Document Feedback - Review and Comment
Step 1 of 4: Comment on Document
How to make a comment?
1. Use this to open a comment box for your chosen Section, Part, Heading or clause.
2. Type your feedback into the comments box and then click "save comment" button located in the lower-right of the comment box.
3. Do not open more than one comment box at the same time.
4. When you have finished making comments proceed to the next stage by clicking on the "Continue to Step 2" button at the very bottom of this page.
Important Information
During the comment process you are connected to a database. Like internet banking, the session that connects you to the database may time-out due to inactivity. If you do not have JavaScript running you will recieve a message to advise you of the length of time before the time-out. If you have JavaScript enabled, the time-out is lengthy and should not cause difficulty, however you should note the following tips to avoid losing your comments or corrupting your entries:
-
DO NOT jump between web pages/applications while logging comments.
-
DO NOT log comments for more than one document at a time. Complete and submit all comments for one document before commenting on another.
-
DO NOT leave your submission half way through. If you need to take a break, submit your current set of comments. The system will email you a copy of your comments so you can identify where you were up to and add to them later.
-
DO NOT exit from the interface until you have completed all three stages of the submission process.
(1) This procedure details the rules and governance pathways for program and course reviews. (2) The authority for this document is established by the Program and Course Policy. (3) In scope are all Higher Education (HE) and Vocational Education (VE) programs and courses offered by the RMIT Group, including programs delivered by controlled entities and offshore partners, and non-award courses (i.e. micro-credentials and Future Skills), which are embedded in award courses. (4) Not included in scope, unless specified otherwise, are programs or courses that are administrative in nature i.e., non-award (NONA career), cross-institutional enrolment, exchange, Study Abroad and inactive programs. (5) RMIT’s Centre for Academic Quality and Enhancement (CAQE) provides leadership, support and guidance to staff completing reviews of programs and courses in Higher Education (HE). The College of Vocational Education (CoVE) Quality and Compliance team leads the review process for Vocational Education (VE). The School of Graduate Research is responsible for quality assurance for all Higher Degree by Research programs and courses. (6) RMIT’s program and course review processes are designed to meet the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HESF), the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 and other regulatory standards as applicable. (7) The RMIT program and course HE review process is comprised of three components: (8) Vocational Education performs an Annual Review of Training and Assessment Strategy for each educational training product and a five-year cyclical assessment validation for all nationally accredited training products on the RMIT Scope of Registration. (9) Each course or unit of learning is reviewed through a cyclical monitoring process. (10) Some courses or units of learning may be reviewed more frequently than others depending on, but not limited to: (11) Each program within scope participates in Annual Program Review which ensure continuous program monitoring. (12) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education (or delegate) may require an out-of-cycle Annual Program Review based on: (13) Program Managers are responsible for undertaking a review of the Training and Assessment Strategy (TAS) that includes: (14) The CoVE Quality and Compliance team ensures a current version of the TAS is stored centrally. (15) Each TAS for a vocational education training product will be updated annually as a minimum or as required prior to delivery to ensure the training and assessment continues to meet the training package, accredited course or unit requirements and the needs of the anticipated cohort. (16) Each TAS for a vocational education training product will be updated annually as a minimum or as required to include sufficient trainers and assessors with the relevant vocational competencies and current industry skills and knowledge for the teaching period. (17) Annual evaluation of VE programs is managed by the Program Managers and Cluster Directors with specific input based on data, consultation and feedback mechanisms. (18) Each TAS for a vocational education training product will be updated annually as a minimum or as required to include evidence of continuous improvement from the following: (19) Program Managers are responsible for examining program and cohort data, and where relevant, using this data to inform the TAS. The data can include but is not limited to: (20) Cluster Directors are responsible for assuring that complaints and appeals are managed using the Student and Student-Related Complaints Policy suite and Assessment, Academic Progress and Appeals Regulations as appropriate. (21) The Associate Deputy Vice Chancellor, Learning and Teaching VE (or delegate) is responsible for ensuring that the validations schedule is managed in accordance with ASQA Standards. (22) Cluster Directors are responsible for ensuring assessment validations are conducted in line with the requirements of the ASQA Standards and that the identified outcomes from validations are completed in a timely manner. (23) Program Managers are responsible for planning and conducting validation of assessment practices and judgments which includes selection of units to be validated, arranging a panel and scheduling of meetings. (24) The Annual Program Review Terms of Reference are designed to meet a minimum threshold of evidence. (25) Evidence and reflection must be included in the program review submissions where required by the Annual Program Review Terms of Reference. (26) Program Managers are responsible for showing evidence of having actioned their program enhancement plans, if applicable, by reporting a status update of each goal and commentary. Status updates include: (27) CAQE monitors the status updates and reports them to the Programs Committee and Academic Board. Program Managers (or equivalent), in collaboration with their College Quality Unit, identify and submit to CAQE