• Section 1 - Preamble
• Section 2 - Definitions
• Section 3 - Guidelines
• Part A - Course Review Submissions
• Part B - Course Review Submission - Annotated Format
• 3. Course Details
• 4. Location of Offerings
• 5. Year of Accreditation and (where relevant) Year of Previous Course Review
• 6. Name and Year of External Accreditation/Professional Recognition (where relevant)
• 7. Course Summary Reports
• 8. Articulation Arrangements/Pathways
• 9. Industry and Business Links
• 10. Benchmarking
• 11. Peer Review
• 12. Evidence of the Need for and Quality of the Course/s
• 13. Submissions
• 14. Resource Issues
• 15. Issues, Claims and Concerns of the Course
• 16. Academic Advisory Committee Recommendations and/or Concerns
• 17. Intended planning for the Academic Profile
• 18. Additional Reference Material

Section 1 - Preamble

(1) This Guideline replaces Appendices 2.20(d) and 2.20(e) of the Academic Policy (December 2010). It provides information and instruction pertaining to the completion of Course Review Submissions and should be used in conjunction with the Course Review Submission Template.

Section 2 - Definitions

(2) For the purpose of this Guideline, refer to the Academic Board's Definitions Policy.

Section 3 - Guidelines

Part A - Course Review Submissions

(3) In the fifth year of the School Review cycle a Course Review Submission is prepared by the Head of School in consultation with the School Board, Pro Vice Chancellor of Faculty and PQR. In the case of combined and double degrees the Head of School will also consult with any other relevant Schools or Schools.

(4) A Course Review Submission will contain information derived from the Course Summary Report, including course performance, viability, quality and relevance to the School and to the University.

(5) A Course Review Submission should address the matters outlined in Part B (below), but is not necessarily limited to those matters.

Part B - Course Review Submission - Annotated Format

3. Course Details

(6) In a table list all Course Title/s offered by the School including entry/exit awards, combined degree awards and double degree awards. List the level, duration and total number of units required for completion of the award.

4. Location of Offerings

(7) Provide information on where and when the courses are offered in terms of campus/es and educational collaborations.

5. Year of Accreditation and (where relevant) Year of Previous Course Review

(8) Provide details of when the course was accredited and if relevant reviewed and any subsequent changes. If there is an Implementation Report attached this as an appendix.

6. Name and Year of External Accreditation/Professional Recognition (where relevant)

(9) In the case of a course or courses that require external accreditation or are professionally recognised place the details here.

7. Course Summary Reports

(10) Provide the Course Summary Reports for all courses in the School as appendices.

(11) In this section summarise the findings of the Reports and the relationships of all the courses in the School regarding:

1. Individual Courses
   1. Course Performance (based on data and feedback)
   2. Course Viability (is there demonstrated evidence to support the continuation of the course/s?)
2. Course Relationships
   1. Relevance of course to other courses offered by the School (are the course/s relevant to each-other and to the School as a whole?)
   2. Duplication of units (are there units that may be deleted from the offerings of the University because of overlap with other units offered in the School or other parts of the University?)
   3. Duplication of or similarity in course content (are there courses which have similar content or are duplicated that could be either combined or removed from the offerings f the University?)
   4. Articulation pathways, entry and exit points (is there an opportunity for entry/exit points? E.g. Associate Degree in Writing became an exit point from the Bachelor of Arts.

8. Articulation Arrangements/Pathways

(12) This section deals with any existing, proposed or potential articulation arrangements or pathways in relation to the School's courses. It also details any formal credit transfer arrangements within or outside the University.

1. List the existing, proposed or potential articulation arrangements/pathways e.g. mapped pathways into the course/s including:
   1. with other SCU courses;
   2. with courses at other Universities; or
   3. with the VET, TAFE sector.
2. Detail any credit transfer arrangements.

9. Industry and Business Links

(13) Detail the industry and business links (existing, proposed or potential) within the School excluding educational collaborations or partnerships.

