A-Z Policy Listing

COURSE REVIEW PROCEDURES

Date first approved:
16 July 2009

Date of effect:
16 July 2009

Date last amended:
(refer Version Control Table)
19 January 2016

Date of Next Review:
December 2018

First approved by:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Custodian title & e-mail address:

Course Management Coordinator, quality@uow.edu.au

Author:

Director, Academic Quality and Standards Unit

Responsible Division & Unit:

Academic Quality and Standards Unit, quality@uow.edu.au

Supporting documents, procedures & forms of this policy:

Approval of Faculty Course Review Panel Membership and Terms of Reference Form
Course Policy

Course Design Procedures

Course and Subject Approval Procedures – New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses
and Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses
Course Review Schedule

Course Review Report Template (Appendix 3)

Course Review Action Plan

General Course Rules

Notice of Intended Course Review
University of Wollongong Strategic Plan

UOW Quality and Standards Framework for Learning and Teaching
UOW Academic Review Policy

UOW Curriculum Model (as approved by Academic Senate in September 2014)

UOW Student Career Development and Employability Strategy

Relevant Legislation & External Documents:

Higher Education Standards Framework

Audience:

Public

Submit your feedback on this policy document using the Policy Feedback Facility.

Contents

1 Introduction and Scope

  • 1. These Procedures apply to all courses approved by the University of Wollongong under its self-accrediting authority as a higher education provider.
  • 2. These Procedures do not apply to:
        • a. courses offered by UOW College other than those UOW College award courses that are approved by the University of Wollongong; or
        • b. non-award courses offered by the University of Wollongong in Dubai in respect of which students may not exchange testamurs.
  • 3. Non-award courses offered by UOW are to be kept under regular review, in line with the process for review of subjects outlined in these Procedures.
  • 4. These Procedures replace the Curriculum Review Procedures approved on 5 November 2008.
  • 5. These Procedures are based on an update of the Curriculum Review Guidelines approved on 5 November 2008.

2 Purpose

  • 1. These procedures govern the systematic monitoring and review of courses and subjects. They support a continuous cycle of evaluation and improvement. This involves, among other things, evaluation and reflection by academic staff on the effects on student learning of course design, and approaches to teaching and assessment.
  • 2. The review process is a fundamental element of academic quality and standards, and is conducted in order to ensure that the core attributes of each course offered by the University are its:
    • 2.1. Quality – judged by reference to relevant sector and disciplinary standards and through benchmarking and other comparators;
    • 2.2. Viability – judged by reference to financial and academic sustainability measures; and
    • 2.3. Strategic Alignment – judged by reference to the strategic priorities of the University and of the faculty.
  • 3. These Procedures are aligned to and support the implementation of the following reference points:
        • a. The Higher Education Standards Framework;
        • b. The UOW Quality and Standards Framework for Learning and Teaching;
        • c. The UOW Curriculum Model; and
        • d. The Course Policy and the Course Design Procedures.

3 Definitions

Word/Term

Definition

AQSS

Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee, a duly constituted sub-committee of the University Education Committee.

Course

A program of study consisting of a combination of subjects and other requirements, whether leading to a specific higher education award or not.

Core Subject

A compulsory subject that must be completed in order to meet the requirements of a course, major or minor.

Capstone Subject

A subject that is designed to give students opportunities to integrate existing knowledge, consolidate skills, apply existing knowledge and skills, reflect on and evaluate their actions and develop their graduate or professional identity in an authentic setting. It may involve coursework, work experience, a research or creative project, work placement or internships or professional practice. These subjects often assure one or more course learning outcomes.

Elective Subject

A subject the selection of which is entirely optional for students in a course in meeting course requirements.

DVC(A)

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

External Accreditation

A formal process of assessing a course against professional or industry standards.

FEC

Faculty Education Committee and, in the case of UOW College, includes the College Education Committee.

Learning Outcomes

Statements of the knowledge, skills and application of knowledge and skills students are expected to achieve as a result of engaging with the content of the course, major or subject.

Major

An approved combination of subjects offered by one or more academic units which have a minimum value of one third of the total degree requirements.

A major in a Bachelor Degree is at least 48 credit points offered by one or more academic units. The title of the major will appear on the testamur.

SCDC

Strategic Course Development Committee

Subject

A self-contained unit of study identified by a unique code.

UOW

University of Wollongong

UOW Curriculum Model

A comprehensive set of curriculum themes, course design principles and transformational educational practices approved by Academic Senate in September 2014 for implementation in all non-HDR courses between 2015 and 2018.

4 Course and Subject Monitoring and Review Framework

Course and Subject Review Principles

  • 1. The review process is designed to:
    • a. support a reflective learning and teaching culture;
    • b. recognise exemplary learning and teaching practices;
    • c. disseminate and model good practice;
    • d. provide an opportunity to refresh a course in relation to contemporary concerns and contexts;
    • e. demonstrate maintenance of standards and adherence to regulatory requirements;
    • f. provide judicious feedback to those involved in course delivery;
    • g. include external input, benchmarking and use of external reference points;
    • h. draw on multiple stakeholders as appropriate;
    • i. consider multiple sources of information and data, including feedback from students; and
    • j. be conducted in a coordinated, collegial and transparent manner.

