View Current

Course and Subject Policy

This is the current version of this document. To view historic versions, click the link in the document's navigation bar.

Section 1 - Purpose

(1) As a registered higher education provider, Charles Sturt University (the University) is a self-accrediting authority under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and this policy sets out the requirements for each stage of the accreditation life cycle of the University’s courses and subjects: for their design and development, approval, delivery and management, continuous improvement and discontinuance. The policy should be read in conjunction with the procedures.

(2) This policy ensures that courses leading to awards of the University, and the subjects that make them up, will:

  1. be of a consistently high standard and assist the University in responding to new opportunities and the changing educational environment,
  2. be developed in alignment with the University strategy, its vision, values, and sustainability goals,
  3. be improved regularly on the basis of feedback from students, reflection and review by staff and external experts (including professional accrediting bodies), benchmarking and other appropriate sources of data,
  4. be designed in alignment with the Charles Sturt Education Framework so that:
    1. students can achieve course learning outcomes,
    2. students are provided with opportunities to demonstrate the University’s graduate attributes,
    3. students are equipped for, as relevant, their transition to a career, further study or research,
    4. it meets the needs of the regions, industries and professions served by the University,
    5. it is based on current knowledge, scholarship, underlying theoretical and conceptual frameworks aligned to the academic discipline or research represented in the course, and
    6. incorporates emerging concepts that are informed by recent scholarship, current research findings and, where applicable, advances in practice,
  5. meet requirements for professional accreditation, where relevant,
  6. comply with the relevant provisions of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021, and
  7. comply with the requirements of section 2.1.5(iv) of the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes 2013 that the University will have policy provisions on how it will handle conscientious objections to a use of animals in teaching.

Scope

(3) This policy applies to all courses and subjects (award and non-award) offered by the University and by third parties on behalf of the University, including non-award offerings. Its requirements for governance, management and delivery of courses and subjects apply to all university staff and adjunct staff involved in those activities.

(4) Some sections of this policy and its supporting procedures have a more limited scope, as stated in those sections.

References

(5) Where a rule, policy, procedure, guidelines or supporting document is named in this policy, it is listed in the associated information tab.

Top of Page

Section 2 - Glossary

(6) For the purposes of this policy, the following terms have the definitions stated:

