Section A — Roles and Responsibilities

Governance

1.      Under the City University of Hong Kong Ordinance, the Senate of the University is required to “ plan, develop, and maintain the academic programmes offered by the University ” , “ direct and regulate the teaching … … at the University ” , and “ decide on the award of degrees and other academic awards of the University ” .

2.      In undertaking these functions, Senate relies on the Quality Assurance Committee, the Academic Policy Committee and the Board of Graduate Studies to provide advice on policies and plans relating to the academic life of the University.

3.      The day-to-day task of assuring the quality of education and maintaining academic standards at CityU falls to the “ Faculties and equivalent bodies ” and “ Departments and equivalent bodies ” , established by Council, on Senate ’ s recommendation. Under their statutes, the academic boards of faculties/equivalent bodies have the duty to advise Senate, the Dean (or equivalent) and Heads of Departments (or equivalent) “ on all matters pertaining to the planning, development, implementation and monitoring of the academic work of the Faculty ” , and “ reporting thereon annually ” to Senate (in the case of postgraduate programmes through the Board of Graduate Studies).

4.      Under their statutes, the work of faculties/schools and departments should be undertaken “ within the policies, procedures and priorities established by Senate ” . Notwithstanding its delegation of authority, Senate is available to all members and is the final authority for the resolution of disagreements.

A Quality Culture

5.      The University has charged the Quality Assurance Committee with the responsibility to promote quality assurance, and to foster a culture of quality teaching and learning at the University.

6.      The University has established Teaching Excellence Awards to promote good teaching and reward our best teachers.

7.      The University expects all staff and students to participate in, and feel ownership of, policies and processes for the assurance of quality and academic standards.

8.      The University supports a self critical and reflective approach to its work, and welcomes and responds appropriately to criticism, including criticism from students and other stakeholders.

9.      The University ’ s framework of governance provides for academic staff a wide range of opportunities to participate in the academic management of the University. Moreover, in their areas of expertise, the University expects academic staff to exercise the maximum discretion and professional autonomy to further educational goals.

10.    Students are also included as members of key University committees, and are encouraged to participate in the work of departments and faculties. The University calls on students to make an active contribution to the improvement of education quality on their own behalf and on behalf of the University.

Section B - Arrangements for Quality Assurance and Maintaining Academic Standards

1.      Arrangements and activities to maintain and improve education quality and academic standards should be characterised by:

(a)       A forward-looking view, oriented to the task of improving education quality.

(b)       Coverage of all aspects of students ’ educational experience.

(c)       Clear definition of policies and procedures.

(d)       Regular monitoring and evaluation of   teaching and learning quality within formal systems capable of operating independently of particular individuals.

(e)       Recognition of the importance of feedback from ‘ stakeholders ’ (e.g. students, employers, professional bodies).

(f)        Recognition of the importance of external benchmarks in establishing the quality of teaching and learning and of academic standards.

(g)       Establishment of mechanisms to identify and disseminate examples of good professional practice.

(h)       Provision of the facilities and resources necessary to support activities to enhance and improve the quality of teaching and learning.

2.      Arrangements to maintain and enhance education quality should be subject to regular review and periodic audit to ensure their continued effectiveness.

Section C - Academic Planning, and Curriculum Development

Senate ’ s Responsibility

1       Senate exercises its responsibilities for academic planning and the development of the curriculum by reserving key decisions for Senate policies, consideration and delegating authority to faculties and departments. The decisions reserved for Senate consideration are:

(a)       Approval of the titles in English and Chinese of all degrees and awards of the University.

(b)       Approval of general regulations for the conferment of academic awards.

(c)       Approval of academic plans on the basis of recommendations from the Academic Policy Committee (APC), including plans for the introduction or discontinuation of programmes of study, and student intakes and enrolment in academic programmes.

2.      In relation to these decisions, Senate seeks the advice of the Board of Graduate Studies, with respect to postgraduate academic programmes.