Course Approval and Re-approval

  • 2. In accordance with the status of the University as a self-accrediting higher education provider, and consistent with the Higher Education Standards Framework, each UOW course is deemed to be approved by the University, through Academic Senate, on initial approval, so that it may be offered for a specified period as provided in the Course Review Schedule.
  • 3. By the end of that period, in accordance with the Course Review Schedule and subject only to section 4(10) below, each course is to be the subject of a completed course review in accordance with these procedures as well as implementation action, so as to be:
    • a. re-approved by the Delegated Authority for a further period of up to five (5) years in order that students may continue to enrol in the course; or
    • b. suspended; or
    • c. discontinued.
  • 4. If a course review is not completed within the period specified in the Course Review Schedule such that the requirements of section 4(9) cannot be satisfied for reasons beyond the control of the Faculty (such as delays in the finalisation of an external accreditation process), the Delegated Authority may grant an interim re-approval for up to 1 year.

Course Review Stages

  • 5. The University’s approach to course review comprises of the following stages:

    Annual Review

    • 5.1. Annually, the University will review each Course Analytics Report. Each Faculty will assess the performance of each course it owns as measured by the Course Analytics data set.
    • 5.2. Where a Course Analytics Report indicates that there are significant issues with the performance of a course, the Faculty or the DVC(A) may instigate the following actions:
        • a. a Course Review in advance of the next scheduled course review, or
        • b. preparation of a proposal to suspend or discontinue a course.

    Periodic Comprehensive Review

    • 5.3. The Course Review occurs at least once every five (5) years, and provides for the course owning Faculty to conduct a comprehensive review. The review will be documented in a report that makes recommendations on the course and, if appropriate, to secure re-approval of the course by Academic Senate, either conditionally or unconditionally.
    • 5.4. The Faculty will act on the outcomes of the Course Review, including making changes to the course and submitting them for approval.

Course and Subject Review Schedules

Course Review Schedule

  • 1. Course Reviews are conducted in accordance with the Course Review Schedule determined by the DVC (A) in consultation with Faculty Executive Deans and Associate Deans. The schedule provide for the review of every course by the relevant course owning Faculty (and where a course includes major studies or specialisations, the review of these major studies or specialisations).
  • 2. The Course Review Schedule provides for each course to be reviewed at least every five (5) years. Courses will be reviewed in the time frames specified in the Course Review Schedule.
  • 3. The Course Review Schedule, as far as practicable, will align with the schedule for External Accreditation of courses that are externally accredited.
  • 4. The Course Review Schedule will provide for courses to be reviewed in conjunction with related courses and to be the subject of a single course review report. Related courses include:
        • a. Related double degree courses owned by the Faculty,
        • b. Nested courses,
        • c. Courses in the same or related disciplines,
        • d. Areas of major study in the same or related disciplines, and
        • e. Cognate courses (for example, related Dean’s Scholar, Scholar, Advanced and/or Honours course).
  • 5. The Course Management Coordinator in the Academic Quality and Standards Unit maintains the central Course Review Schedule for each Faculty. Any changes to this schedule are to be approved by the DVC (A) and advised to the Course Management Coordinator.
  • 6. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit will report on progress of course reviews against the Course Review Schedule and on the outcome of course reviews, to AQSS and, through AQSS, to each Faculty, at least annually.

Subject Review Schedule

  • 7. The Associate Dean (Education) in each Faculty will establish and maintain a schedule of all of the subjects owned by the Faculty and when they are to be reviewed. The schedule should ensure all subjects are reviewed at least every five years. This schedule should also be used to determine when subject evaluation surveys should be carried out on each subject.

5 Subject Reviews

  • 1. Subjects are reviewed either individually, as a related group of subjects, or as part of and in conjunction with a course review.
  • 2. As a guide:
        • a. core subjects within a course or major or minor study should be reviewed in conjunction with the review of the course or major or minor study, and taking account of any other schools or faculties that use those subjects as core subjects in their courses or major or minor study areas;
        • b. elective subjects should be reviewed using the stand alone process described below;
        • c. subjects that are core in more than one course or major or minor study need only be reviewed once in the subject review period;
        • d. faculties should work cooperatively in reviewing and making consequential changes to subjects that are taught into more than one course or major or minor study.
  • 1. A subject review will address the subject review evaluation criteria set out in Appendix 1.
  • 2. For each stand-alone subject review, the Associate Dean (Education) or nominee will appoint:
        • a. a Subject Reviewer who is a member of staff who has not taught the subject for at least two years; and, if considered necessary by the Associate Dean (Education), or
        • b. a small (3 members) Subject Review Group whose membership will be determined by the Associate Dean (Education), and that may include the current subject coordinator.
  • 3. The Subject Reviewer or Subject Review Group will consider feedback from:
        • a. students – through the Subject Evaluation Survey and other appropriate means (e.g. open feedback sessions)
        • b. academic peers – through peer evaluation of subject documentation, materials and performances
        • c. staff from other units, faculties or institutions as appropriate
  • 4. When a stand-alone subject review is completed, the Subject Reviewer or Subject Review Group will prepare a summary report addressing the evaluation criteria listed in Appendix 1, including any recommendations for improvement and submit it to the FEC.
  • 5. The FEC will consider the stand alone subject review report and may:
        • a. endorse as is;
        • b. endorse as modified; or
        • c. substitute,
        • the recommendations in the summary report or refer the report back to the Subject Reviewer/Subject Review Group for further consideration.
  • 6. The Associate Dean (Education) will refer the outcome of the FEC’s consideration to the responsible Head of School, who will initiate and monitor implementation of the recommended subject improvements.
  • 7. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit will monitor Faculty based stand-alone subject reviews and will report on any such monitoring to AQSS.