  1. Accreditation – approval or re-approval of a course by the University as meeting the required course design requirements and standards; see also professional accreditation.
  2. Award – a qualification such as a certificate, diploma, or degree, which the University confers on students who have completed the requirements of the course of study leading to the qualification.
  3. Business case – means the documentation submitted by faculties to seek in principle approval for new courses or major changes to courses existing in accordance with the appropriate delegation.
  4. Course – as defined in the policy library glossary.
  5. Course documents – the documents submitted for academic approval of a new course or change to a course.
  6. Coursework course – as defined in the policy library glossary.
  7. Coursework subject – as defined in the policy library glossary.
  8. Discontinuation – means the cessation of an existing award course as approved by Academic Senate. Discontinuation is a status referring to a course that is no longer offered to new students. No students may be admitted into the course.
  9. Graduate attributes – as defined in the graduate attributes section of the Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure.
  10. Higher degree by research (HDR) course – as defined in the policy library glossary.
  11. Indigenous Australian content – see the Indigenous Australian Content in Courses and Subjects Policy for the University’s definition of this type of content.
  12. Intensive – a substantial learning activity in a course or subject that is delivered online, equivalent to a residential school but instead delivered in a condensed timeframe (online or on-campus); see also Residential school.
  13. Micro-credential – means a short module of learning that certifies achievement of learning outcomes; standards; knowledge, skills and/or capabilities that are not sufficient to warrant recognition by the University as a single course. It may be a proportion of learning of a standard course that addresses a subset of the total learning outcomes of the course.
  14. Minor and major course changes – expectations are that courses of study will evolve over time as we make improvements as part of our quality assurance processes and/or in response to changing circumstances, some changes may be relatively minor and others may be major. Further definition is contained in Section (35) of the Policy.
  15. Mode – the mode of delivery of a course or subject; e.g. online, on-campus.
  16. Non-award offering – single subject or micro subject in which a student is enrolled without having been admitted to a course that leads to an award of the University.
  17. Offering – an individual delivery of a course or subject in a session, at a location and by a mode.
  18. Professional accreditation – accreditation of a course by an external body such as a professional association, as meeting the standards set by the body for a qualification leading to the relevant profession.
  19. Reaccreditation – means the reapproval of an existing award course.
  20. Research component – one or more subjects for a higher degree by research course, a master by coursework and dissertation, or a bachelor (honours) course, in which students undertake a substantial piece of research involving a thesis, dissertation, portfolio or project.
  21. Residential school – a learning activity or set of learning activities held at a single physical location for students enrolled to study a course or subject online; see also Intensive.
  22. Scholarly activity – includes, in relation to a discipline or learning and teaching practice: original research; publications and presentations based on original research; published surveys of others’ research publications; editing or reviewing others’ research publications; leading advanced professional development activities; contributing to professional bodies or communities of practice; undertaking a qualification, at a higher level than the staff member’s current qualifications, that leads to a scholarly output; individual or collaborative activities and reflective practice to keep up with developments in a field; undertaking advanced specialised practice or a scholarly secondment.
  23. Short course – as defined in the policy library glossary.
  24. Single subject – a subject when a student is enrolled in it on a non-award basis.
  25. Subject documents – the documents submitted for academic approval of a new subject or change to a subject.
  26. Teach out – means the gradual process of discontinuation whereby Academic Senate has approved that the course no longer be offered to new students, but that students currently admitted to the course can continue their studies in accordance with the existing course structure and requirements.
  27. Teaching period – includes any session, term or other teaching period in which subjects are delivered.
Top of Page

Section 3 - Policy

Academic governance of courses and subjects

(7) Course and subject approvals will follow an academic governance decision-making path.

(8) Each course has an identified owner faculty that is responsible for course development, accreditation, maintenance, and reaccreditation.

(9) Approval of new courses, discontinuance and the reaccreditation of existing courses is a three-staged process.

(10) Approvals are managed through the curriculum management system. This system has pre-formatted templates to meet the University's requirements for approval of new award courses, reaccreditation, discontinuance and associated subject documentation.

(11) The Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) may advise, in exceptional circumstances, on an alternative approval process and supporting documentation for specific award course proposals.

Roles and responsibilities

(12) Academic Senate oversees the academic quality of the University’s award courses and subjects and their compliance with the relevant standards and regulations.

(13) Academic Senate approves course accreditation for new courses, major changes to courses, re-accreditation and discontinuation as part of the course accreditation and reaccreditation cycle.

(14) Academic Senate has authorised University level responsibilities for award course and subject quality assurance as follows:

