Chapter 7 - Guidelines and Procedures for Five-year Review of Centre for English and Additional Languages (CEAL)/Chinese Language Education and Assessment Centre (CLEAC) Courses

As part of the quality assurance and enhancement mechanism of the University, course offerings of CEAL/CLEAC are subject to a rigorous review at an interval of 5 years. Any modifications/developments as a result of the review will be put to effect in the next academic year, where applicable.

The five-year review serves to ensure that the courses of CEAL/CLEAC undergo a rigorous review at a reasonable interval to ascertain their satisfactory operation and development.

The general aim of a five-year review is to assure the academic validity and standard of the CEAL/CLEAC courses. In more specific terms, the review will consider:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Content and Documentation

Following 4 years of implementation, operation and development, a critical, thorough and comprehensive review of CEAL/CLEAC courses in various aspects based on feedback/comments from various sources has to be conducted by the Board of CEAL/CLEAC. The review should cover all aspects of CEAL/CLEAC course offerings, including student enrollment, overall aims and learning outcomes of CEAL/CLEAC course offerings, aims and learning outcomes of individual courses, course content (including the issue of overlapping of course contents, if any), teaching/learning activities, assessment methods/results and regulations, the intellectual level of the courses, the intellectual demands they place on students, and staffing resources.

The Head of CEAL/CLEAC has to ensure that a brief review document is drawn up. It should provide some basic information about the CEAL/CLEAC course offerings, including overall aims and learning outcomes, connection among courses, student numbers, courses offerings design and structure, course operations, management, quality assurance and enhancement, learning and teaching, examination and assessment, staffing resources, a brief up-to-date syllabus of each course, etc. Apart from giving figures or statistics on such aspects as student enrollment, examination and assessment, the document should give an analysis of the data showing the trends and development.

(a)

give a critical analysis and commentary on course offerings during the review period highlighting how and to what extent the overall aims and learning outcomes for the course offerings and those for individual courses are achieved; and

(b)

include the proposed modifications and developments, giving clear justifications and spelling out the differences from the existing course offerings. (Please refer to the Appendix for more details.)

The five-year review documentation will not require such details as summary of developments since last four or five-year review, professional recognition, resource support (accommodation, equipment, general expenses, library support, computing support, etc.), University-wide assessment regulations, etc. Instead, information on these items will be made optional and be included when deemed necessary.

In line with the spirit that measurement of learning outcomes should be evidence-based, the review document should draw upon evidence and information from the following sources:

(a)

Statistical data on student numbers and examination results for the past 4 years, such as student demand, distribution of assessment grades, attrition rate, etc. The statistics provide the factual basis for the review.

(b)

Comments and suggestions contained in the reports of External Academic Advisers, relevant records of discussion of the comments and suggestions, response made to the External Academic Advisers as well as agreed action taken/to be taken (if any).

(c)

(d)

Comments and suggestions from the Advisory Board concerned.
The views of students obtained through various means, such as Course Teaching and Learning Evaluation, questionnaires, surveys, Staff-Student Consultation Committee meetings, informal meetings with students, views expressed by ex-students where appropriate, etc.

(e)

(f) 

(g)

The views of graduates, alumni and employers obtained through means such as surveys and informal meetings, if any.

The views of staff teaching CEAL/CLEAC courses.
The time-series data on various aspects of, the course offerings with assistance from the Centre for Innovative Teaching and Learning, where necessary.

(h)

Stock-taking of learning and teaching activities, and assessment methods.

Reviewers and Review Meeting

A senior academic of Associate Professor or above in rank inside the University but outside CEAL/CLEAC shall be appointed as the Convener of the review meeting. Two external members, outside the University, of Associate Professor or Senior Lecturer or above in rank and with expertise in the relevant disciplines shall also be appointed by the Academic Quality Assurance Committee (AQAC). One external member should be non-local and, where possible, selected from one of the benchmarking institutions of the University¹ or the CEAL/CLEAC, if any.

Nominations for appointment as Convener and external members shall be made by CEAL/CLEAC. A greater number of nominations (with preference order) should be submitted to the AQAC for its consideration and choice (e.g. 4 to 5 nominations for appointment of 2 external members).

