Title:
Policy for Reporting & Review of
International
Course
Delivery
Programs
Version
3.0
TRIM file number
Short description
This policy provides the requirements and process
for the review of international course delivery
programs, including those in Australia which deliver
CSU courses to international students via third party
agreements.
Relevant to
Faculties
Centres
Sub Deans International
Office of International Relations
Legal Office
Approved by
DVC (Administration)
Responsible officer
Manager, International Relations
Responsible office
International Relations
Date introduced
1 March 2009
Date(s) modified
24 August 2009
Next scheduled review date
1 November 2011
Related University documents
MOU Fact Sheet
Request for International Agreement
Third party due diligence
CSU Award Courses Offered in Collaboration with a
Third Party: Quality Assurance
Related legislation
AVCC Code of Practice and Guidelines for the
Provisions of Education to International Students
Key words
International, MOU, agreements,
articulation, third party joint delivery
Charles Sturt University
Version 3.0:
partnerships,
Page 1
1.
Introduction
Charles Sturt University (CSU) has arrangements in place with offshore and onshore
institutions and other third parties to deliver CSU courses.
Under these arrangements CSU enters into contractual agreements for institutions or other
third parties to deliver a CSU course in another country, or in Australia to international students.
The partner institution is contracted to deliver a range of academic and administrative services
to CSU students.
CSU holds full responsibility for the quality assurance and management of the courses and
programs, and must ensure equivalence of outcome for students is achieved, both academic
and service. The policy provides the requirements for the review of these programs.
2.
Purpose
The purpose of the policy for Reporting and Review of International Course Delivery Programs
is to ensure that programs are being delivered in accordance with CSU’s quality assurance and
contractual requirements; and to provide the University with regular, consolidated and holistic
reports on the operations of its international programs.
3.
Types of International Agreements
This policy applies to Joint Cooperation – Third Party Course Delivery international programs.
It also applies to arrangements in Australia where CSU enters into an agreement for the
delivery of CSU courses to international students via a partnership arrangement.
4.
Responsibilities
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) is responsible for contract management of
international programs, including initiating program reviews, chairing annual partner meetings,
and reporting to the Senior Executive Committee on international delivery programs.
Faculty Dean in accordance with the policy CSU Award Courses Offered In Collaboration With
a Third Party: Quality Assurance, has responsibility for ensuring that mechanisms are in place
so that it can regularly assure itself and the University on:
• the ongoing suitability and currency of the teaching materials and teaching strategies
for achieving the identified learning outcomes, both for individual subjects and the
course as a whole for the students who undertake this particular offering;
• the ongoing quality of teaching;
• the ongoing quality of assessment, including all the processes involved in
assessment; and
• ongoing adequacy and quality of physical resources.
Head of School is responsible for undertaking all aspects of the academic component of the
program review.
Executive Directors/Directors Divisions are responsible for ensuring the ongoing provision and
quality assurance of support services and availability of learning resources (library, IT
resources, etc).
International Relations is responsible for coordinating program reviews and providing regular
reports on international programs to DVC (Administration) and University committees.
5.
Regular Whole of Program Reporting
International Relations is responsible for providing regular status reports to the Deputy ViceChancellor (Administration) on the operation of international course delivery agreements.
The status reports prepared by International Relations will include:
i) An overview of the program
ii) Course enrolment data (continuing and commencing)
iii) Financial status
Charles Sturt University
Version 3.0:
Page 2
iv) Key issues including concerns/issues identified by the delivering Faculty, Divisional
stakeholders, students and partners
v) Progress updates on issues raised from whole of program review
vi) A risk register identifying high risk issues and risk mitigating strategies
vii) Upcoming events and visits including academic and divisional quality assurance
activities.
Reports will be provided to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) for review by the Senior
Executive Committee (SEC) at least twice per year. A copy will be provided to the relevant
Faculty Dean.
Following review by the SEC the reports will be provided to UCPC for noting.
6.
Whole of Program Review & Reporting
CSU will undertake a whole of program review of each of its international delivery programs on
an annual or as otherwise requested by the DVC (Administration).
a. Initiation
Program reviews will be initiated by the DVC (Administration) at least four months prior to
the scheduled annual meeting in the year of review.
