Chapter 7 - Guidelines and Procedures for Five-year Programme Review

The five-year programme review serves to ensure that the programme undergoes a rigorous review at a reasonable interval to ascertain its satisfactory operation and development.

The general aim of a five-year programme review is to assure the academic validity and standard of the programme. In more specific terms, the review will consider and make observation and recommendations regarding the following:

whether the programme standards are consistent with those articulated for the University;

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Following 4 years of implementation, operation and development, a critical, thorough and comprehensive review of a programme in various aspects based on feedback/comments from various sources has to be conducted by the Programme and Curriculum Committee (PCC)/Undergraduate Business Programmes Committee (UBPC)/Department Board (for BA programmes offered by departments under the Faculty of Arts) concerned. The review should cover all aspects of the programme, including student admission, programme aims and learning outcomes, curriculum, content (including the issue of proliferation of courses and overlapping of course contents), teaching/learning activities, switches of language of instruction (if any), assessment methods/results and regulations, employment opportunities, the overall intellectual level of the programme, the intellectual demands it places on students, and staffing resources.

The Programme Director/Head of Department (for BA programmes offered by departments under the Faculty of Arts) has to ensure that a brief review document is drawn up. It should provide some basic information about the programme, including its aims and learning outcomes, student numbers, entrance requirements and student admission, programme design, structure and curriculum, programme operation, management, quality assurance and enhancement, learning and teaching, examination and assessment, employment opportunities, staffing resources, a brief up-to-date syllabus of each course, etc. Apart from giving figures or statistics on such aspects as student admission, examination and assessment, and employment, the document should give an analysis of the data showing the trends and development and an evaluation if the programme meets the manpower needs of the society.

(a)

The five-year programme review documentation will not require such details as summary of developments since last re/validation 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 the context of a five-year review of an undergraduate programme, while the focus of the document is on the programme itself, the review document shall contain a section or sections concerning the Minor programme(s) offered or co-ordinated also by the academic unit, if any. The document shall provide general information about the curricular requirements, student enrolment, operations of the Minor programme(s), if any, and give an evidence-based evaluation as well as propose ways of improvement/development.

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 senior academic of Associate Professor or above in rank inside the University but outside the programme shall be appointed as the Convener of the review meeting. Two or more 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) (for undergraduate programmes) or the Postgraduate Studies Committee (PSC) (for taught postgraduate programmes). One external member should be non-local and, where possible, selected from one of the benchmarking institutions of the University¹ or the programme.

Generally, at least two external members are to be appointed for a non-integrated/single disciplinary programme while three external members are to be appointed for an integrated/multi-disciplinary/cross-disciplinary programme (e.g. BA Cultural Studies, BBA, BSocSc). Nominations for appointment as Convener and external members shall be made by the relevant programme. A greater number of nominations (with preference order) should be submitted to the AQAC/PSC for its consideration and choice (e.g. 4 to 5 nominations for appointment of 2 external members).

Academic units shall not nominate those who have a close connection to them, for instance, current Chairman or members of the Advisory Board of the relevant programme/department/unit², those who are currently serving or served as External Academic Advisers of the relevant programme in recent years (at least a lapse of three years after their term of service), unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

The Registry/School of Graduate Studies (GS) will co-ordinate the appointment procedures and forward to the appointed reviewers a copy of the review documentation endorsed by the PCC/UBPC/DB and subsequently by the Faculty Board/School of Data Science Management Board (SDSMB)/Wu Jieh Yee School of Interdisciplinary Studies Management Board (WJYSISMB)/Board of Graduate Studies (BGS) of the respective Faculty/School and approved by AQAC/PSC.

External Academic Advisers of the programme shall be invited to join the review as far as practicable so that their views/advice can be sought. Relevant academic unit shall communicate with the External Academic Advisers at the early stage of their terms of service the planned period during which the next Five-year Programme Review will take place so as to facilitate planning of the External Academic Advisers 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 Programme Review as expert witness(es) and meet with reviewers separately from the PCC/UBPC/DB.

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 appointed reviewers will meet with the PCC/UBPC/DB to discuss matters of concern especially the proposed modifications/developments. In essence, the review takes the form of PCC/UBPC/DB 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 programme review document (except sensitive data) should be provided to them.

The reviewers are responsible for assessing the academic standard of the programme, and evaluating how the programme has performed in the six areas detailed in Section 7.1.2 based on the review documentation and other information submitted, as well as their discussions with the PCC/UBPC/DB, other staff as appropriate, students and graduates, etc. In reviewing the programme, the reviewers have to make reference to data and statistical evidence. The reviewers are not required to recommend approval of the programme. Instead, they give comments/recommendations in any aspect of the programme. Their reports shall also articulate their evaluation of the 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.

The Registry/GS will work with the PCC/UBPC/DB secretary 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 PCC/UBPC/DB 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 Faculty Management Board (FMB)³/SDSMB/WJYSISMB/BGS of the respective Faculty/School for endorsement and then to AQAC/PSC for consideration and approval as appropriate. In the response, the PCC/UBPC/DB 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/PSC’s decision and comments, if any, the approved PCC/UBPC/DB’s response to comments/recommendations of reviewers and the brief summary on proposed modifications/developments⁴ will be submitted to the Senate for its information and possible comments.

Timing

The five-year programme review should take place in the academic year after a validated/revalidated/reviewed programme has been implemented for 4 years. As a general guideline, the review documentation should be ready for consideration of the AQAC/PSC 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/PSC 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.