University Courses Committee
  1. Endorses faculty recommendations for approval by Academic Senate for course documents from faculties for new courses, major changes to courses including discontinuance and reaccreditation of courses following comprehensive course review.
  2. Oversees the compliance of courses with the relevant standards and regulations and faculties’ work to ensure courses maintain review of courses and professional accreditation.
University Research Committee
  1. Endorses faculty recommendations for approval by Academic Senate for new research component subjects for HDR courses.
  2. Oversees compliance of HDR courses with the relevant standards and regulations, faculty review of HDR courses and faculties’ work to ensure HDR courses maintain professional accreditation.
University Learning and Teaching Committee
  1. Monitors academic staff levels of scholarly activity.
  2. Receives reports from faculties on (but not limited to) subject improvements, student performance and student experience surveys (internal and external).
  3. Receives reports on faculties’ monitoring of academic quality in courses including those delivered in partnership with third parties.
Faculty Boards
  1. Oversees the academic quality and review of courses and subjects managed by the faculty, through their Faculty Courses Committee and Faculty Research Committee including those delivered in partnership with third parties.
  2. Oversees the maintenance of professional accreditation and report any issues, impending professional reaccreditation activities and their outcomes to University Courses Committee.
  3. Approves existing course changes with no accreditation requirements on the recommendation of the Chair of the Faculty Courses Committee or Faculty Courses Committee. Minor non-academic subject changes may be approved by the Chair of Faculty Board.
  4. Approves subject documents including new subjects and changes to subjects and minor changes to existing coursework courses and HDR courses (which do not require reaccreditation).
  5. Approves short course and micro-credential (subjects and modules) on the recommendation of the Chair of the Faculty Courses Committee.
  6. Faculty Board have oversight of the External Advisory Committee activity reporting. Faculty Courses Committee will advise University Courses Committee of any issues from the External Advisory Committees via their Chairs report at any time.
Indigenous Board of Studies
Oversees the quality of Indigenous Australian content in courses and subjects. The Indigenous Australian Content in Courses and Subjects Policy states detailed requirements for this oversight in:
  1. approving course proposals as compliant with the Cultural Competency Pedagogical Framework, as a precondition for endorsement of the proposal by the Faculty Courses Committee, and
  2. approving applications for subjects to be classified as Indigenous Studies subjects.
  1. Refer to the Table of Approval Authorities for further guidance on the award course changes approved at University level, faculty level and for endorsing committee pathways, additional guiding information and other changes which may be approved by management.
  2. Standing Committees are recognised as approval authorities in accordance with the terms of reference.
  3. The terms of reference contained in the policy library of the committees provide more detail on these responsibilities, annual work plans, and cycle of reporting required.

Course approval and reaccreditation

(15) The Course and Subject Life Cycle Procedure states detailed requirements for the following stages of the life cycle and assurance of courses and subjects and are to be read in conjunction with the following section.

Stages and approval pathways

Stage Stage title Applicability University approval overview
1
Business case approval
For reaccreditation, a business case may not always be required.
  1. Endorsed by Executive Dean
  2. Approved by the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (for a coursework course) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) (for a higher degree by research course).
2
Course accreditation approval
Course reaccreditation approval
Change to existing courses
Where a course is to be offered in Australia to international students, CRICOS code application (for new courses) is required.
  1. University Courses Committee and University Research Committee endorse and recommend for approval to Academic Senate.
  2. Academic Senate approves.
3
Course commencement
For new courses
  1. The Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (for a coursework course) notifies key responsible areas of approval.
  2. Office of Planning and Analytics notifies key responsible areas of course availability (able to commence offers/admissions).
Course implementation
For reaccreditation
For existing course major and minor changes with no reaccreditation required
Suspension of intake
  1. The Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (for a coursework course) notifies key responsible areas of approval.
  2. Office of Planning and Analytics notifies key responsible areas of course availability (able to commence offers/admissions).
Refer to the Table of Approval Authorities for further guidance on the award course changes approved at University level, faculty level and for endorsing committee pathways, additional guiding information and other changes which may be approved by management. 

Stage 1: Business case

(16) The first stage of new course approval is the business case. The purpose of this stage is to:

  1. assess the course’s viability, strategic alignment, research strengths and potential commercial interest,
  2. consider all planning issues that may have an impact on the quality, risk management and successful delivery and management of a course including consideration of learning resources, facilities, and infrastructure (physical and virtual),
  3. provide evidence of the staffing complement to ensure it is sufficient to meet the educational, academic support, student wellbeing and safety support and administrative needs by ensuring:
    1. that all internal and external stakeholders have been consulted,
    2. impact of course development has been captured and acknowledge, and
    3. the academic staff profile has been reviewed for the course to ensure the level and extent of academic oversight and teaching capacity meets student needs.

(17) To discontinue a course, the business case is the first stage of the approval process and is completed in a short form manner (as directed within the template) demonstrating consideration of the impact on:

  1. continuing students,
  2. international applicants,
  3. graduates of the course,
  4. other faculty, and
  5. internal and external articulation arrangements.