3.      Faculty boards/equivalent bodies have the authority to manage the curriculum of academic programmes, within the framework of Senate policies, regulations, guidelines, and approved academic plans, making further delegation of this authority to departments/equivalent bodies, as appropriate.

Approval of Academic Plans

4.      In making recommendations to Senate for the academic development of the University and the management of student numbers, Academic Policy Committee receives proposals for academic developments and student numbers from faculties and equivalent bodies, and acts on the advice of the Board of Graduate Studies. APC considers these proposals in the light of the broad criteria agreed by Senate. (Refer to Section A – Criteria for Academic Planning, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)

Process for Curriculum Development

5.      The details of arrangements for curriculum design, development and approval are matters for the relevant faculty to decide. However faculty boards exercising the delegated authority of Senate should establish arrangements for curriculum development that have the following features:

(a)       Where changes or new developments under consideration go beyond the authority of individual academic staff delivering courses, proposals should be subject to scrutiny by colleagues, and students should be consulted.

(b)       Where changes may have a significant impact on learning outcomes or academic standards, these changes should be subject to review by members of the University not directly involved with the academic programme, and the views of external experts, professional bodies, former students, and employers should be actively sought and taken into account.

(c)       With regard to taught post-graduate programmes, approval should be sought from the Board of Graduate Studies.

(d)       Proposals for changes, and approved changes, should be documented clearly, so that stakeholders are informed of proposals that affect them, and the University catalogue of courses and programmes can be maintained accurately.

(e)       To ensure that the quality and standards of educational programmes offered through the self-financing mode are the same as those receiving funding support through the University Grants Committee, the process for curriculum development, approval and management should be the same for both types of programmes.

Approval of Changes to the Curriculum

6.      The delegation of Senate authority over the curriculum of academic programmes is made on the understanding that faculties and equivalent bodies will ensure that:

(a)       The structure of programmes is consistent with the academic regulations.

(b)       The assignment of credit units to student work is consistent with University standards.

(c)       The academic standard of programmes is appropriate, given the level of the award, and is comparable with the academic standard of similar programmes elsewhere.

(d)       The curriculum of courses and programmes is consistent with the University ’ s overall objectives for students ’ education.

(e)       Teaching, learning and assessment strategies have been given appropriate attention, and are aligned to the intended learning outcomes of courses and programmes.

(f)        Resources to deliver programmes and courses are adequate.

(g)       Where necessary, arrangements for the transition of students to new curriculum requirements have been made.

Section D - Assuring and Improving the Quality of Education

1.      In discharging its responsibility for the University ’ s academic programmes, Senate relies on departments to maintain and improve the quality of the educational provision for which they are responsible. Senate has adopted general guidelines for departmental quality assurance, under which departments are asked to operate. (Refer to Section B – Departmental Activities to Assure and Improve the Quality of Education, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)

2.      Departments should ensure that new, full-time academic staff, and any teaching or research support staff, e.g. teaching assistants, research assistants, who are assigned significant teaching duties, have received an adequate orientation to their teaching role at City University .

3.      Departments are asked to pay particular attention to the work of part-time teachers to ensure that the quality of instruction delivered by part-time staff is comparable to that of full-time staff in the University. In this regard, Departments should make reference to the Code of Good Practice for part-time teaching approved by the Senate. (Refer to Section C – Code of Good Practice for Part-time Teaching, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)

4.      Departments are required to report annually to the relevant faculty board (or equivalent body) on the courses and programmes for which they are responsible.

Section E - The Evaluation of Teaching

1.      Faculties and equivalent bodies are required to evaluate the teaching of their staff on an individual basis. The primary purpose of any teaching evaluation scheme should be to improve teaching.

2.      Faculties are responsible for devising, implementing and maintaining their own teaching evaluation schemes, including determining who should initiate evaluations, who should receive the results, how often evaluations should occur, how they should be administered, and what follow-up procedures will result from the evaluation outcomes.

3.      Evaluation schemes should provide the most valid (accurate), reliable (consistent), comprehensive and credible information on the quality of an individual ’ s teaching performance consistent with the costs of the scheme, where costs include the time and effort of both students and teachers.

