Design Standards
- 1. UOW courses are viable
- 2. UOW courses are relevant
- 3. UOW courses are academically rigorous
- 4. UOW courses are strategically aligned
- 5. UOW courses have flexible learning pathways
- 6. UOW courses are clearly communicated
- 7. UOW courses produce strong outcomes
- 8. UOW courses are quality assured
- 9. UOW has sound admission policies and practices
- 10. Assessment is appropriate and linked to outcomes
- 11. Academic language and learning support is embedded in design
| Performance indicator | Measure |
Key inputs |
External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Courses are designed to reflect the needs of industry and the professions as well as broader societal needs |
CPDG Assessment ECAC report/ Course approval outcome Course review outcome |
Course Policy Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures External Course Advisory Committee Course Monitoring and Review Procedures |
Professional Accreditation Requirements (where applicable) | CPDG> FEC> QARG> Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 1.2 Courses are cost effective and sustainable |
Course approval information includes realistic projections of the demand and resources required for the course Course review outcomes |
As above |
- | CPDG> FEC> QARG> Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 Course development and review incorporates advice provided by employers, students, HDR candidates and graduates |
Course review outcomes ECAC report |
Course Design Procedures External Course Advisory Committee Course Monitoring and Review Procedures |
HES 5.3.1 |
CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 2.2 Courses are maintained having regard to developments within the discipline and profession/ industry |
Student feedback (SES) Graduate feedback (GOS) Employer feedback (ESS) Course review outcomes implementation No. of HDR internships |
As above |
HES 3.1.2 | CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 2.3 Courses are designed to be relevant and flexible for multi-campus delivery where appropriate |
Student and HDR candidate feedback (all delivery locations) |
Course Design Procedures Teaching and Assessment - Subject Delivery Policy Collaborative Delivery Teaching and Assessment - Assessment and Feedback Policy |
HES 3.1.4 | CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 Course content (knowledge, skills and application of knowledge and skills) is drawn from a substantial and coherent body of knowledge and scholarship |
Courses are developed by disciplinary experts and endorsed by FEC and QARG No. of HDR Examiner Commendations |
Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures Thesis Examination Process |
HES 1.1.2 | CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 3.2 Course content (knowledge, skills and application of knowledge and skills) includes the study of relevant theoretical frameworks and recent research findings | Courses are developed by disciplinary experts and endorsed by FEC and QARG |
Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures |
HES 3.1.2 | CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 3.3 Courses are designed to meet the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework and other relevant government and professional accrediting bodies |
ECAC outcomes Course review outcomes Professional accreditation review outcomes (where applicable) |
Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures |
HES 3.1.5; 1.4.1; 1.5.3 CAA requirements (Dubai)
|
CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 3.4 Courses are designed to provide appropriate engagement by students in intellectual inquiry consistent with the level of the course being taught and the expected learning outcomes |
Alignment of course learning outcomes to the AQF levels |
Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures |
HES 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 | CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 3.5 Courses are benchmarked against those offered by comparable higher education providers |
Course review outcomes External reference points in Course Review Data Packs |
Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures Course Monitoring and Review Procedures |
HES 1.4.1; 5.3.1; 5.3.4 | CPDG > FEC > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 Portfolio of courses are consistent with the profile and strategy of the Faculty and University | Course endorsed by CPDG |
UOW Strategic Plan Operational/ Faculty plans Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures |
- | CPDG > FEC > QARG > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 There is a range of entry pathways that recognise the diversity of educational and life experiences |