(18) The Executive Dean is the sponsor of all new course and discontinuance proposals. The business case must be endorsed by the sponsor and recommended for approval prior to being considered by the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) for approval or rejections.

(19) The Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) may defer a business case proposal to the Executive Leadership Team for endorsement for any contentious proposals whereby stakeholder endorsement has not been provided or as deemed necessary.

(20) The above (clauses 16a, 16b, and 16c) must also be incorporated in the reaccreditation proposal of an existing course. A separate business case is not required as the above assessments, considerations and evidence are incorporated into the first stages of the comprehensive course review process and documentation.

Stage 2: Course accreditation and reaccreditation

(21) The second stage of the approval is the review of the proposal or documentation for a new course, review (comprehensive course review), discontinuance and course changes (major and minor) for accreditation approval. The purpose of this stage is to ensure that courses leading to an award will:

  1. meet or continue to meet the University's education principles, curriculum model and architectures,
  2. meet or continue to meet course and subject design requirements and the assigned AQF level,
  3. have considered and incorporated (where relevant):
    1. change in needs and feedback from students, staff, employers, practitioners, and industry professionals (including professional accrediting bodies) and external advisory committees,
    2. benchmarking and other appropriate sources of data,
    3. delivery factors, such as:
      1. appropriate skills for mode of delivery
      2. needs of student cohorts
    4. emerging developments in the field of education,
  4. have or continue to have the academic staff profile provide the level and extent of academic oversight and teaching capacity required,
  5. have or continue to have the staffing complement, learning and educational resources, facilities and infrastructure required to deliver the course,
  6. identify risks to academic quality,
  7. comply with requirements for professional accreditation and codes (where relevant), and
  8. reflect the University strategy, its vision and values and University graduate attributes.

(22) The ‘Course and subject design’ section of this policy should be read in conjunction with the above and detailed requirements are stated in the following procedures:

  1. Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure - design of coursework courses and subjects.
  2. Higher Degree by Research Policy - design of higher degree by research courses and their research component subjects.
  3. Academic Staff Qualifications and Expectations Procedure - academic staff profile and oversight.

(23) Course proposals to discontinue a course will either be for immediate discontinuance (if no students are enrolled/admitted) or phase out (where students are still enrolled/admitted in the course). Accreditation of the course must be maintained for the duration of the teach out period.

(24) Course accreditation and reaccreditation (and discontinuance proposal) must be seen and endorsed by all relevant school and faculty committees and boards prior to consideration by the University Courses Committee or University Research Committee.

(25) The course accreditation proposal (comprehensive course review report) or modification is reviewed and endorsed by University Courses Committee or University Research Committee and will be submitted to Academic Senate or Academic Senate Standing Committee. Academic Senate will approve or reject the accreditation of the course (or approve discontinuance/phase out).

(26) Where a professional accreditation of a course of study is required for graduates to be eligible to practice, the course of study is accredited and continues to be accredited by the relevant professional body. The Executive Dean will ensure the course is accredited and continues to be accredited unless the University Courses Committee approves a proposal to allow the professional accreditation to lapse.

Stage 3: Course commencement and implementation

(27) The third stage of the approval process is course commencement (for new courses) and implementation (for reaccreditation of existing courses). The purpose of this stage is to ensure that:

  1. all conditions of course accreditation or reaccreditation have been satisfied, and
  2. all necessary legislative, administrative and resource conditions for commencement have been met before students are admitted.

(28) Course discontinuance approvals will either take effect immediately or at the end of the teach out period, following the final student graduation.

(29) Course commencement and implementation of approvals is approved by the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) who has the responsibility to broadcast to key responsible areas.

(30) Key responsible areas perform the necessary changes and checks.

(31) Course availability for offering and admittance is broadcast by the Office of Planning and Analytics.