4.      Where evaluation of teaching is undertaken as part of a summative assessment of performance, in addition to student feedback, evidence must be included from other appropriate sources such as peer review, individual reflection, and expert observation.

5.      Faculty schemes for teaching evaluation should be consistent with the guidelines adopted by Senate. (Refer to Section D – Guidelines for the Evaluation of Teaching, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)

Section F - Student Assessment and Academic Standards

Purpose of Student Assessment

1.      Assessment is the crucial link between effective teaching, student learning and educational standards. It is important to ensure that assessment tasks are aligned to intended learning outcomes identified for courses and programmes.

2.      While allowing the necessary professional freedom to decide precisely when and how assessments should be conducted, the guidelines agreed by Senate should be taken into account. (Refer to Section E – Guidelines for Student Assessment, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)

Course Examiners

3.      Heads of Department, or equivalent bodies, should appoint a Course Examiner for each course to be assessed by the Department. The Course Examiner is responsible for coordinating the assessment of course outcomes, recommending course grades to the relevant Assessment Panel, and ensuring that the Assessment Panel has the necessary information about the assessment criteria of the course.

Assessment Panels

4.      Heads of Department should establish an Assessment Panel for courses offered by the Department. Assessment Panels are chaired by the Head of Department, must include the Course Examiner for courses being considered, and may include members of the department associated with the course. No course may be considered by more than one Assessment Panel. The duties of Assessment Panels are:

(a)       To maintain the academic standard of assessment in courses for which the Panel is responsible.

(b)       To determine the final grades for students in courses, and report them to the Head of Academic Regulations and Records Office.

(c)       To consider requests from students that illness, or other circumstances be taken into account in setting students ’ grades.

Grading and Grade Distributions

5.      Course grades should be assigned on the basis of the “ grade descriptions ” provided in the Academic Regulations.

6.      Course Examiners and Assessment Panels should take into account Senate guidelines when assigning student grades. (Refer to Section F – Guidelines for Assigning Course Grades, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)

Benchmarking against International Standards

7.      In exercising their duty to maintain academic standards in courses for which they are responsible, Assessment Panels should have reference to the international norms for similar courses at other internationally recognised universities. The arrangements adopted by departments to assure the University that the relevant standard is being maintained should conform to the following principles.

(a)       Assessment instruments and students ’ assessed work should be reviewed across a sufficiently wide range of courses, and with sufficient regularity, to provide a credible assurance that academic standards are being maintained by the department.

(b)       Review of assessment should cover the academic level of the course syllabus, the full range of assessment activities in the course, and the extent to which assessment in a course is adequately aligned to the learning outcomes identified for the course.

(c)       Review of assessment instruments and students ’ assessed work should benefit from the input of qualified peers, with the necessary experience of similar work in universities with an international reputation. (Refer to Section G – Guidelines for External Academic Advisors, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)

(d)      Arrangements for the review of assessment in a course in a department should be clearly documented, and approved by the relevant faculty board.

Examination Boards and the Classification of Awards

8.      University awards are classified by the relevant Examination Board, established by the faculty board/equivalent body.

9.      For Faculties, the Examination Board should include: the Dean, as Chair, Heads of Departments, and at least two members of the full-time staff of each Department nominated by the Head of the Department, as members, and the Dean ’ s nominee as Secretary.

10.    For Schools, the Examination Board should include the Dean, as Chair, at least five members of the full-time academic staff of the School appointed by the School Board as members, and the Dean ’ s nominee as Secretary.

11.    For the Division of Building Science and Technology, the constitution of the Examination Board should be as agreed by the Sub-committee on Undergraduate Studies.

12.    The constitution and membership of Examination Boards should be reported to the Quality Assurance Committee for information.

13.    A quorum for an Examination Board is fifty percent of its members.

14.    Examination Boards should have reference to Senate ’ s guideline for the decisions on academic awards. (Refer to Section H – Decisions on Academic Awards, Good Practices and Guidelines for Quality Education)