Whole of program reviews will be coordinated by International Relations.
b. Scope
The review will consist of an academic and administrative review, and will report on:
i.
Overall program performance
ii.
Host country approvals and accreditation
iii.
Relationship development & management
iv.
Marketing and recruitment
v.
Admission and enrolment
vi.
Teaching and learning
vii.
Research collaboration
viii.
Academic progress
ix.
Graduation
x.
Student support services
xi.
Financial performance
xii.
Compliance with relevant external standards
a. AVCC Code
b. ESOS Act
xiii.
Program viability
xiv.
Risk
The International Course Delivery Program template provides a framework for gathering
the information during the review (attached).
c. Preparation
International Relations will request feedback on the operation on the program from the
following stakeholders:
• Faculty & School with academic delivery responsibility (academic review)
• Division of Library Services
• Division of Student Administration
• Division of Marketing
• Division of Information Technology
• Division of Student Services
• Division of Learning & Teaching Services
• Division of Finance
Charles Sturt University
Version 3.0:
Page 3
d. Internal Review
International Relations will hold an internal stakeholder meeting to discuss the program
and identify issues for resolution and discussion with the partner.
e. Partner Meeting
International Relations will coordinate a meeting with partner staff to discuss the program
and identify issues for resolution and discussion with CSU stakeholders.
f.
Student meeting
Where possible, International Relations will coordinate a meeting with students of the
program under review and identify issues for resolution and discussion with CSU and
partners.
g. Site Visit
International Relations will coordinate an onsite review of the program to inform the review.
The site review may be undertaken by the International Relations, Faculty or Divisional
delegate.
Following the site review a draft report will be provided to the DVC (Administration) for
discussion at the annual partner meeting.
h. Annual Meeting
The outcomes and actions required from the international program review will be
discussed at the annual partner meeting and where applicable CSU’s mainstream
committees such as UCPC, Teaching and Learning Committee etc.
i.
Reporting
The final international program review report, including recommendations and actions, will
be submitted by International Relations to the DVC (Administration) and Dean no later than
two weeks after the annual meeting.
The DVC (Administration) will present the report to the Senior Executive Committee.
Following review by the Senior Executive Committee the reports will be submitted to
Faculty Dean, Academic Senate and University Courses Planning Committee (UCPC) for
noting.
A summary of the report will be provided to the partner for review and action where
necessary.
Charles Sturt University
Version 3.0:
Page 4
OFFSHORE & PARTNER DELIVERY
PROGRAM REVIEW
Office of International Relations The International Course Delivery Program review is to be undertaken in accordance with Charles Sturt University’s Policy for the Reporting & Review of International Course Delivery Programs and the policy for CSU Award Courses Offered in Collaboration with a Third Party; Quality Assurance. Section 1: Review Overview
Name of Program Location Contract Commencement Contract Expiry Faculty Responsible Faculty Program Manager International Relations Program Manager Date Review Initiated Date of Previous Full Review Date of Written Notification to Partner Review Coordinator Partner Contact for Review Page 1 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Section 2: Academic Review
Academic Review Undertaken By Academic Program Overview Mode of Delivery Moderation Model Key Issues & Recommended Action Page 2 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Section 3: Internal Stakeholder Meeting
Date of Meeting Minutes Link Key Issues & Recommended Action Page 3 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Section 4: Strategic & Administrative Review
Strategic & Administrative Review Undertaken By Date of Partner Meeting Minutes of Partner Meeting LINK Key Issues & Recommended Action Page 4 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Date of Site Visit Key Issues & Recommended Action Page 5 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Section 4: Guidelines for Academic Review
The delivering Faculty is responsible for undertaking the academic review in accordance with Faculty and University policy governing course quality assurance. Relationship and Communication Evidence & Comment Is the relationship between partner staff and the CSU academic staff working effectively? Course Accreditation Evidence & Comment Is professional accreditation with the Australian professional body current for applicable courses? Is professional accreditation with the Host Country professional body current for applicable courses? Other course accreditation issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Teaching and Learning Evidence & Comment Is the course operations manual current and in place? Is the curriculum the same as that used by CSU for the same award course? If not, are processes in place to approve variations and ensure equivalent outcomes? Are the texts and references used by the offshore partner the same as for the course that is delivered in Australia? If not, are processes in place to approve variations and ensure equivalent outcomes? Page 6 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Is the proportion of the offshore partner’s teaching staff with higher degrees appropriate in an Australian context? Have the partner