(32) The ‘Course and subject information’ section of this policy should be read in conjunction with this stage. The Course and Subject Information Procedure provides the requirements in relation to recording of information in our systems and published information.

Expedited approval

(33) The expedited approval process is for use on a proposal for new offerings where there is an approved business case unless that requirement has been waived. This process may be used to expedite the entire course approval or any incomplete steps required towards final determination of a course proposal.

(34) The expedited approval process may be used where the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) provide authorization to proceed, based on the set of circumstances contained in the Table of Approval Authorities.

(35) The Executive Dean of the relevant faculty will then submit the proposal directly to Academic Senate (or Academic Senate Standing Committee).

(36) Academic Senate (or Academic Senate Standing Committee) may approve with or without conditions. Where approval is conditional, the Executive Dean will take steps to meet the conditions within the timeframes specified. Should the conditions not be met, accreditation approval may be revoked.

(37) The Course and Subject Life-Cycle Procedure states the full requirements of the expedited approval process.

Accreditation period and extension of accreditation

(38) A course is considered to be accredited by the University for:

  1. the period between first offering and during the period of comprehensive review, and
  2. where the outcome of a comprehensive review is that the course is re-accredited.

(39) Where a course is also subject to professional accreditation, comprehensive course reviews will as far as possible be aligned with professional accreditation reviews to avoid duplicating work. In these cases, the comprehensive review will meet any of the University's requirements for comprehensive review that are not met by the professional accreditation review.

(40) Academic Senate may:

  1. exempt a course from undergoing comprehensive review, for instance when it is being discontinued (noting that we must maintain accreditation for courses in teach out, post discontinuance approval), or
  2. in exceptional circumstances, allow a course an extension of time for the commencement of a comprehensive course review or the submission of an improvement plan resulting from a comprehensive review.

(41) The Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states detailed requirements for reaccreditation (comprehensive course review).

Discontinuation and suspension of intake

(42) The approval process for discontinuing a course follows the three stages in course approval and accreditation path as detailed in stage 1 and 2 of the ‘Course approval and reaccreditation’ section.

(43) Accreditation of the course must be maintained for the duration of the teach out period and if reaccreditation is required to be undertaken in this period, the type of reaccreditation review may be recommended by Academic Senate.

(44) In considering a business case to discontinue a course or course offering, the Executive Dean will, as far as is practicable, ensure that students currently enrolled in the course or offering:

  1. are informed about the need to discontinue it and arrangements for either teach-out or transfer to a different course or course offering (including students who have deferred their enrolment), and
  2. have a reasonable timeframe in which to complete it if they are provided with an option to not transfer to a different course or course offering.

(45) Where the University is unable to continue teaching a course or course offering, and students remain enrolled in it, the faculty will endeavor to negotiate a credit arrangement with a similar course at another institution.

(46) The Course and Subject Delivery and Management Procedure states the detailed requirements for phase out and teach out.

(47) Suspension of admission intake into a course occurs when a faculty:

  1. identifies a course to be discontinued, and the approval is yet to be finalised, or
  2. wishes to maintain the course as active for offering at a later stage, but not allow new student admissions for a specific period.

(48) Suspensions are progressed via the Suspension Memo Template, approved by the Executive Dean on the recommendation of the Chair of the Faculty Courses Committee or Faculty Research Committee. 

(49) The Executive Dean will consult with the Executive Dean of any other impacted faculty in relation to suspension or discontinuance of a course or course offering.

(50) Where a course is suspended for more than 12 months, faculties will be required to show cause for the extended suspension period via the Faculty Courses Committee Chair Report to the Faculty Board.

Subject approval and review

(51) The Faculty Board will consider subject documentation, from School Boards, to assess a subject’s disciplinary integrity, professional currency, quality, and alignment with the faculty’s courses as part of the approval process.

(52) In proposing new, amended, temporarily not offered or withdrawn subjects, the proposer must consider the impact on any relevant course and subject and detail this consideration in their proposal.

