Education, University of London Teaching institution: Institute of Education, University of London Name of the final award: Doctor
Programme Specification for the MSc in Computing Science PLEASE NOTE. This specification provides a concise summary of the main features of the programme and the learning outcomes that a typical student
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF IRELAND CUMANN SÍCEOLAITHE ÉIREANN ACCREDITATION CRITERIA FOR POSTGRADUATE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY DATE: 22 ND FEBRUARY 2010 Date for review: February
Institutional Quality Assurance Process (Covering also the academic, non vocational degree programs of Dominican University College) February 17, 2012 Senate Approved May 30, 2012 Quality Council Ratification
PROGRAMME APPROVAL FORM SECTION 1 THE PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION 1. Programme title and designation MSc Accounting, Accountability & Financial Management For undergraduate programmes only Single honours Joint
Admissions Policy 1 Introduction 1.1 The School is committed to delivering excellence in the quality of both its research and teaching at all levels and maintaining its high standards. It is firmly committed
PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION COURSE TITLE: MSc Advanced Accounting PLEASE NOTE. This specification provides a concise summary of the main features of the course and the learning outcomes that a typical student
POLICY FOR MASTER S AND DOCTORAL DEGREES 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This policy should be understood and read in conjunction with the University s Tuition, Research and Assessment Policies and the Code of Ethics,
UNIVERSITY OF YORK POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMME REGULATIONS This document applies to students who commence the programme(s) in: Awarding institution University of York Department(s) The York Management School
University of Cambridge: Programme Specifications Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this programme specification. At the time of publication, the programme