notification endorsed by the College Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Learning, Teaching and Quality (or equivalent) when a program will not complete an Annual Program Review due to the following: (28) Program Managers (or equivalent) are responsible for showing evidence of and reflecting on year-on-year data sets from the Program Review Dashboard as required by the Terms of Reference. (29) Data inputs include, but are not limited to, student success, student outcomes, enrolments trends, program experience, student demand and strategic alignment, and external benchmarking where available. (30) Program Managers (or equivalent), if required by the Terms of Reference, must provide a written submission that uses data and reflection to consider program strengths and potential actions for improvement. (31) Each program within scope participates in the Comprehensive Program Review at least once within a seven-year cycle to meet HESF requirements. (32) Outcomes include recommended re-accreditation status of a program, as indicated per the categories below to be recommended by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education for the Programs Committee to endorse: (33) The Programs Committee endorses the programs to be re-accredited. (34) The Academic Board approves the programs to be re-accredited. (35) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education (or delegate) may require an out-of-cycle Comprehensive Program Review based on: (36) CAQE advises any changes to the program review schedule to the Programs Committee and Academic Board. (37) The overview of the Program Review process is located on the CAQE Resources Hub. (38) CAQE maintains the Comprehensive Program Terms of Reference to meet a minimum threshold of evidence. (39) The design of the Terms of References holistically requires Program Managers to provide evidence and academic reflection of, but not limited to: (40) Evidence and reflection must be included in the program review submissions where required by the Comprehensive Program Review Terms of Reference. (41) Evidence for Comprehensive Program Reviews is collected on an ongoing basis throughout the life-cycle of the program. (42) Program Managers (or equivalent) are responsible for showing evidence that the program’s curriculum and pedagogy are in line with the appropriate AQF level. (43) Program Managers (or equivalent) must submit evidence and reflection on the mapping of: (44) Program Managers (or equivalent) must submit evidence and reflection of having operationalised: (45) Program Managers (or equivalent) are responsible for showing evidence of using student feedback. (46) Student feedback is any judgments and opinions formed by students regarding their experience of RMIT and expressed through formal mechanisms such as program and course level surveys, student-staff consultative committees, or informal mechanisms such as focus groups, other methods of local data collection and monitoring social media. (47) The systematic collection, use and reporting of student feedback is performed to monitor and improve the quality of the student experience. Student feedback will be used to: (48) Vocational Education Program Managers are responsible for incorporating student feedback into the Training and Assessment Strategy. (49) The Dean/Head of School/Cluster Director and relevant service area directors/managers are responsible for ensuring that relevant student feedback is systematically shared and actioned in their area to ensure Course Coordinators and Program Managers can take timely informed actions for improvement. (50) The following surveys are the standard instruments for capturing student feedback about courses, programs and the broader RMIT experience: (51) Staff will seek student feedback in all locations to ensure an accurate representation of the RMIT cohort. The feedback must be in a form that can be captured, analysed and reported every time a course is delivered, where appropriate. The RMIT Student Surveys Team may facilitate with Data and Analytics and relevant college/school representatives, of courses or units for survey purposes. The standard RMIT survey instruments will be used. (52) Where a non-standard survey instrument is used to collect feedback for a cohort (e.g., for more than one course), approval must be sought from the Student Surveys Unit before it can be used. (53) Where the standard survey instrument is inappropriate for specific delivery modes (e.g., non-classroom based) or the needs of specific student cohorts, alternative student feedback mechanisms may be deployed. Where a non-standard survey instrument is used to collect feedback, approval must be sought from the Student Surveys Unit before it can be used. (54) Where appropriate, the Student Feedback Team can be consulted for the ethical, compliance and privacy issues that may arise through the use of non-standard or bespoke survey instruments. Stakeholders for consultation may include the Research Integrity Office and Education Risk Compliance and Audit (ERCA). (55) Deans/Heads of School/Cluster Directors (or equivalent) are responsible for ensuring that all coursework programs or training products that are at least one semester in length have representation on Student Staff Consultative Committees (SSCCs). (56) The Program Manager (or equivalent) is responsible for organising and operationalising the SSCC and for: (57) The Program Manager/Course Coordinator (or equivalent) invites students in coursework programs to volunteer to be student representatives at the start of the teaching year and at the start of each teaching period where mid-year/flexible intake applies. This invitation is given in the first session of a core course in each year level of the program. (58) Where invitations to students in a program to join the SSCC have been met with insufficient response, a digital channel, such as through Canvas and/or email must be provided to all students to provide feedback that aligns with the SSCC timelines and feedback requirements. (59) Deans/Heads of School/Cluster Directors (or equivalent) are responsible for ensuring that the coursework program has sufficient student feedback where student attendance at SSCCs could not be met. (60) The feedback obtained via a digital channel must be: (61) Each HE coursework program, or discipline, has an Industry Advisory Committee. A single Industry Advisory Committee may be convened to support all programs in the same discipline. Where