(53) If subjects are not offered or withdrawn (particularly those that are compulsory for a student to complete in order to satisfy course requirements), the Head of School must ensure that impacted students are advised of the change and of alternative arrangements or options. The Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure states the requirements that apply.

(54) Subject documentation must be reapproved at least every seven years, normally in line with the reaccreditation of the course(s) of which they are a part.

(55) Heads of School are responsible for ensuring that the performance of subjects is reviewed.

(56) Faculties must have procedures to approve changes and updates to the subject information that is originally approved by the Faculty Board.

(57) Faculty Assessment Committee, with advice from School Assessment Committee, will review student performance in coursework subjects after each session in which a subject is offered and provide a subject quality enhancement report to the University Learning and Teaching Committee.

(58) The Head of School approves publication and changes to subject outlines. The Course and Subject Life-cycle Procedure states the detailed requirements.

Minor changes to award courses

(59) Faculty Boards can approve minor changes to courses and subjects which have no reaccreditation requirements. Minor changes may or may not require course documentation to be completed. Guidance on appropriate documentation and approval pathway can be found in the Course and Subject Life-cycle Procedure and Table of Approval Authorities.

(60) Faculty Board have authority to approve, with the endorsement of the Faculty Courses Committee or Faculty Research Committee (whichever applies), the following:

  1. new coursework and research component subject,
  2. changes to the subject documents of a coursework and research component subject,
  3. subject discontinuance,
  4. inclusion of a compulsory or optional residential school or intensive in a subject, and
  5. micro-credential subjects.

(61) Faculty Boards have authority to approve assessment changes in subjects. To enact these in a timely manner, the Executive Dean, as Chair of the Faculty Board, has the authority to approve or reject the proposal. The decision must be recorded for reporting at the next Faculty Board. Faculty Board ratifies the decision.

Non-award offerings

(62) Academic and administrative units of the University may offer single subject, micro-credential subjects, and short courses which may include micro-credential modules, provided these have been approved by the relevant Faculty Board. The approval process is defined in the Table of Approval Authorities and Course and Subject Life-cycle Procedure.

(63) Information about non-award offerings, and certificates or statement of attainments issued for completing them, must not imply that participants will receive an award of the University.

(64) Study for a single subject and micro-credential subject offerings may be assessed for credit towards a course, on the conditions stated in the Credit Policy.

(65) Study for a short course offering, including micro-credential modules, may be assessed for recognition of prior learning towards a course, on the conditions stated in the Credit Policy.

(66) The Course and Subject Life Cycle Procedure states requirements for certification of short course offerings.

(67) Appropriate support, tools and technologies for teaching and learning will be used in these units to enhance the student learning experience and access must be facilitated (e.g. library materials).

Monitoring and review

(68) To ensure the quality, profitability, strategic fit and market orientation of courses, all courses will undergo the following monitoring and review activities:

  1. Annual course health check.
  2. Evaluation against the optimisation framework.
  3. Student performance comprehensive analysis and improvement action setting (and evaluation of completed actions).
  4. Comprehensive course review (reaccreditation) within seven years of initial course approval or previous reaccreditation. This includes the associated improvement actions being implemented within this period.
  5. Benchmarking.
  6. Subject performance evaluation (coursework subjects only; after each session in which a subject is offered).

(69) Where an annual course health check, student performance report, benchmarking or comprehensive course review identifies a course as under-performing, the faculty will take prompt action to address and improve the areas of underperformance.

(70) The Faculty Board will add to its faculty improvement plan any improvements to courses as needed.

(71) University Courses Committee will oversee progress with and outcomes of annual course health checks, student performance reporting and comprehensive course reviews.

(72) The Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states detailed requirements for annual course health checks, comprehensive course review, student performance reporting, optimisation framework, benchmarking, and subject performance.

Courses involving third parties

(73) Third parties are subject to the same compliance requirements with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 and the University is responsible for ensuring third party providers are compliant.

