(1) This procedure supports the Course and Subject Policy by stating detailed requirements for quality assurance and review of courses and subjects. (2) This procedure applies to all staff involved in the design, delivery and review of courses and subjects. (3) This procedure supports the Course and Subject Policy. (4) All award courses and subjects will undergo quality assurance activities. These activities include: (5) Where such activities lead to findings that the course needs improving, the Course Director is expected to lead development of and propose improvements, to ensure that the course: (6) Annual course health checks ensure regular monitoring of course quality, viability and relevance between comprehensive course reviews and the quadrant result from the optimisation framework. These health checks will identify course improvement actions needed, and records of these health checks will inform comprehensive reviews and Institution Student Performance Report. (7) For each course, the Office of Planning and Analytics will provide an online data pack with performance criteria, data measures and performance tags against the measures. (8) Courses will be assigned a depth of annual review based on their performance in the diagnostic data measures compared to benchmarks. The measures will include data from the past three years and, where possible, sector-wide benchmarks, on the following: (9) For each data measure, the course will receive a favourable performance (green) or unfavourable performance (red) tag, depending on whether they meet or fall below specified thresholds. The proportion of green to red tags will be used to decide the depth of review. (10) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will decide the thresholds and favourable/unfavourable proportion ranges for a given year, in consultation with faculties and relevant central divisions. (11) The Division of Learning and Teaching will support faculties in: (12) The Executive Dean or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) may change the initially assigned level of depth of health check of any course. (13) The Executive Dean or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will provide strategic insights and direction following the course quadrant result in the optimisation framework. (14) The Associate Dean, Academic will coordinate the faculty’s annual course health check in synchronisation with the student performance reporting, optimisation framework and load planning activities, which the Course Directors will carry out, in collaboration with Heads of School and others. (15) Annual course health checks are approved as follows: (16) Once the health check has been approved, any identified improvements will be added to the faculty improvement plan and student performance report(s) and actions. (17) Where the outcome of a health check is that the course must make a case for continuing to be offered, one or more workshops will be held with the course’s external advisory committee to identify whether there is a need for the course and if so, how it can better meet the requirements of its market. (18) The faculty will report to AQSC on progress with the improvement actions arising from annual course health check, by providing the updated faculty improvement plan. (19) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will each year review the process for the annual course health check, and criteria for depth of health check, in consultation with faculties. (20) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will maintain a schedule of all courses and their due dates for comprehensive course review, in collaboration with Executive Deans. (21) The faculty that manages a course must ensure it undergoes a comprehensive course review (CCR) and reaccreditation within four years of its initial accreditation or seven years of the last reaccreditation: (22) Faculties will schedule CCRs to ensure that reaccreditation is approved before the course’s accreditation date in the curriculum management system lapses: (23) The CCR must include review of: (24) CCR will: (25) Where a course has undergone an external professional reaccreditation process within two years of the CCR report, this meets the requirements in subclauses b. and c. above, but not the requirement in subclause a. (26) Faculties must develop an action plan to address any issues with the course identified by the review and data may be used to inform admissions criteria and approaches to course design, teaching, supervision, learning and academic support. (27) In finalising the CCR, documentation must demonstrate: (28) The completed CCR report must be submitted to the Faculty Board and AQSC with one of the following recommendations: (29) If endorsed, a reaccreditation report will be submitted to Academic Senate for approval. (30) The faculty and AQSC will receive progress reports with any required and/or recommended actions as part of the updated faculty improvement report, and will report outcomes to Academic Senate. (31) Academic Senate may approve an extension of course accreditation in exceptional circumstances, noting that HESF requires periodic comprehensive reviews of all courses at least every seven years. (32) Requests for an extension of accreditation should include: (33) Requests for extension of accreditation are approved as follows: (34) Where Academic Senate approves an extension of accreditation, the course record and, where applicable, the external articulation arrangement records in the curriculum management system will be updated to reflect the new accreditation end date. (35) Faculty Boards oversee academic quality assurance and report annually to University Courses Committee, and coordinate quality assurance of courses delivered with third parties. Third parties are subject to the same compliance and assurance requirements with standards of the Higher Education Standards Framework and the University is responsible for ensuring third party providers are compliant. (36) For these courses, faculties, in collaboration with administrative divisions and the Division of Learning and Teaching, will have mechanisms to ensure the ongoing: (37) The