6 Initiation and Conduct of a Course Review

Initiation of a Course Review

  • 1. A course review will be initiated by the Faculty if the course is to continue to be offered and, if appropriate, re-approved for delivery in accordance with the Course Review Schedule.
  • 2. A course review may also be initiated by:
        • a. the DVC(A) or the Faculty in response to the results of a Course Analytics Report, or
        • b. the DVC(A) or the Faculty Executive Dean outside of the schedule in response to significant concerns about the performance of a course ; or
        • c. the Associate Dean (Education) as a result of a recommendation from another course review or other quality assurance process.

Notice of Intended Course Review

  • 1. The Faculty will notify the following of the commencement of a course review:
        • a. all Schools that own subjects that are core subjects in the course and any major study within the course
        • b. where the course review includes:
          • i. double degrees where a strand is owned by another faculty,
          • ii. a major study or minor study comprised entirely of subjects owned by another faculty,
          • that other faculty;
        • c. where the course is delivered offshore, the Associate Dean (International);
        • d. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic); and
        • e. the Academic Quality and Standards Unit.
  • 2. The Faculty is responsible for notifying relevant schools and staff within the Faculty and other faculties that own double degree strands, major or minor study areas.
  • 3. Notification of other parties is done by submitting a Notice of Intended Course Review to the Course Management Coordinator, who will inform other parties as required.
  • 4. Where the course review is being conducted in conjunction with an External Accreditation process, the Faculty will provide details in its notification of the nature and scope of the external accreditation process.

Faculty Course Review Panel

  • 5. The Faculty will establish a Faculty Course Review Panel to oversee the course review. The Faculty may opt to establish a working group or review team to support the Review Panel in its work.
  • 6. The membership of a Faculty Course Review Panel should comprise, at a minimum:
        • a. The Associate Dean (Education);
        • b. Where a course under review is delivered offshore, the Associate Dean (International) or nominee;
        • c. Where a course under review is a higher degree research course, the Associate Dean (Research) or nominee;
        • d. An Associate Dean or Head of School from another faculty;
        • e. A student representative nominated by the Faculty.
  • 7. External input into the course review process is required. At least two prominent persons held in high esteem in their field of relevant expertise, including relevant professional bodies, or relevant expertise in government or industry, who are external to the University should be represented on the Faculty Course Review Panel or the supporting course review team.
  • 8. As part of each course review process, at least one course review meeting will be held with a LTC representative, and other relevant parties as needed, to discuss issues of curriculum design and quality. For example: embedding the UOW Curriculum Model, the English Language Policy and the Assessment and Feedback principles; the Student Career Development and Employability Strategy; or areas arising from the course analytics.
  • 9. The Faculty may nominate additional members of the Faculty Course Review Panel.
  • 10. The terms of reference for the Faculty Course Review Panel will include the following items:
        • a. To assess the quality, viability, and strategic relevance of the course(s) under review;
        • b. To review and finalise a report on the course review that includes recommendations regarding the continuation of the course(s) and, if so, on improvements required to the course(s), together with plan for further action required to realise those improvements;
        • c. Where proposed changes arising from the course review comprise significant amendments to a course, to constitute and to fulfil the role of an External Course Advisory Committee to oversee and approve, in principle, any consequential amendments to the course(s) arising from the course review (at the time of considering the course review report or subsequently).
  • 8. The Faculty may include other issues for consideration as part of the review.
  • 9. The Faculty Executive Dean will approve the membership and terms of reference for the Faculty Course Review Panel.
  • 10. The DVC (A) will approve any terms of reference proposed for a Faculty Course Review Panel that do not meet the minimum membership requirements set out in these procedures.
  • 11. The chair of the Committee will be drawn from among the group members and will be appointed by the Faculty Executive Dean.
  • 12. The Faculty is responsible for providing professional services support to the Committee.
  • 13. The DVC (A) may waive the requirement to establish a formal Faculty Course Review Panel if the DVCA is satisfied that an External Accreditation process will substantially address the evaluation criteria set out in Appendix 2.

Stakeholder Engagement

  • 14. The Faculty will actively seek input into the review from the following areas of the University:
        • a. all affected academic units within the Faculty;
        • b. any other faculty that owns subjects comprising core subjects within the course(s) or major or minor study area(s) under review;
        • c. the Learning, Teaching & Curriculum (LTC) Faculty Team for the relevant faculty;
        • d. a UOW Librarian;
        • e. Faculty based or centrally based marketing and/or recruitment staff;
        • f. the Faculty International Unit (where applicable); and
        • g. relevant collaborative delivery/offshore partners, including UOWD (where applicable).

Consultation and Communication Strategy

  • 15. The Faculty will consult as widely as it considers necessary and, specifically, seek feedback from:
        • a. students;
        • b. graduates (if appropriate);
        • c. the Course Director/Associate Course Director;
        • d. representatives from any other Faculty that owns:
          • i. a core subject,
          • ii. an area of major study or minor study under review, or
          • iii. a strand of a double degree of which the course forms another strand;
        • e. where the course is offered onshore outside of Wollongong, staff involved in the delivery of the course at that or those locations;
        • f. where the course is offered offshore, staff at UOWD and/or TNE partners involved in the delivery of the course offshore; and
        • g. professional and/or industry representatives (if appropriate), including independent members of the Faculty Course Review Panel.
  • 16. A variety of consultation methods and tools may be employed as appropriate. Options include:
        • a. surveys/questionnaires;
        • b. focus groups;
        • c. forums; and
        • d. interviews.
  • 17. Consultation is of particular value for obtaining more qualitative information about the course that cannot be obtained from other data sources.

