Chapter 7 - Guidelines and Procedures for Five-year Review of Courses with Service-Learning Elements
| 7.1 | Purpose/Aim |
| 7.2 | Content and Documentation |
| 7.3 | Reviewers and Review Meeting |
| 7.4 | After the Review Meeting |
| 7.5 | Timing |
| 7.1 | Purpose/Aim | |
| 7.1.1 | As part of the quality assurance and enhancement mechanism of the University, credit-bearing courses with Service-Learning (S-L) elements offered by either the i) Departments, ii) the Office of Service-Learning (OSL) or iii) co-organised by departments and OSL 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. | |
| 7.1.2 | The five-year review serves to ensure that the courses with S-L elements undergo a rigorous review at a reasonable interval to ascertain their satisfactory operation and development. | |
| 7.1.3 | The general aim of a five-year review is to assure the academic validity and standard of the S-L courses and projects. In more specific terms, the review will consider: | |
| (a) | whether the courses/projects have been properly connected and successfully implemented to achieve the overall aims and intended learning outcomes of Service-Learning; | |
(b) (c) (d) (e) | whether individual courses have met their identified aims and achieved the intended learning outcomes; whether and how the views/problems raised by relevant parties/reflected by statistics have been addressed/solved; whether the courses have been developed and managed appropriately; and whether the proposed modifications/developments in course offerings are appropriate and can be effectively implemented. | |
| 7.2 | Content and Documentation | |
| 7.2.1 | Following 4 years of implementation, operation and development, a critical, thorough and comprehensive review of courses with S-L elements in various aspects based on feedback/comments from various sources has to be conducted by the Service-Learning Programme Committee (SLPC). The review should cover all aspects of course with S-L elements, including student enrollment, overall aims and learning outcomes of S-L 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. | |
| 7.2.2 | The Director of OSL has to ensure that a brief review document is drawn up. It should provide some basic information about the course with S-L elements, including overall aims and learning outcomes, connection among courses, student numbers, S-L project design and structure, operations, management and quality assurance and enhancement, learning and teaching, 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. | |
| Most important of all, the document should | ||
| (a) | give a critical analysis and commentary on the courses with S-L elements during the review period highlighting how and to what extent the aims and learning outcomes for the course offerings with S-L element and S-L projects are achieved; and | |
| (b) | include the proposed S-L modifications and developments, giving clear justifications and spelling out the differences from the existing course offerings. (Please refer to the Appendix for more details.) | |
| 7.2.3 | The five-year review documentation will not require such details as summary of developments since last 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. | |
| 7.2.4 | 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 learning outcomes for the past 4 years, such as student demand, distribution of assessment grades, 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 S-L Programme Committee concerned. The views of students obtained through various means, such as Course Teaching and Learning Evaluation (in S-L whole class approach), pre and post-test questionnaires, surveys, focus group meetings with students. | |
(e) (f) (g) | The views of staff teaching courses with S-L elements. The views of community supervising courses with S-L elements. The time-series data on various aspects of the programme developed by the OSL, or, where necessary, with assistance from the Centre for Innovative Teaching and Learning. | |
| (h) | Stock-taking of learning and teaching activities, and assessment methods. | |
| 7.3 | Reviewers and Review Meeting | |
| 7.3.1 | A senior academic of Associate Professor or above in rank inside the University but outside the OSL 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 Unviersity1 or OSL. | |
| 7.3.2 | Nominations for appointment as Convener and external members shall be made by the SLPC. 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). | |
| 7.3.3 | The SLPC shall not nominate those who have a close connection to the OSL/S-L Programme, for instance, current Chairman or members of the Advisory Board, unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. | |
| 7.3.4 | 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. | |
| 7.3.5 | The Registry will co-ordinate the appointment procedures and forward to the appointed reviewers a copy of the review documentation endorsed by the SLPC and approved by AQAC. | |
| 7.3.6 | The appointed reviewers will meet with the SLPC to discuss matters of concern especially the proposed modifications/developments. In essence, the review takes the form of SLPC 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. | |
| 7.3.7 | The appointed reviewers may also meet with relevant graduates and students. The review document (except sensitive data) should be provided to them. | |
| 7.3.8 | The reviewers are responsible for assessing the academic standard of the course offerings with S-L elements, and evaluating how the Service-Learning programme has performed in the five areas detailed in Section 7.1.3 based on the review documentation and other information submitted, as well as their discussions with the SLPC, other staff as appropriate, students and community partners, etc. In reviewing the course offerings with S-L elements, the reviewers have to make reference to data and statistical evidence. The reviewers will give comments/recommendations in any aspect of the Service-Learning programme. Their reports shall also articulate their evaluation of the Service-Learning programme 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. | |
| 7.3.9 | The Registry will work with the OSL on logistics of the review meeting and prepare the report. | |
| 7.3.10 | 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. | |
| 7.3.11 | An honorarium of HK$4,500 will be paid to an external member who has completed his/her duties. | |
| 7.4 | After the Review Meeting | |
| 7.4.1 | After the review meeting, the SLPC 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 AQAC for consideration and approval as appropriate. In the response, the SLPC 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 SLPC’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. | |
| 7.5 | Timing | |
| 7.5.1 | 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 the 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. | |
1 Ewha Women University of South Korea, International Christian University of Japan, London School of Economics of UK, Pomona College of USA, The University of Durham of UK, Wellesley College of USA, Williams College of USA and Yuanpei College, Peking University of China
2 In case proposed major modifications to the programme/courses include those significant ones that Senate has not delegated its authority of approval to AQAC, Senate approval will be sought.
Guidelines and Procedures for Five-year Review of Courses with Service-Learning Elements (PDF)