teaching faculty or (as relevant) the Office of Global Engagement will ensure that any issue with any of the above is addressed promptly usually via the Academic Management Committee, with effectiveness monitored by Faculty Board. (38) An academic management committee will operate for each third-party arrangement (both domestic and international) and will be responsible for management and quality assurance activities: (39) The formal agreement between the University and the third party will detail: (40) Faculty Boards will report annually to Academic Quality and Standards Committee on academic quality in partnered deliveries. The teaching faculty or (as relevant) the Office of Global Engagement will ensure that any issue with any of the above is addressed promptly Faculty Boards will report annually to Academic Quality and Standards Committee on academic quality in partnered deliveries. Reporting includes ensuring the academic quality of the courses considers the academic standards and student experience in comparison with other offerings of the course at Charles Sturt University. (41) Academic Quality and Standards Committee will provide a consolidated annual report on academic quality in partnered deliveries to Academic Senate. (42) Where it is necessary for a course to be managed by an administrative division of the University rather than by a faculty, academic governance and academic management of the course will be as follows: (43) For academic governance committee approvals and oversight, the course will be aligned with a faculty. The faculty’s academic governance committees will make decisions and oversee quality of the course in the same way as they do for courses managed by the faculty. (44) Academic decisions will be made by a position approximately equivalent in level to the position stated as the decision maker in the relevant academic policy or procedure. That is: (45) Each faculty must complete and evaluate an annual comprehensive review of student performance metrics and improvement actions. (46) The Executive Leadership Team will decide the benchmarks and University targets and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) ensures that the report aligns with the integrated functional approach. (47) The Executive Dean and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will provide strategic insights and direction on the focus areas and improvements to ensure alignment with the annual TEQSA risk assessment, load planning and principles, benchmarks, University targets and strategic, portfolio and faculty plans. (48) The Associate Dean, Academic or Deputy Dean will coordinate the faculty’s comprehensive analysis and production of the student performance report in synchronisation with the annual course reports, optimisation framework and load planning activities, in collaboration with Heads of School, third-party providers and others. (49) For each faculty, the Office of Planning and Analytics will provide data packs with performance criteria, data measures and performance against the measures. (50) Performance in the diagnostic data measures are compared to benchmarks and targets. The measures will include data from past years on the following and will sector-wide benchmarks where possible: (51) Each data measure will receive a favourable performance or unfavourable performance indicator depending on whether they meet or fall below the specified benchmark. (52) The Office of Planning and Analytics will support faculties in: (53) Each Faculty Student Performance Report will be submitted for endorsement to the relevant school and faculty committees before it is brought for approval to the Faculty Board. (54) Once the report has been approved, any improvements that it identifies as needed will be linked to the faculty improvement plan. (55) The Faculty Student Performance Report will incorporate the annual course health check actions and be provided to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) to form part of the Institution Student Performance Report. (56) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will: (57) Each course, including courses involving third-party providers, must undergo an evaluation against the optimisation framework. (58) The underlying rationale of the optimisation framework is to contribute to a sustainable University with the following key focus areas: (59) The Executive Leadership Team will decide the benchmarks and University targets. (60) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) ensure that the report aligns with the integrated functional approach and strategic course profile. (61) The Executive Dean will provide strategic insights and direction on the focus courses for improvements and ensure alignment with: (62) Faculty course optimisation evaluations will be coordinated with the annual course health checks, student performance reporting and load planning activities, in collaboration with Heads of School, third-party providers and others. (63) Evaluation against the optimisation framework ensure regular monitoring of courses across four domains. Each domain reviews the data and a number of performance criteria: (64) Application of the data will result in each course being categorised into an optimisation quadrant with an associated guide to the decision and action needed: (65) The Office of Planning and Analytics will provide a course matrix dashboard, linked to annual course reports (health data) and load planning reports and underlying detailed matrix data. (66) Course decisions and high-level actions will be recorded and included in the load planning reports. Final outcomes for load planning are endorsed by the chair of the load planning steering committee (Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and reported to the Executive Leadership Team for approval. (67) Any improvement actions to the course that it identifies as needed will be added/linked to the faculty improvement plan. (68) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will each year review the process for the optimisation framework evaluation, and criteria for depth of check, in consultation with the Load Planning Steering Committee. (69) Faculties, in