Reviewing the Course against the Evaluation Criteria

  • 18. The Faculty will evaluate the course against the Course Evaluation Criteria set out at Appendix 2 and against the UOW Curriculum Model, together with any additional criteria specified in the terms of reference, and by reference to relevant data as detailed in the evaluation criteria and from other relevant sources.
  • 19. A Faculty may determine to evaluate a course or courses first against the viability criteria to determine if the course(s) remains viable. If it or they are not assessed as viable, the Faculty may determine to discontinue the review of that course or those courses and to recommend that the course(s) be discontinued without further review in accordance with the processes set out in section 7.
  • 20. Each coursework course will be evaluated so that, as reviewed and re-approved, it conforms to the UOW Curriculum Model.
  • 21. Where an External Accreditation process includes evidence of an evaluation of the course against the criterion or criteria set out at Appendix 2, the outcome of that evaluation may be relied upon in satisfaction of that or those criterion/criteria.

7 Course Review Report and Recommendations

Development and Submission of the Course Review Report

  • 1. Upon completion of the review, a report is prepared for the Faculty Course Review Panel using the template at Appendix 3.
  • 2. This template sets out minimum requirements for a course review report. Additional information may be included where necessary. Where an External Accreditation process is relied upon as part of the review, the accreditation report should be provided, together with additional information with respect to those criteria not addressed in the accreditation report.
  • 3. The report and any supporting evidence will be made available to the Faculty Course Review Panel.
  • 4. The Report will include:
        • a. an Executive Summary comprising a brief overview of the key findings, and the recommendations;
        • b. details of the Faculty Course Review Panel and any supporting Course Review Groups;
        • c. a summary of the course review process and relevant commentary on the course(s) against the relevant evaluation criteria including, where relevant, references to data and issues identified in the Data Collection and to issues arising from the consultation process;
        • d. commentary on the course(s) assessed against the UOW Curriculum Model;
        • e. Faculty Course Review Findings (taking into account the evaluation criteria, the UOW Curriculum Model and any other requirements set out in the terms of reference); and
        • f. recommendations.
  • 5. Review recommendations may include:
        • a. re-approval of the course under review without amendment;
        • b. discontinuation or suspension of the course under review;
        • c. re-approval of the course under review subject to amendments to the course;
        • d. development of a new course or major study;
        • e. review of another related course;
        • f. changes to University rules or policies;
        • g. a review of a school;
        • h. the timing of the next scheduled review (if earlier than in five (5) years’ time).
  • 1. The Faculty Course Review Panel will review and, if necessary, make changes, and formally approve the report for submission to the Faculty Education Committee (FEC). If not on the Review Panel, the external members to the review will be given the opportunity to comment on the review report before it is finalised and submitted to the FEC.
  • 1. The FEC will consider the report and, if required by the Executive Dean, forward it to the Executive Dean with any comments. The Executive Dean may provide further comments on the report.
  • 2. Taking account of the comments of the FEC and, if applicable, of the Executive Dean, the Faculty will develop its response to the report, including the proposed response to each recommendation and any other comments.

Circulation and Notification of the Faculty Course Review Report

  • 3. A copy of the full Faculty Course Review Report and the Faculty’s response to the report is to be provided to:
        • a. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic);
        • b. the Course Management Coordinator (for central records management).
  • 4. The Faculty may also provide a copy of the Executive Summary to relevant participants in the review.
  • 5. The DVC (A) will assess the Faculty Course Review Report, along with the Faculty’s response to the Report. The DVC (A) may seek advice prior to responding to the report.
  • 6. The DVC (A) may discuss implementation of the review recommendations with the Executive Dean, and relevant members of the Faculty Executive.
  • 7. The DVC(A) will respond to the report by:
        • a. approving the recommendations, in full or in part, which represents finalisation of the course review; or
        • b. referring the Report and the Faculty’s response back to the Executive Dean of the Faculty with a request to consider new matters or to reconsider matters identified in the referral.
  • 8. The Executive Dean of the Faculty will respond to any referral by the DVC (A) by addressing the matters raised and resubmitting the Faculty Course Review Report and the Faculty’s response, at which point the DVC (A) will respond as provided in clause 7.13.

8 Implementing the Outcomes of the Course Review

  • 1. On finalisation of a course review, the approved recommendations of the review will be implemented as follows:
        • a. each course that has been the subject of a finalised course review and that is to remain on offer will be submitted to the Delegated Authority for re-approval, and where approved subject to amendments, conditional on those amendments being made;
        • b. approved amendments to a course (including amendment or suspension) or discontinuation of a course will be implemented by the Faculty and the University as required using the relevant course management process;
        • c. the Academic Quality and Standards Unit will act on any approved recommendation to amend University policy arising from a course review; and
        • d. the University will act on any approved recommendation to carry out a School Review as provided in the relevant University policy documents.
  • 2. The Course Management Coordinator will update the Course Review Schedule once the course review has been finalised, by recording the outcomes of the course review on the Course Review Schedule.
  • 3. On re-approval of a course, the Course Management Coordinator will advise the Faculty of the next scheduled review date for the course.
  • 4. The Faculty will implement and report to the Course Management Coordinator on the progress towards finalisation of all approved amendments to the course within 9 months of the approval of the recommendations made in the Course Review Report and thereafter every 6 months until all approved recommendations made in the Course Review Report have been implemented. The Course Management Coordinator will update the Course Review Schedule with details of this implementation action.
  • 5. Where the course is delivered by a third party provider or by UOW offshore, then having regard to local accreditation requirements at the relevant delivery location, the Faculty will implement and report as provided above within 18 months of the approval of the recommendations made in the Course Review Report and thereafter every 6 months until all approved recommendations made in the Course Review Report have been implemented.