10. Benchmarking

(14) Provide a summary of the findings regarding benchmarking activities and/or processes undertaken within the University and with courses at other institutions or other sources. e.g. external accrediting bodies, etc. Refer to the SCU Benchmarking Framework.

(15) How does analysis of the benchmarking support continuance of the unit/s, course/s?

(16) Is the course well placed with regard to similar courses at other institutions?

11. Peer Review

(17) Provide a summary of the findings regarding peer review activities undertaken with peers within the University and with peers at other institutions. Peer review would normally include, but not be limited to, the following areas: assessment setting and marking and unit and course content.

12. Evidence of the Need for and Quality of the Course/s

(18) Apart from evidence provided above, what additional evidence is there of the viability and quality of the course/s?

(19) Demonstrate the rationale for continuing the course/s, including information about:

1. Do enrolment numbers across locations support continuance?
2. Demonstrate how the course aligns with the strategic aims of the University.
3. Demonstrate how the course is regarded by the relevant industry.

13. Submissions

(20) Submissions may be called from whomever the School or Expert deems relevant. When requesting submissions, the Secretary to the Review must ask people to indicate if they give permission for their name and/or their submission to be published with the Report of the External Expert. If permission is not received the submission may not be published beyond the Expert. The submissions should help to inform the content of the Course Review Submission and be summarised in that Submission.

(21) The School may, for example, call for submissions from the following people:

1. present students
2. graduates of the course or units
3. staff of the University
4. accrediting authority (where relevant)
5. partner institutions
6. industry or employers of graduates
7. Chair of the Academic Advisory Committee/s
8. Director, Student Administration Services
9. Director, Teaching and Learning
10. Director, Library Services and Copyright Officer
11. Director, Technology Services
12. Director of Marketing

14. Resource Issues

(22) Comment on resource issues that affect the quality of the courses being offered.

15. Issues, Claims and Concerns of the Course

(23) Provide a summary of any issues, claims or concerns related to the quality of the courses. These may be suggested by the course review data, or they may derive from feedback by staff, students, stakeholders or graduates from the course and relate to any locations. These may include, but not be limited to: learning support for external students; use of learning technologies; professional development for teachers; and educational collaborations.

16. Academic Advisory Committee Recommendations and/or Concerns

(24) The following information must be provided in relation to each Academic Advisory Committee in the School.

1. Membership of the Academic Advisory Committees and their responsibilities. The Terms of Reference are University-wide and should be made available as additional information. (See Chapter 2.10 of the Academic Policy).
2. Provide evidence of how the Academic Advisory Committees recommendations and/ or concerns have informed the ongoing development of the units/course/s since the last School (or Course) Review.
3. What are the Academic Advisory Committee recommendations and/or concerns in relation to this review?
4. Feedback on Annual Course Reports.

17. Intended planning for the Academic Profile

(25) This summary will contain self-reflection and an intended course of action and will refer to:

1. reaccreditation of courses for five years or as deemed appropriate;
2. amendments to existing courses;
3. proposed new courses or units and timelines;
4. removal of courses or units from the offerings of the University and timelines; and
5. possible future direction for the suite of courses in the School.
6. educational collaborations

18. Additional Reference Material

(26) The following reference materials should be available for the Expert to request during the process of the review:

1. last four Course Summary Reports
2. Academic Advisory Committee Terms of Reference and Minutes
3. current SCU Handbook
4. where relevant, previous copies of the SCU Handbook
5. most recent University review of courses eg New Directions
6. most recent Australian Universities Quality Agency Report of an Audit of SCU
7. current School Plan
8. current Faculty Plan
9. current University Strategic Plan
10. Faculty Learning and Teaching Plan
11. University Learning and Teaching Plan
12. University Academic Plan
13. University International Plan
14. University Business Plan
15. Unit Reports
16. Minutes of School Boards
17. all Unit Statements
18. Minutes of Boards of Assessors
19. all previous Course Review Reports