collaboration with the divisions, will benchmark courses against similar courses offered by other higher education providers, in order to improve them and ensure course learning outcomes are equivalent. (70) Comprehensive course review must include benchmarking of student cohorts’ success against comparable courses of study; the section on comprehensive course review above specifies the aspects that this benchmarking must include. (71) The Executive Dean or their nominee (such as a Head of School or Course Director) will oversee any benchmarking activity; the Division of Learning and Teaching provides advice on these activities. (72) Benchmarking involves: (73) Each benchmarking activity will be funded by the area responsible for the course (the faculty) or subject (the school). (74) In arranging benchmarking, faculties will define the expected outcomes in consultation with the benchmarking partner. (75) For each benchmarking activity, the relevant Executive Dean will submit a plan to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) for approval. The plan will include: (76) In selecting benchmarking partners, faculties should prefer partners who: (77) Faculties will ensure there is a written agreement with the benchmarking partner to document understandings about confidentiality, use of information, intellectual property rights, and the scope of the benchmarking exercise. (78) The written agreement must be reviewed by Legal Services and signed by a school or faculty leader at Associate Head of School level or above. (79) Faculties should ensure, in planning the benchmarking activity with the partner, that each will share a similar set of information in terms of type, level and quantity. (80) Faculties will ensure that they and the benchmarking partner treat information shared with one another for the benchmarking activities as follows: (81) Faculties will report all benchmarking activities to Academic Senate via Academic Quality and Standards Committee and via the relevant school and faculty management and reporting structures. (82) The content of benchmarking reports will vary depending on the scale and focus of the activity, but should at a minimum include: (83) The Assessment - Conduct of Coursework Assessment and Examinations Procedure states requirements for moderation of assessment in each delivery of each subject. (84) The school will ensure that subject outlines are checked for completeness and correctness before each teaching period. The subject outline tool is used for this purpose. See the Course and Subject Procedure - Information and Representation for what information a subject outline must provide. (85) The subject teaching team will reflect on the subject performance after each teaching period in which it is offered. This subject reflection will consider, at a minimum: (86) All teaching staff and their relevant supervisors have the opportunity to review feedback on their teaching and are supported in enhancing these activities. (87) The subject team will provide a report, following such opportunity, of the subject reflection and planned improvements to the School Assessment Committee via the Quality Assurance and Reflection System (QUASAR). (88) QUASAR reports and progress of action items will be monitored by the school. Schools will provide reports to Faculty Board with a summary of actions and any issues requiring decisions at the Faculty Board level. (89) Faculties will provide a faculty QUASAR report, based on school reports, to the Faculty Board and Academic Quality and Standards Committee, including a summary of subject improvements, impacts and achievements on subject quality, highlighting examples of good practice, assuring monitoring and closure of actions via the actions reporting summary in QUASAR and raising critical risks. (90) The Academic Quality and Standards Committee will discuss critical risks raised to seek assurance that appropriate quality assurance and reflection is taking place and there is good governance and compliance with HESF. (91) Heads of School, in consultation with Course Directors, will review regularly the offerings of each subject in order to keep to a minimum the number of uneconomical offerings of the same subject over the teaching year in alignment with the optimisation framework. (92) Refer to the Course and Subject Procedure - Delivery Management for details on the school schedule of subjects for details on requirements. (93) The University uses students’ feedback on courses and subjects gathered by surveys to improve the curriculum, teaching and the student learning experience. (94) The University administers the subject experience survey (SuES) to gather student feedback on each offering of each subject. (95) The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) or their nominee will manage and review the subject experience survey every two years, in consultation with faculty academic leaders, Office of Planning and Analytics, Division of Library Services, Division of Student Success, and the Pro Vice-Chancellor Research (Performance and Governance). (96) The Office of Planning and Analytics administers the survey in consultation with the Division of Information Technology. (97) All teaching staff and their relevant supervisors have the opportunity to review feedback on their teaching and are supported in enhancing these activities. (98) Where a partner delivers subjects on behalf of Charles Sturt University: (99) Subject coordinators are encouraged, and may be directed by their faculty or school, to conduct their own surveys to understand students’ learning needs in each teaching period their subject is offered. (100) The University provides the Commonwealth government department responsible for education with student details necessary for the department to administer the following surveys to Charles Sturt University students each year: (101) The University receives data from these nationally administered surveys and uses it to identify improvements. (102) Other surveys of students’ learning and teaching experience may be used if approved by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching). (103) The Office of Planning and Analytics