9 Roles and Responsibilities

  • 1. Faculty staff named in these procedures are responsible for the timely and effective review of courses in accordance with the Course Review Schedule and these Procedures.
  • 2. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit is responsible for:
        • a. the overall implementation of the Course Review Schedule;
        • b. ensuring that courses are reviewed in accordance with University policy;
        • c. ensuring that courses are reviewed and monitored in fulfilment of the University’s obligations under the Higher Education Standards Framework;
        • d. managing records from course review activities as provided in the Records Management Policy; and
        • e. reporting on its implementation and monitoring activities under these Procedures as required to AQSS.
  • 1. Learning, Teaching and Curriculum is responsible for supporting the implementation of the UOW Curriculum Model through the course review process.
  • 2. AQSS is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Course Review Schedule, and for monitoring the effectiveness of these Procedures to support the quality assurance and quality enhancement of UOW courses.

10 Version Control Table

Version Control

Date Effective

Approved By

Amendment

1

16 July 2009

Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic)

First version

2

21 August 2009

Senior Manager, Policy and Governance

Updating

3

19 February 2010

Senior Manager, Policy and Governance

Updating the DASH Reports section and updating procedural provisions,

Setting new review date.

4

18 January 2013

Vice-Principal (Administration)

Updated to reflect title changes from DVC (A) to DVC (E) and DVC (O) to SDVC.

5

19 January 2016

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Review of course review process and consolidation of provisions within the Course Review Guidelines and Course Review Procedures. Inclusion of course review criteria.

Appendix 1 – Subject Review Evaluation Criteria

  • 1. A subject review will address the following subject review evaluation criteria:
    • 5.1. Design
        • a. Appropriateness of the subject learning outcomes;
        • b. In the case of core subjects, alignment to or inclusion of the learning outcomes of any course and/or major study/specialisation into which the subject is taught;
        • c. Suitability of subject content having regard to:
          • i. the relevant discipline,
          • ii. contemporary developments, including contemporary research,
          • iii. accreditation requirements (if any),
        • d. Suitability of assessment tasks having regard to:
          • i. the learning outcomes (including assuring all learning outcomes are assessed),
          • ii. assessment policy, and
          • iii. assessment and feedback principles;
        • e. Suitability of subject name;
        • f. Where the subject is at 100 level how it contributes to first year transition;
        • g. Viability of the subject having regard to enrolments and attrition; and
        • h. What relevant elements of the UOW Curriculum Model should be incorporated into the design of the subject.
    • 5.2. Delivery
        • a. Appropriateness of delivery methods,
        • b. Subject resources (including the Subject Outline, the Moodle site and other resources) and teaching materials are contemporary and relevant;
        • c. Where relevant, arrangements for delivery at other delivery locations including by third parties.
    • 5.3. Support
        • a. Range of student support available to students (including via the Library, through Learning Analytics and/or other technology enhanced learning channels),
        • b. How effectively academic integrity is supported in the subject,
        • c. Academic and English language support.
    • 5.4. Performance
        • a. Comparative student performance data,
        • b. Subject evaluation survey data,
        • c. Data on the assurance of subject learning outcomes,
        • d. Other feedback from students and staff.

Appendix 2 – Course Review Evaluation Criteria

Course Data, Evidence and Evaluation Criteria

  • 1. The Course Review Evaluation Criteria are the matters to be considered reviewing a course or courses for re-accreditation.
  • 22. The criteria are based on relevant considerations identified in the Higher Education Standards Framework and in the UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching. Relevant standards and key references are listed below.
  • 23. Appropriate course data and relevant qualitative input should be used to support the findings of a course review. Recommended data and qualitative input is listed below.

Evaluation Criteria

Standards References

Data/Input Sources

Section A: Performance Data and Prior Reviews

    Are there any issue requiring investigation and/or resolution based on:

    i. rates of commencement, progression, completion and attrition for the course (by reference to historical performance and to other comparable courses and to the University overall)?

    ii. comparative student performance in core and capstone subjects

    iii.

HE Course Accreditation Standard 5.6

UOW Performance Standard 2.1

Course Analytics Report and Course Review Dashboard (DASH)

Curriculum Review Reports on WAM and Subject Success/Failure (DASH)

Course MRP Reports (SAI)

Comparative Student Outcome Reports for core and capstone subjects

Heads of Students

    Are there any issues requiring investigation and/or resolution arising from key data on the student experience including Student Experience Questionnaire, Course Experience Questionnaire, Graduate Destination Survey results and International Student Barometer Reports?

UOW Performance Standards 1.1 and 1.2

UOW Performance Standard 5.1

Student Experience Questionnaire

Course Experience Questionnaire

International Student Barometer Survey

Graduate Destinations Survey

  • What changes were made arising from the last course review conducted on the course? Were they effective to deal with any identified issues?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 6.1

UOW Design Standard 8.2

Last Course Review Report

Section B: Course Quality

B1: Course Structure (including the AQF) and Assurance of Learning

  • Are the course learning outcomes
  • i. expressed clearly
  • ii. systematically embedded through the course
  • iii. aligned to the knowledge, skills and application of knowledge and skills for the appropriate qualification level and type in the AQF, and
  • iv. aligned to assessment in core and capstone subjects?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2, 1.3, 1.6,2.1 and 5.1

UOW Design Standards 6.2, 7.1. 7.2. 7.4 and 10.1

AQF

UOW Curriculum Model DPs 1, 2 and 3 and TPs 2, 4 and 5

Course Design Procedures (Assurance of Learning)

LTC Staff

AQF Validation Tool

    How is the faculty assuring graduates from the course are achieving the stated course learning outcomes?