(74) Awards of the University delivered by a third party or in collaboration with a third party are subject to the same approval, reaccreditation and performance monitoring requirements as any other award of the University; but there is additional oversight of the academic quality of partnered deliveries, as follows:

  1. Faculty Boards oversee academic quality assurance of third party delivery of courses and report annually on this to the University Learning and Teaching Committee.
  2. University Learning and Teaching Committee in turn provides an annual consolidated report on academic quality of partnered deliveries to Academic Senate.
  3. Student performance reporting specific cohort reporting, which involved comprehensive analysis, action setting and evaluation of completed actions, are reported by Faculty Boards to the University Courses Committee and the University Learning and Teaching Committee.

(75) In addition, to ensure the academic quality of courses delivered with partners, annual review of partnerships will consider academic standards of course offerings and student experience in comparison with other offerings of the course.

(76) The Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states requirements for quality assurance and review specific to third party course delivery, in addition to the quality assurance and review of requirements that apply to all courses.

(77) The Conferral and Graduation Policy states the conditions on which another institution that has collaborated in delivery of a Charles Sturt University award can be acknowledged on the testamur.

Course and subject surveys

(78) The University uses students’ feedback on courses and subjects gathered by surveys to improve the curriculum, teaching, the student learning experience, mitigate risks to quality of education provided and to help inform institutional monitoring, review, and improvement activities. The Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states detailed requirements on the operation and use.

Course and subject design

(79) The Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure states detailed requirements for design of coursework courses and subjects and defines the University's graduate attributes and learning outcomes, which include Indigenous cultural competency.

(80) The Higher Degree by Research Policy states detailed requirements for design of higher degree by research courses and their research component subjects.

(81) The Indigenous Australian Content in Courses and Subjects Policy defines requirements for Indigenous Australian content in courses and subjects to ensure this aspect of curriculum design and delivery.

(82) The design for each course ensures that courses, as far as possible, embody the University's unique value proposition and deliver distinctive and transformational education experiences by applying the Charles Sturt Educational Principles.

(83) The design needs to be so that students can achieve course learning outcomes by aligning:

  1. learning activities and assessment tasks to construct subject learning outcomes, and
  2. subject learning outcomes to construct course learning outcomes.

(84) The design for each course of study is specified in the course proposal and specifically includes:

  1. the qualification(s) to be awarded on completion,
  2. structure, duration, and modes of delivery,
  3. the units of study (or equivalent) that comprise the course of study,
  4. entry requirements and pathways,
  5. expected learning outcomes, methods of assessment and indicative student workload,
  6. compulsory requirements for completion,
  7. exit pathways, articulation arrangements, pathways to further learning, and
  8. for a course of study leading to a bachelor honours, masters or doctoral qualification, includes the proportion and nature of research and research-related study in the course.

(85) To ensure a unique offering in relation to their student market and industry or profession, each course or group of courses will be designed:

  1. with an external advisory committee,
  2. in consultation with employers, practitioners, and industry professionals, and
  3. based on data and information about:
    1. the needs and expectations of the current and prospective student markets, and
    2. forecast workforce demand, jobs growth and capability requirements.

(86) The Course and Subject Life Cycle Procedure states detailed requirements for the membership and functions of external advisory committees, while the states how external advisory committees will contribute to course reviews.

(87) Curriculum is designed using the Charles Sturt Curriculum Model (and architectures), which provides the ‘how-to’ for professional and academic teams to design, deliver and support exceptional learning experiences, with a focus on process in a planned cycle of continual improvement.

(88) Content and learning activities:

  1. are designed to achieve the desired educational aims consistent with the level of study,
  2. are designed to equip students for their transition to a career, further study, or research,
  3. are structured to foster progress and achievement of expected learning outcomes,
  4. are based on current knowledge, scholarship, underlying theoretical and conceptual frameworks aligned to the academic discipline or research represented in the course, and
  5. incorporate emerging concepts that are informed by recent scholarship, current research findings and, where applicable, advances in practice.