an Industry Advisory Committee is not fit for purpose, evidence of Industry Engagement should be provided inclusive of clauses (62) and (63) below. (62) Program Managers(or equivalent) are responsible for showing evidence of industry partnered engagement. Industry partnered engagement can include: (63) The Dean/Head of School/Cluster Director (or equivalent) responsible for the program oversees the operationalising of the Industry Advisory Committee. This includes setting meetings and agendas and recording meeting minutes, including issues and actions. Formal reports are forwarded to the Programs Committee or other relevant committees of the college or of RMIT. (64) Higher Education Industry Advisory Committees advise on matters associated with program design, delivery and review, in particular: (65) Industry engagement in VE ensures the alignment of industry trends to inform the development and ongoing review of VE qualifications, including: (66) For VE programs, a range of industry engagement strategies must be adopted to demonstrate evidence that a number of stakeholders have been consulted over a period of time. (67) Program Managers (or equivalent) are responsible for showing evidence in response to the RMIT External Validation and Benchmarking Framework. (68) CAQE interprets, designs and maintains the RMIT External Validation and Benchmarking Framework, including: (69) Program Managers (or equivalent) must show evidence of the degree to which they look outside of their courses and programs. By responding to the RMIT External Validation and Benchmarking Framework in the Comprehensive Program Review Terms of Reference the following will be addressed: (70) Program Managers (or equivalent) are responsible for showing evidence of equivalence and comparability of academic standards and quality. Evidence and reflection on this must be included in the HE program review submissions where required by the Comprehensive Program Review Terms of Reference or Annual Program Review Terms of Reference. (71) The equivalence and comparability framework comprises factors that define equivalence, comparability and customisation of different offerings of programs. For resources and instructions on how to respond to the RMIT Equivalence and Comparability Framework, see CAQE Resource Hub. (72) Program Managers (or equivalent) are responsible for including program data of all locations in their program review submissions including, but not limited to: (73) Appropriate feedback processes and calendars are endorsed by the college Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Learning and Teaching (or equivalent) and appropriate personnel from partner organisations. (74) Partner contract negotiations will include standard survey instruments offered by RMIT with results to course, school/industry cluster and college leaders to ensure that: (75) International and Engagement Portfolio and the school/industry cluster partner manager, in conjunction with the Associate Dean Learning and Teaching, Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Learning and Teaching (or equivalent) and CAQE, are responsible for consultation, development and implementation of partner feedback processes. See Partnered Delivery of Coursework Awards Procedure. (76) The School of Graduate Research coordinates the annual and comprehensive reviews for Higher Degree by Research programs under the governance of the Graduate Research Committee and the Research Committee. (77) The Higher Degree by Research Program Review Cycle determines the cadence and focus areas for annual and comprehensive reviews in alignment with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021. (78) Comprehensive reviews for Higher Degree by Research programs are held every five years with a review panel comprising of internal and external members. (79) Higher Degree by Research programs are reviewed in clusters relating to relevant schools and/or colleges. (80) Data sources for program reviews may include, but are not limited to: (81) Higher Degree by Research Delegated Authorities are responsible for showing evidence of using student feedback in program review documentation. (82) Student feedback is any judgement and opinion formed by students regarding their experience of RMIT and expressed through formal mechanisms such as program and course level surveys, student-staff consultative committees, or informal mechanisms such as focus groups and social media. (83) Higher degree by research candidate feedback collated through formal RMIT surveys will comply with clauses listed in this procedure. (84) The Associate Deputy Vice Chancellor Research Training and Development (or nominee) may require an out-of-cycle program review based on: (85) School of Graduate Research monitors and evaluates program review submissions and report outcomes, including recommendations to re-accredit higher degree by research programs to the Graduate Research Committee, Research Committee and Academic Board.Program and Course Review Procedure
Section 1 - Context
Section 2 - Authority
Section 3 - Scope
Section 4 - Procedure
Ongoing Course Monitoring – HE (coursework)
Ongoing Course Monitoring
Arrangements for Ongoing Course Monitoring
Annual Program Review – HE (coursework)
Annual Program Review
Alternative Arrangements for Annual Program Reviews
Annual Program Review of Training and Assessment Strategy – VE
Alignment to Training Package or Accredited Course
Sufficient Trainers and Assessors
Evaluation and Monitoring Strategies
Program and Cohort Data
Vocational Education Cyclical Review of Assessments
Evidence thresholds for Annual Program Reviews – HE (coursework)
Evidence for Program Enhancement Plan Update
Evidence Reflective Data Check
Comprehensive Program Review HE (coursework)
Comprehensive Program Review
Alternative Arrangements for Comprehensive Program Reviews
Evidence Thresholds for Comprehensive Program Reviews HE (coursework)
Evidence for Reviewing Curriculum and Pedagogy
Evidence for Reviewing Student Feedback – HE and VE
Surveys – HE and VE
Student Staff Consultative Committees – HE and VE
Evidence for Reviewing Industry Partnered Engagement – HE and VE
Evidence for Reviewing External Validation and Benchmarking – HE
Evidence for Equivalence and Comparability of Academic Standards in Multiple Locations and Modes – HE and VE
Student Feedback for Programs Delivered in Conjunction with Partners – HE and VE
Higher Degrees by Research
Section 5 - Associated Information
Website links