UOW Performance Standard 4.1

Course Design Procedures

AQF Validation Tool

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Course Experience Questionnaire

LTC Staff

  • Does the course conform to the requirements for the qualification level of the Australian Qualifications Framework in respect of :
  • i. the course name; and
  • ii. volume of learning?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2

UOW Design Standard 7.2

AQF

Course Design Procedures

LTC Staff

AQS Staff

  • Does the course and each major study/specialisation constitute a clear, distinct and coherent program of study that:
  • i. assists students to select the appropriate sequence of subjects?
  • ii. supports effective transition?
  • iii. ensures student meet pre/co-requisites?
  • iv. balances core/capstone and elective subjects to support student the achievement of course or major study/specialisation learning outcomes?
  • v. includes appropriate exit points (if applicable)

HE Provider Registration Standards 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1 and 7.2

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.3 and 1.6

UOW Design Standards 6.1 and 7.3

UOW Curriculum Model DPs 1, 2 and 3 and TPs 2, 4 and 5

General Course Rules

Course Design Procedures

Course Handbook Entry

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Subject Coordinators – Core and Capstone Subjects

UniAdvice

LTC Staff

Heads of Students

Course Handbook Page

AQF Validation Tool

B2: Course Content

  • Does the course content reflect information on the latest developments in and a real world focus on the affected discipline areas and in respect of the industries or professions (if any) to which it is aligned?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.2 and 1.3

UOW Design Standards 2.1 and 2.2

UOW Curriculum Model CT 1 and CT 2

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Discipline Leaders

Independent Academic Member of Course Review Group

Alumni

Employer, Industry and Profession Feedback

Accreditation Body Feedback

  • Is the course taken as a whole an intellectually challenging course drawn from a substantial and coherent body of knowledge and scholarship?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.2 and 1.3

UOW Design Standards 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 and 7.2

UOW Curriculum Model CT 4

Accreditation Reports

Independent Academic Member of Course Review Committee

LTC Staff

B3: Academic and Discipline Standards (if applicable)

    Does the course meet any professional and/or discipline standards relevant for this course?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2

UOW Design Standards 2.2 and 3.2

OLT Discipline Standards

Accreditation Standards

Independent Academic Member of Course Review Committee

Accreditation Reports

B4: Benchmarking

Compared to similar courses at other Universities, is this course appropriate in terms of its structure, content and course learning outcomes?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2

UOW Design Standard 3.5

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Discipline Leaders

Independent Members of the Faculty Course Review Panel

Benchmarking Outcomes (e.g. external moderation)

Accreditation Reports

B5: Student Professional Experience (if applicable)

    Does the course provide suitable opportunities for industry or professional experience?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2

UOW Design Standard 1.1

UOW Curriculum Model CT 2

Course Handbook

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Discipline Leaders

B6: Admissions, Pathways and Credit

  • Are the course selection requirements (or admission criteria):
  • i. comparable to equivalent courses at other comparable providers and
  • ii. appropriate to ensure that students can succeed in the course?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 3.1

UOW Design Standard 9.1 and 9.2

Admissions Rules

Course Handbook

Course Finder

Course Review Dashboard Admissions Data (DASH)

UniAdvice

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Learning Analytics data

  • Are the most commonly used admission or articulation pathways (e.g. TAFE, nested qualifications, HSC, Early Entry, interview) effective based on student performance by pathway?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.5 and 3.1

UOW Design Standards 5.1, 9.1 and 9.2

Course Review Dashboard Admissions Data (DASH)

Comparative Student Outcomes Reports (for subjects offered exclusively to students within the course)

  • Are existing formal credit arrangements up to date and effective?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 3.1 -3.5

AQF Qualifications Pathways Policy

UOW Design Standard 9.2

Comparative Student Outcomes Reports (for subjects offered exclusively to students within the course)

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Head of Students

Faculty International Unit

UniAdvice

UOW Credit Web pages

Faculty Credit Web pages

Course Handbook Entry

B7: Course Information

  • Is course marketing material accurate and relevant to prospective students?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 2.4 and Provider Registration Standards 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3

UOW Design Standard 6.1

ESOS National Code

ESOS Framework

Course Marketing Material

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Faculty Marketing Unit

UniAdvice

  • Is the course handbook entry clear and accurate in assisting students with information on the course?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 2.4 and Provider Registration Standards 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3

UOW Design Standard 6.1

Course Handbook Entry

Course Director/Associate Course Director

B8: Assessment Design

  • Is assessment design in the course consistent with the UOW Assessment and Feedback Principles?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 5.1 and 5.2

UOW Design Standards 7.2, 10.1 and 10.2

Assessment and Feedback Principles

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Subject Coordinators

LTC Staff

B9: Academic and English Language

  • How is language development built into the course structure (e.g. diagnostic assessment early in the course)? Is this adequate?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.2 and 5.6

UOW Support Standard 8.2

UOW Curriculum Model DP 1 and TP 1

English Language Policy

Curriculum Review Analysis – Success Data by Domestic/International (DASH)

Comparative Student Outcomes AQF Validation Tool

Course Director/Associate Course Director

LTC Staff

B10: First Year Transition (for undergraduate courses)

  • How is the transition of students through their first year of study managed in the delivery of the course? Is this effective?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2 and Provider Registration Standard 6.5

UOW Support Standards 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4

UOW Curriculum Model DP 1 and TP 1

Curriculum Review Student Success Data (DASH)

Course Director/Associate Course Director

LTC Staff

Subject Coordinators – First Year Subjects

Learning Analytics data

B11: Learning Support and Learning and Other Resources

  • Are there sufficient academic, information and other resources (e.g. laboratory and equipment requirements and resources) available to academic staff to present the course and individual subjects effectively?