Consistency of delivery

(89) Each delivery of a course at a location or via a mode of delivery will be consistent with the course as currently approved. It will require students to complete the same required subjects and will have the same course learning outcomes.

(90) Each delivery of a subject at a location or via a mode of delivery will be consistent with the subject as currently approved. It will offer students the same learning experience and learning outcomes, and will, as far as possible, require the same assessment tasks.

(91) Where it is necessary for a subject offering in a different delivery mode to use a different assessment task, it will test the same learning outcomes, at the same level of challenge, as the task in other offerings of the subject.

Course admission requirements

(92) The Admissions Policy states the entry requirements for types of courses and provides for the setting of higher and/or additional requirements for specific courses.

Course and subject information

(93) The Course and Subject Information Procedure states requirements to ensure that information about courses and subjects for prospective and current students is:

  1. complete, accurate and of a consistently high standard, so it will form a sound basis for the enrolment contract with students,
  2. published publicly (via online course brochure and University Handbook), in good time for prospective and current students to make decisions about their applications, consider particular conditions of enrolment that do not apply to other courses more generally, consider the number of enrolments (as an indication of the scale of the University, course and learning environment) and to prepare for study (e.g. health and security checks, language requirements),
  3. specific course admissions information aligns to requirements under the Admissions Policy, and
  4. consistently and correctly recorded on University systems, so it will meet the requirements of regulators and funders and be a sufficient record of the University's curriculum.

(94) The University will avoid providing false or misleading information about outcomes associated with undertaking a course of study, eligibility for acceptance into another course of study, employment outcomes or possible migration outcomes.

Maximum periods for completion of courses

(95) The University has a responsibility to ensure that:

  1. each graduate’s award certifies current knowledge and skills in the discipline or field of study at the time of the award, and
  2. students complete awards within a reasonable maximum period, allowing for part-time study and leave of absence.

(96) The Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure states the maximum period for completion of each type of course.

(97) The Higher Degrees by Research Policy states the minimum and maximum period of candidature for each type of higher degree by research course.

(98) A student’s enrolment or candidature may be terminated if they do not complete their course within the maximum period: see the Assessment: Academic Progress Procedure and Higher Degree by Research Policy.

Awards with honours or distinction

(99) Bachelor (honours) degrees will be conferred with classes of honours set out in the Conferral and Graduation Policy. Criteria for each class must be determined by the faculty as part of the course approval.

(100) Coursework courses with a volume of learning of 64 points or more, being a diploma, graduate diploma, associate degree, undergraduate degree, double degree and masters by coursework, the award may be conferred with distinction, in accordance with the criteria set out in the Conferral and Graduation Policy.

(101) The Conferral and Graduation Policy states detailed requirements and conditions for awarding with distinction.

Course and subject delivery and management

(102) The Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will approve:

  1. the University’s academic calendar for delivery of subjects and related activities, and
  2. the principles for preparation of the academic calendar.

(103) Delivery management shall operate in compliance with the Course and Subject Delivery and Management Procedure for:

  1. academic leadership roles,
  2. academic calendar,
  3. academic staff qualifications,
  4. teaching staff accessibility,
  5. residential schools and services,
  6. learning resources and educational technologies,
  7. use of external educational technologies,
  8. English language, literacy and numeracy support,
  9. approval of students’ international study,
  10. service teaching, and
  11. workplace learning placement management (including facilities where external placements are undertaken).
Top of Page

Section 4 - Procedures

(104) The following procedures state detailed requirements in support of this policy:

  1. Course and Subject – Conscientious Objection Procedure
  2. Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure
  3. Course and Subject Life Cycle Procedure
  4. Course and Subject Information Procedure
  5. Course and Subject Delivery and Management Procedure
  6. Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure
Top of Page

Section 5 - Guidelines

(105) Some of the procedures that support this policy include guidelines or refer readers to guidelines on specific topics in those procedures.