teaching staff been approved by CSU to teach on the CSU program in accordance with Faculty and University policy? Is the number of staff approved to teach on the CSU program adequate? Have partner academic staff been given orientation/induction to CSU and provided the necessary online access? Are there staff development programs available to the partner’s teaching staff that will enable them to deliver a comparable level of program quality to delivery of the same or similar course in Australia? Do the qualifications of the partner’s teaching staff comply with the requirements of their Ministry or regulatory authority? Is the English language capability of the partner’s teaching staff acceptable? Are the in‐country regulatory controls that apply to teaching and learning acceptable in the Australian context? If there have there been any breaches of required in‐country reporting or standards, have these been appropriately dealt with? Is the amount of face to face teaching by the partner and/or CSU in line with local Ministry requirements? Is the subject evaluation response rate comparable to other cohorts (Australian, DE, other international programs)? Is academic progression and attrition comparable against other cohorts? Page 7 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Have teaching and learning activities been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Course Administration Manual? Other teaching and learning issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Assessment and Moderation Evidence & Comment What moderation model is in place for the program? Does CSU set all assessment tools? If not, are the approval requirements clearly specified and followed? Is there input by the offshore partner into the suitability of language and the context of curriculum and assessment tools? Is this process clearly documented and in accordance with Academic Senate policy? If some marking is done by the offshore partner’s staff, are there processes for cross marking and moderation by the Faculty? Have grades and marks been revised in the past 12 months as a result of moderation, and if so were the revised results applied? Does CSU invigilate exams? If not has training been provided to partner staff on the CSU rules of invigilation? Are CSU academic rules and regulation being applied systematically to CSU students (eg appeal of grade, plagiarism)? Are the turnaround times for student feedback and assessment items in accordance with Faculty and University policy? Page 8 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Have assessment and moderation activities been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Course Administration Manual? Other assessment and moderation issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Other
Evidence & Comment Is credit being applied in accordance with Faculty and University policy? Is there easy and ready access to academic information about the program , assessment, appeal processes etc Is language support available to student where required? What resources have been devoted to this service (eg hours per week, staff)? Are visiting CSU staff provided with adequate space and resources for them to undertake their duties? Are there any OHS issues identifiable? Are the classroom facilitates used for CSU courses adequate? Any OHS issues? Are issues raised in moderation reports addressed or resolved effectively by both CSU and the partner? Is there collaborative research activities being undertaken between CSU and partner staff? Page 9 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Section 5: Guidelines for Strategic & Administrative Review
Strategic Issues
Evidence & Comment Is the program consistent with the University’s International Education Strategy? Is there a clearly documented rationale for program? Have projected student enrolments been provided? Relationship Management, Development & Communication
Evidence & Comment Has the Vice‐Chancellor or Chancellor been in communication with the partner in the past 12 months? Have there been regular meetings between DVC (Administration), Dean and Partner to discuss the operation of the program? Has there been regular communication from the University on CSU activities and news. Is there a strong relationship between CSU and the partner? Have any incidents occurred since the last review that have damaged or have potential to damage the program? Page 10 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Is the partnership reliant on the relationship with an individual or are their strong multi layered connections? Other relationship and communication issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Due Diligence & Host Country Approvals Evidence & Comment Does the partner still hold the necessary approvals to operate Ensure that all approval documentation is stored in TRIM. as an education provider in the country? Has there been any material change in the management or ownership of the organisation since the business case was approved? Has the partner been audited by a local QA agency since the last CSU review? Were there any implications for the CSU program? Is the program currently and correctly listed on AusLIST? Does the risk register accurately reflect the current situation? Other issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Financial Administration