HE Provider Registration Standards 5.2 and 7.1

UOW Support Standards 6.1 and 7.2

UOW Curriculum Model CTs 1, 2 and 3 and TP 3

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Subject Coordinators

Faculty Librarian

UOW Library

  • What technology enhanced learning is incorporated into the course? How is the delivery of this technology-enabled learning in the course being managed?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 2.3

UOW Support Standard 7.3

UOW Curriculum Model CT 3 and TP 3

TEL Strategy

Learning Analytics Reports

Course Director/Associate Course Director

LTC Staff

IMTS Staff

B12: Teaching Quality

  • Are there any identified gaps in academic qualifications, skills or experience of academic staff delivering the course? If so, can they be filled?

HE Provider Registration Standard 5.1 and Course Accreditation Standard 4.2

UOW Delivery Standard 1.3

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Human Resources Division

  • How effective is the level of collaboration within teaching teams for core and capstone subjects within the course or major study/specialisation?

HE Provider Registration Standards 5.3

UOW Delivery Standards 3.2, 6.1 and 6.2

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Subject Coordinators – Core and Capstone Subjects

B13: Delivery and Assessment Methods

  • Are subject delivery and assessment methods:
  • i. suitable for both the course structure and the types of students in the course?
  • ii. used innovatively in the course?

UOW Delivery Standards 5.1 - 5.3

UOW Curriculum Model (all elements)

TEL Strategy

Student Analytics Reports

Course Director/Associate Course Director

LTC Staff

IMTS Staff

  • Is external peer review of assessment used to validate and assure the equivalence of student performance in selected units of study? If so, what are the findings of the most recent external peer review of assessment conducted on subjects within the course?

HE Provider Registration Standard 5.6 and Course Accreditation Standard 5.5

UOW Delivery Standard 9.5

Assessment and Feedback Principles

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Subject Coordinators – Core and Capstone Subjects

B14: Multiple Delivery Locations (Applicable only for courses delivered at multiple campuses)

  • Is there appropriate contextualisation of the course content (for offshore delivery)?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.9 and 7.5

UOW Design Standards 2.3 and 7.5

UOW Curriculum Model TP 4

Student Feedback Data from non-UOW locations

UOWD and TNE Partner feedback

  • How is comparability and equivalence of course delivery and of course outcomes assured?

HE Provider Registration Standard 4.5 and 5.4

UOW Delivery Standards 10.1, 10.3 and 11.1

Principles of Equivalence

Course Handbook

Offshore Course Handbook

AQF Validation Tool

Annual Review Reports

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Head of School

Faculty International Unit

TNE&A Unit

UOWD and TNE Partners

  • What level of collaboration occurs among:
  • i. teaching staff delivering the course at different delivery locations?
  • ii. students studying across delivery locations

HE Provider Registration Standards 5.3

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.9 and 7.5UOW Delivery Standards 2.3, 3.2, 6.1, 6.2 and 7.5

UOW Curriculum Model TP 4

Annual Review Reports

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Faculty International Unit

TNE&A Unit

UOWD and TNE Partners

  • What issues have arisen with respect to offshore delivery (including by reference to comparative student outcomes data), and how are they being managed?

HE Provider Registration Standards 4.5 and 5.4

UOW Delivery Standards 10.1, 10.3 and 11.1

Faculty International Unit

UOWD and TNE Partners

Annual Review Reports

TNE&A Unit

UOWD and TNE Partners Comparative Student Outcomes Reports and Faculty Response

Section C - Course Viability

C1: Fees and Costs

  • Is the income generated by this course sufficient to justify its continuation?
  • HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2
  • UOW Design Standard 1.2
  • Course Proposal Financial Estimation Tool (Course Management Intranet)
  • Faculty Management Accountant
  • Are there any significant costs that are unique to this course, and have they been factored in to the course financial viability?
  • HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2
  • UOW Design Standard 1.2
  • Faculty Management Accountant
  • C2: Academic Viability
  • Is the course at risk from dependence on a small number of academic staff? If so, how are academic retention risks being managed
  • HE Provider Registration Standard 3.4
  • Course Director/Associate Course Director
  • Head of School
  • C3: Sufficient and Sustainable Demand
  • Looking at the enrolment and attrition trends over the past 3 years:
  • i. is course demand decreasing, stable or increasing?
  • ii. are rates of attrition of concern compared to the University’s overall rate of internal and external attrition?
  • iii. is there any evidence of a shift in the source of applicants, and how is this being managed?
  • iv. is there evidence of cannibalisation of or by this course caused by or impacting on other UOW courses?
  • HE Provider Registration Standard 2.1
  • HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2
  • UOW Design Standard 1.2
  • Course Review Dashboard (DASH)
  • Curriculum Review Reports – Course Demographic Data (DASH)
  • Strategic Marketing and Communications
  • Course Director/Associate Course Director
  • UniAdvice

Section D - Strategic Alignment

D1: Alignment with UOW Strategic Priorities

    How does this course align with the Learning and Teaching Goals of the UOW Strategic Plan?

UOW Design Standard 4.

UOW Strategic Plan

UOW Education Strategy

Faculty Executive

    How does this course fit in the overall portfolio of courses offered by the School, the Faculty and the University?

UOW Design Standard 4.1

UOW Strategic Plan

Faculty Strategic Plan

Faculty Executive

Faculty Marketing Unit

UniAdvice

    Does the course include study abroad and/or student exchange opportunities? If not, can these be considered?

UOW Strategic Plan

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Study Abroad and Exchange

D2: Alignment with Faculty Strategic Priorities

    How does this course align with the Faculty’s strategic priorities?