will publish a schedule of SuES administration dates for all teaching periods in each calendar year, at the start of that year. (104) The SuES will open for subject coordinators to select optional questions at least one week after the census date of the relevant teaching period. Staff can add optional questions until the survey is opened for students to respond. (105) The SuES will open for students to respond three weeks before the end date of the relevant teaching period, and the SuES system will notify students of this by email. (106) To ensure student grade release does not influence survey outcomes, the SuES will be closed to student responses: (107) The subject experience survey (SuES) comprises: (108) There are two sets of standard core questions: (109) No more than five optional questions may be selected for a subject offering, unless the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching), or nominee, permits an exception. (110) Subect coordinators can ask for questions to be added to the optional questions bank by the following process: (111) Students are encouraged to complete the subject experience survey but are not required to complete it. (112) Academic staff will encourage students in their classes to participate in the subject experience survey but must not apply pressure to students to complete it or offer incentives for them to complete it. (113) The subject coordinator will have access during the survey open period to view the number of student responses to date, but not to identify students who have or have not responded, or have access to results. (114) The Office of Planning and Analytics will de-identify student responses before providing the data for survey users. (115) Identified student responses will, however, be provided in the following exceptional circumstances (as per the Privacy Management Plan: (116) SuES data may be used: (117) The subject coordinator and head of the teaching school will be provided with the subject experience survey response data for each subject offering through the subject evaluation software platform. This data will include aggregated question response data for all core questions (including those on individual teaching staff) and students’ comments for the subject offering, even where the response rate is below the minimum number for publication. (118) The subject coordinator will normally share the response data and comments with the subject teaching team. Where, however, students’ comments on a staff member are potentially embarrassing to the staff member or otherwise sensitive, the subject coordinator should seek the advice of the Head of School before sharing those comments with the teaching team or only with the staff member in question. (119) The Office of Planning and Analytics may, where the Executive Dean of the relevant faculty approves the request, provide: (120) Where five or more students in a subject offering respond to the SuES, the aggregated core question response data for the subject will be published to all students and staff via the student portal after grades have been uploaded to Banner for the relevant session. However, student comments will not be published. (121) The Office of Planning and Analytics will make aggregated question response data for all questions available to University staff involved with design and teaching of courses and subjects, including course directors, associate deans, sub-deans, school executive support officers, librarians, course review panels, academic skills advisors and educational designers. (122) The percentage positive result is used as a key indicator when reporting and interpreting subject experience survey data. This figure is the percentage of the total responses to core questions for which students select a rating of 4 or 5 on the five-point response scale. (123) For each subject, the subject coordinator will in the subject outline: (124) Detailed work instructions are maintained in the Knowledge Base (in Confluence, under Faculty Admin) by the functional area supporting the specific task. (125) This procedure uses terms defined in the Course and Subject Policy, as well as the following:Course and Subject Procedure - Quality Assurance and Review
Section 1 - Purpose
Scope
Section 2 - Policy
Section 3 - Procedure
Part A - Overview
Part B - Annual course health check
Part C - Comprehensive course review and reaccreditation
Extensions of accreditation
Part D - Academic quality assurance
Courses involving third parties
Courses managed by divisions
Part E - Student performance reporting
Part F - Optimisation framework
Matrix Quadrant
Decision Guide
Action
Part G - Benchmarking
Planning benchmarking
Selecting benchmarking partners
Information sharing in benchmarking
Reporting benchmarking
Part H - Quality assurance of subjects
Pre-session check of subject outlines
Subject improvement
Subject offering viability review
Part I - Course and subject surveys
Management of the subject experience survey
Core and optional questions
Survey participation
Student de-identification and exceptions
Use of data and minimum response threshold for publication
Percentage positive result measure
Information for students on improvements
Top of PageSection 4 - Guidelines and other supporting documents
Section 5 - Glossary
View Current
This is the current version of this document. To view historic versions, click the link in the document's navigation bar.
Meets threshold
Note: Annual course health check = Category 1
Renew
Business as usual
No action is required
Light ACHC - Category 2
Associate Dean (Academic) can escalate to Category 3
Normally Light ACHC (Faculty Board) or if referred to Category 3 below (Academic Quality and Standards Committee)
Review fit and purpose
Reconsider
Note: Annual course health check = Category 3
Course review
Strategic review
Phase out
Action decided at annual faculty workshop.
Faculties will look at the work linked to a decision and capture in either annual course health check or student performance report action
Staff who require access to the Confluence pages above should log an IT Service Desk Request to request access to the Faculty Administration Confluence page.
Top of Page