Enrolment data by pathway Council KPI for Equity Participation |
Course and Subject Approval Procedures UOW Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Strategy Student Equity Framework Coursework Rules and Admission Procedures Credit for Prior Learning Policy |
HES 1.2.1; 1.2.2 | FEC> UEC> Academic Senate |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6.1 UOW provides clear, accurate information to allow prospective and current students and HDR candidates to make informed education choices |
Marketing materials (incl. web-based) are approved at the appropriate level Subject outlines conform to TAPS and Honours Policy provisions Student and HDR candidate feedback |
Course Handbook Course Finder Database Teaching and Assessment: Code of Practice - Teaching Teaching and Assessment: Subject Delivery Policy Honours Policy |
HES 7.2.1; 7.2.2;7.2.3; 7.2.4 ESOS National Code Standard 1, 2 and 3 |
FEC> UEC> Academic Senate |
| 6.2 Courses (and subjects within courses) have clear expectations expressed as learning outcomes | Learning outcomes articulated at subject and course/major level (curriculum maps) |
Course and Subject Approval Procedures Course Design Procedures Course Handbooks Teaching and Assessment - Subject Delivery Policy Subject Outlines |
HES 1.4.1 ESOS National Code Standards 2 and 3 |
CPDG> FEC > QARG > Academic Senate |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
7.1 Courses are designed to enable students and HDR candidates to achieve course learning outcomes |
Course/major mapped to course learning outcomes and include, where appropriate, research or research related study | Course Design Procedures | HES 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.1.3; 3.1.4 | CPDG> FEC > QARG |
| 7.2 Courses are designed in accordance with identified UOW curriculum priorities | Course endorsed by CPDG |
Course Design Procedures |
- | FEC>UEC>Academic Senate |
| 7.3 Courses are clearly structured to provide coherence and transition from one level to the next |
Course endorsed by CPDG Course structure amendments approved by FECs |
Course Design Procedures | HES 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.1.3 | CPDG > FEC > QARG |
| 7.4 Learning activities, teaching, educational resources and facilities, and assessment of student and HDR candidate learning are aligned to provide for engagement with advanced knowledge and inquiry and for effective achievement of student and HDR candidate learning outcomes |
Student and HDR candidate feedback Staff feedback surveys on course reviews Quality of HDR candidate theses, publications and conference presentations, research awards etc. (in accordance with disciplinary standards) |
Course Design Procedures Comparative Student Outcomes Reviews HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy and Process |
HES 1.4.4; 1.4.5; 3.1.1-3; 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 Australian Council of Graduate Research Guidelines |
FEC/FRC > UEC/URC > Academic Senate |
| 7.5 Courses are designed to ensure equivalent student and HDR candidate learning outcomes regardless of place or mode of study |
Comparative Student Outcomes Report Graduate outcomes by location (including online) |
Course Design Procedures Equivalence Principles CSO and Interim Course Monitoring Procedures |
HES 3.1.4 | CPDG > FEC > QARG |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.1 Academic Senate (or the appropriate delegated authority) approve all new courses and major amendments to courses based on being satisfied they meet the Course Policy and Course Approval Procedures | Course approval processes and review by QARG |
Course Policy Course and Subject Approval Procedures Assessment of New Collaborative Delivery Procedures |
HES 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 ESOS National Code Standard 11 |
CPDG > FEC > Academic Senate or DVCASL |
| 8.2 Courses (and majors within courses) are reviewed at least every five years or as required to ensure they remain relevant, engaging and viable |
Course Review Report approved and course re-approved by DVCASL Professional Accreditation Reports Annual report on course approvals and reviews |
Course Policy Course Monitoring and Review Procedures Course Review Schedule |
HES 5.3.1 | EPAQ > UEC > Academic Senate |
| 8.3 UOW has effective arrangements for the quality assurance of work placements and other forms of work-integrated learning in the course | Feedback from students, HDR candidates and host organisations |
Code of Practice – WIL (Professional Experience) Student Career Development Learning Framework |
HES 5.4.1 | WILAC > UEC > Academic Senate |
|