UOW Design Standard 4.1

Faculty Strategic Plan

Faculty Executive

D3: Meeting the Needs of External Stakeholders

    Has there been any feedback from employers, industry or accreditation bodies about the course and whether it meets the requirements of employers (such as professional or industry reports or accreditation reviews)? What if any changes should be made as a result?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2

UOW Design Standard 1.1

Accreditation Standards

Careers Central

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Alumni

Independent Member of Faculty Course Review Panel

Accreditation Bodies

Industry Groups

D4: Meeting the Needs of the Community

    Is this a course that is in demand from the local region or meet local or regional shortages?

    HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2

    UOW Design Standard 1.1

    Graduation Destinations Survey

    IRIS Reports

    Does the course involve engagement with the local community? If so, how? If not, are there opportunities for this kind of engagement?

    HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2

    UOW Design Standard 1.2

    UOW Strategic Plan

    UOW Curriculum Model CT 2

    Course Director/Associate Course Director

Appendix 3 – Course Review Report Template

<FACULTY>

Course Review Report

<Faculty>

<Course(s)>

<DATE>

Contents

Details of Course under Review

    Name of Course(s) Under Review

 

    List Subjects Reviewed as part of this Review

 

    School/s

 

    Name of Course Director/Associate Course Director

 

    Date of last Course (or Curriculum)

    Review

 

    Date of last external accreditation review (if applicable)

 

    Is this review being conducted at the same time as an external review or accreditation process?

     Yes

     No

    If yes, provide details of accreditation body and the nature and scope of the review or process

 

Executive Summary

Including

     Key Findings

     Image
    Recommendations

Course Review Governance

Faculty Course Review Panel Membership and Terms of Reference

Course Review Team Membership

Image

Consultation and Data Collection

Image

Course Review Commentary

Evaluation Criteria – briefly describe principal findings of the review against these criteria.

Performance Data and Prior Reviews – Section A of the Evaluation Criteria

Image

Course Quality – Section B of the Evaluation Criteria

     Course Structure (including the AQF) – Section B1

Image

     Course Content – Section B2

Image

     Image
    Academic and Discipline Standards – Section B3

     Image
    Benchmarking – Section B4

     Student Professional Experience (if applicable) – Section B5

Image

     Image
    Admissions, Pathways and Credit – Section B6

     Course Information – Section B7

Image

     Assessment Design – Section B8

Image

     Image
    Academic and English Language – Section B9

     First Year Transition – Section B10

Image

     Learning Support and Learning and Other Resources – Section B11

      Image

     Teaching Quality – Section B12

Image

     Delivery and Assessment Methods – Section B13

Image

     Multiple Delivery Locations (Only for courses delivered at multiple campuses) – Section B14

Image

Course Viability – Section C of the Evaluation Criteria

     Fees and Costs – Section C1

Image

     Academic Viability – Section C2

Image

     Sufficient and Sustainable Demand- Section C3

Image

Strategic Alignment – Section D of the Evaluation Criteria

     Alignment with UOW Strategic Priorities – Section D1

Image

     Alignment with Faculty Strategic Priorities – Section D2

Image

     Meeting the Needs of External Stakeholders – Section D3

Image

     Meeting the Needs of the Community – Section D4

Image

Curriculum Transformation

Summarise recommended changes to the course against the elements of the UOW Curriculum Model.

     FYE@UOW - Please describe how the first year curriculum will be structured to progressively equip students with the academic skills and the disciplinary foundations they will need for success in future years, including language communication development.

Image

     MyPortfolio@UOW - Please describe how selected assessments in each year of study will be designed to give students the opportunities, skills and resources to develop and showcase their disciplinary and communication achievements, through a diverse set of “real-world”, authentic professional artefacts and accompanying reflections relevant to the discipline.

Image

     Hybrid learning@UOW - Please describe how hybrid learning will be embedded into the course, to (i) offer a rich range of learning opportunities which optimally combine digital learning and face-to-face interaction and (ii) introduce students to the diversity of digital tools, collaboration platforms and practices they will encounter in their future professions.

    Image

     Connections@UOW - Please describe how selected subjects will provide structured interactions which challenge and deepen students’ cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary understandings, including Indigenous knowledge, international perspectives and the ability to communicate professionally and ethically with people from a diversity of backgrounds.

    Image
    

     Capstones@UOW - Please describe how the course will offer a student-centred capstone experience: a major project, workplace or other authentic experience where students synthesise the knowledge and skills gained throughout their course (learning outcomes) to solve actual or simulated real-world problems, showcasing their work to an audience beyond their class.

    Image
    

     How would you explain to future students the ways these five transformative practices come together in this course? Please include how the course:

        o provides opportunities for an integrated experience of real-world focused and research/enquiry-led learning.

        o is structured to assist students’ transition, build connections with intercultural, international and interdisciplinary ideas and synthesise their learning at key points.

      Please write this as a plain-English, engaging description for students, giving a range of specific examples.

    Image
    

Recommendations and Faculty Response

Image

Sign Off

Associate Dean (Education):

(Signature & Date)

Chair, Faculty Course Review Panel:

(Signature & Date)

Executive Dean:

(Signature & Date)

Response of the Faculty Education Committee

Image

Approved for submission to Academic Senate

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

(Signature & Date)

Approved for continued offer (at meeting held on: )

Chair, Academic Senate:

(Signature & Date)

Appendices

Data

Consultation information

Image

Appendix 4 – Flowcharts

Image

Image

Image

Here to Help

Need a hand? Contact the Governance Unit for advice and assistance on policy issues.