Evidence & Comment Is it clear to students who tuition fees are payable to and the refund policy that is in place? Have invoices been issued by CSU in a timely manner? Have invoices been paid in a timely manner by the partner? Provide average payment time. Page 11 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Is the program financially sustainable? Division of Finance to provide profit and loss statement. Have there been any write offs or potential bad debts against the program? Provide details Do the current tuition fees align with the fees approved in the agreement? Have the fees been tabled for noting at the Course Fees Advisory Committee? Is the refund policy clear and held on file? Ensure that all refund policies are stored on S Drive. Have financial activities been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Program Administration Manual? Other finance issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Recruitment and Marketing
Evidence & Comment Have all marketing materials produced by the partner for the program been approved by CSU in accordance with ESOS, AVCC Code and CSU policy requirements? Ensure that copies of current marketing materials are stored on the S Drive. Does the partner web site reflect the program accurately and Insert link to web site. meet CSU requirements? Are the pathway options available to students clear? Have marketing activities been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Program Administration Manual? Are there any market risks/trends that may impact the future viability of the program? Page 12 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Are in‐country agents used to recruit students into the programs? Are all agents formally approved by CSU and appropriately contracted, monitored and reviewed? Other marketing issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Student Services and Student Support
Evidence & Comment Is the standard of “face to face” student support services and the access to them acceptable compared to services available to students studying at an Australian campus? Have students been informed of the online student support services available to them? There an appropriate program in place for international students at the partner? Are accommodation arrangements, particularly of international students, of an acceptable standard? Have student support services been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Program Administration Manual? Other student support issues identified by partner, students or CSU stakeholders Student Administration – Admission & Enrolment Evidence & Comment Has CSU approved the application form (if not standard?) Ensure that copies are stored on the S Drive. Page 13 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
For remote campus users – Has CSU approved the template letter of offer and admission? The offer must meet CSU requirements under the AVCC Code etc. Ensure that copies are stored on the S Drive. For non remote campus users – Have applications and supporting documentation been received in a timely manner? Have admission requirements and selection standards been monitored, and any breaches identified and appropriately dealt with? Are English language entry requirements clearly specified, checked and admissions compliant? Has CSU processed and admitted students prior to the commencement of session? Has reenrollment occurred in a timely manner i.e. before commencement of session? Has CSU applied its standard rules and regulations to students studying at the partner location (e.g. leave of absence, academic progress etc) Has CSU undertaken quality checks on student files to ensure compliance with admission processes? Were any breaches identified? If partner holds student file is record management undertaken in accordance with CSU requirements? Is partner staff access to CSU systems up to date? Have partner staff been provided with the necessary training in CSU administration systems? Has credit been applied systematically as per the schedule of the agreement or as otherwise approved by the course coordinator? (cross reference to Academic review) Page 14 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Are eBox read rates comparable to onshore students? Have all student administration activities been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Program Administration Manual? Other student administration issues identified by partner, students or CSU stakeholders Information Technology Evidence & Comment Have students activated log ins? Have students been informed of the online IT support services available to them? Are available computer facilities sufficient in terms of number of computers, software, performance and hours of access? Is the standard of classrooms and related AV and other services appropriate? Have IT services been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Program Administration Manual? Other IT issues identified by partner, students or CSU stakeholders Library Evidence & Comment Are the library facilities, hours of access and the size and quality of the collection appropriate for the course being offered? Are they comparable to CSU campuses in Australia? Have students been informed of the online library services available to them? Page 15 of 16
International Course Delivery Program Review
Are students able to access to online databases? Have partner staff been provided with any training on CSU library systems? Have Library services been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Program Administration Manual? Other Library issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Complaints and Grievances Evidence & Comment Have there been any complaints lodged by students in the program? Is it clear who students should contact at the partner institution to lodge complaints? Has complaint administration been undertaken by CSU and the partner in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the Program Administration Manual? Other grievance or complaint issues identified by partner or CSU stakeholders Page 16 of 16