8.4 Courses delivered by collaborative delivery partners are reviewed annually to ensure equivalent learning outcomes |
Annual review report Subject QA reports |
Collaborative Delivery - Subject Quality Assurance Procedures Collaborative Delivery Review Procedures |
HES 5.4.2 Professional Accreditation requirements (where applicable) |
FIC> EPAQ/TES > UEC/UIC > Academic Senate |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 Courses have clear and validated entry requirements |
Course Handbook and Course Finder CSO Report |
Admission rules within Coursework Rules/HDR Rules | HES 1.1.1; 1.1.3; 4.2.2 | CPDG > FEC > Academic Senate |
| 9.2 UOW accepts students and HDR candidates who demonstrate the capacity to be successful in their study |
Student and HDR candidate retention and progression results Review of student and HDR candidate performance by pathways/entry levels |
Admission rules within Coursework Rules/HDR Rules Admission Procedures CSO Process |
HES 1.1.1 | FEC > EPAQ > UEC > Academic Senate |
| 9.3 UOW provides an appropriate supervisory and study environment and induction process for newly admitted HDR candidates |
HDR progression reports PREQ results |
Course Rules within the HDR Rules HDR Supervision and Resource Policy |
HES 2.1.1; 4.2.1; 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 Australian Council of Graduate Research Guidelines |
FRC > URC > Academic Senate |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.1 Assessment is criterion-based, with methods of assessment that are appropriate to the course and subject learning outcomes |
Assessment tasks mapped to subject and course learning outcomes Curriculum Mapping Research Proposal Review (HDR Candidates) |
Teaching and Assessment: Code of Practice-Teaching Teaching and Assessment: Subject Delivery Policy Teaching and Assessment: Assessment & Feedback Policy Course Design Procedures HDR Award Rules |
HES 1.4.3; 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 | FEC/FRC > UEC/URC > Academic Senate |
| 10.2 Assessment is designed to be fair, consistent and equitable |
Course review outcomes Moderation of subject outlines Moderation of assessment School Assessment Committee Review Thesis Examination Outcomes Appeals against thesis outcomes |
Teaching and Assessment: Code of Practice-Teaching Teaching and Assessment: Subject Delivery Policy Teaching and Assessment: Assessment & Feedback Policy Course Monitoring and Review Procedures HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Policy and Process |
HES 1.4.3; 1.4.5; 1.4.6; 4.2.1 and 5.3.2 Australian Council of Graduate Research Guidelines |
FEC > UEC/URC > Academic Senate Thesis Examination Committee |
| 10.3 Students and HDR candidates have the opportunity to both receive and provide feedback and resolve issues |
Student and HDR candidate feedback about assessment (SES, CEQ) STEP SUbject and Teacher Evaluation Survey Student and HDR candidate complaints processes APR Outcomes (HDR Candidates) |
Teaching and Assessment: Code of Practice-Teaching Subject and Teacher Evaluation Procedures Teaching and Assessment: Assessment & Feedback Policy Honours Policy Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy HDR Student Academic Complaints Policy HDR Progress Guidelines |
HES 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 Australian Council of Graduate Research Guidelines |
FEC/FRC > UEC/URC > Academic Senate |
| Performance indicator | Measure | Key inputs | External references | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11.1 Academic staff are supported to integrate English language proficiency (ELP) into curricula and teaching |
Staff feedback Learning Development annual review of its effectiveness |
English Language Policy | The Good Practice Principles for English Language Proficiency for International Students in Australian Universities | FEC> UEC> Academic Senate |
| 11.2 Academic staff have opportunities to revise curricula and teaching to integrate ELP with discipline-specific learning |
Staff feedback Course Review reports Comparative Student Outcomes processes |
Course Monitoring and Review Procedures English Language Policy |
The Good Practice Principles for English Language Proficiency for International Students in Australian Universities | FEC> UEC> Academic Senate |
| 11.3 ELP is embedded in the curriculum through inclusion of an early diagnostic element to assist in identifying ELP in each course |
Course design as endorsed by FECs/QARG |
English Language Policy Course Design Procedures Course and Subject Approval Procedures |
HES 1.3.4 The Good Practice Principles for English Language Proficiency for International Students in Australian Universities |
FEC> UEC> Academic Senate |