CEAL/CLEAC shall not nominate those who have a close connection to them, for instance, current Chairman or members of the Advisory Board, those who are currently serving or served as External Academic Advisers in recent years (at least a lapse of three years after their term of service), unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

The External Academic Adviser(s) shall be invited to join the review as far as practicable so that their views/advice can be sought. CEAL/CLEAC shall communicate with the External Academic Adviser(s) at the early stage of their terms of service the planned period during which the next Five-year Review will take place so as to facilitate planning of the External Academic Adviser(s) to take part in the review as far as practicable.

The External Academic Adviser(s) joining the review is/are not part of the review panel and shall participate in the Review as expert witness(es) and meet with reviewers separately from the Board of CEAL/CLEAC.

If a non-local reviewer cannot join the review meetings on campus, video conference will be arranged as far as practicable. Considering that the reviewers can be from different time zones, and therefore operational difficulties may be encountered for arranging video conference for review meetings which last for a whole day, the reviewers can take part in some, not all, of the meetings. When a non-local reviewer is unable to come to the University and a video conference cannot be arranged or he/she can only join part of the event, paper assessment in areas specified under 7.1.2 above shall be provided by him/her prior to the meeting.

The Registry will co-ordinate the appointment procedures and forward to the appointed reviewers a copy of the review documentation endorsed by the Board of CEAL/CLEAC and subsequently by the Faculty Board of Arts and approved by AQAC.

The appointed reviewers will meet with the Board of CEAL/CLEAC to discuss matters of concern especially the proposed modifications/developments. In essence, the review takes the form of Board of CEAL/CLEAC meeting with external input. Reviewers can suggest having a separate session to meet with junior academic staff, if deemed necessary. This peer review format has the advantage of encouraging freer flow of views. The review is expected to be a one-day exercise to facilitate more thorough and in depth discussion.

The appointed reviewers may also meet with relevant graduates and students. The review document (except sensitive data) should be provided to them.

The reviewers are responsible for assessing the academic standard of the CEAL/CLEAC course offerings, and evaluating how the CEAL/CLEAC course offerings has performed in the five areas detailed in Section 7.1.2 based on the review documentation and other information submitted, as well as their discussions with the Board of CEAL/CLEAC, other staff as appropriate, students and graduates, etc. In reviewing the CEAL/CLEAC course offerings, the reviewers have to make reference to data and statistical evidence. The reviewers will give comments/recommendations in any aspect of the CEAL/CLEAC course offerings. Their reports shall also articulate their evaluation of the CEAL/CLEAC course offerings and the basis on which they arrive at the evaluation. The external members will also provide written feedback/recommendations which form the basis of the written report.

The Registry will work with CEAL/CLEAC on logistics of the review meeting and prepare the report.

For a visit of a non-local external member, the visit shall be up to four days. The package will include a return air ticket of economy class (with a ceiling rate based on point-to-point direct full-fare economy ticket rate), accommodation expenses of up to HK$1,700 per night and a per diem allowance at HK$900 per day.

An honorarium of HK$4,500 will be paid to an external member who has completed his/her duties.

After the Review Meeting

After the review meeting, the Board of CEAL/CLEAC shall follow up the comments/recommendations of the reviewers, write up a response, and finalise a brief summary setting out proposed modifications/developments (with justifications and implementation details) taking into account the external input, for submission to the Executive Committee in Arts for endorsement and then to AQAC for consideration and approval as appropriate. In the response, the Board of CEAL/CLEAC should provide a plan of action as far as practicable to follow up comments/recommendations which involve a longer term development and implementation. A copy of the report of the review meeting (and any follow-up meeting(s)), part of the review documentation with significant revisions (if any), and any other documents where deemed necessary should also be submitted. The AQAC’s decision and comments, if any, the approved Board’s response to comments/ recommendations of reviewers and the brief summary on proposed modifications/developments² will be submitted to the Senate for its information and possible comments.

Timing

As a general guideline, the review documentation should be ready for consideration of the AQAC in October/November for review meetings to be held in January/February, or in December/January for review meetings to be held in March/April/May, before dispatching to the appointed reviewers. The response and brief summary together with other documents (detailed above) should be submitted to the AQAC meeting around March/April for review meetings held in January/February, or around May/June for review meetings held in March/April, or in September/October for review meetings held in May.