course lifecycle handbook v2.0 page 1 of 74 · pdf fileapproved by university course planning...

Course Lifecycle Handbook V2.0 of 74


Table of Revisions

Version Date Who What

V1.0 June 2016 Smart Learning

Project Team

First release

V1.1 June 2016 M.Jenkins Inclusion of cover page & corrected transitional process

description

V1.2 July 2016 D. Calvert Add Smart Learning principles and links to related policies.

Incorporated feedback from Kellie Guiton

Added cover page

Added timeline to transitional process

Minor ‘tweaks’ in diagrams

Removed development process as still under consultation

Split course leadership team into course leadership team

and course executive team

V1.3 and

v1.4

August 2016 D Calvert, C Newell,

M Jenkins

Incorporate Academic Secretary’s feedback on terminology

and policy references. Provide more context to introduction

and throughout. Revised guiding statements

V1.5 September

2016

D. Calvert Incorporated interim course development process, course

development workplan template, transitional course design

workplan template, interim subject integrity check, section

on GLOs, course performance dashboard.

V1.6 September

2016

M.Jenkins Revised CASIMS appendices

V1.7 October 2016 D Calvert, C. Newell

M.Jenkins

Changes requested from SLE including Preamble,

watermark “DRAFT”, end of review, revised appendices on

CASIMS (Appendix D & E), Academic Integrity policy link.

V2.0 November

2016

D.Calvert,

M.Jenkins

Revised Subject Integrity diagram

Move section on Course Modifications before Development

process

Feedback requirements added to Course Design including

minimum numbers, and mandatory questions

Refined Appendix C Module Design Requirements

Removed references to major & minor process

Revised table numbering, figure numbering & section

number

Revised process diagrams

Separation and refinement of Selection & Preparation

processes

Revised Course Design/Redesign diagram with

Selection & Preparation referred to instead of included

steps

Correction of references in CSU Course Review and


Modification decision tree


CSU Course Lifecycle Handbook

Preamble ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 8

1. Practices and Polices ........................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Guiding Statements and Practices of Course Design .................................................................. 10

1.2 Related Policies ........................................................................................................................... 11

2. CSU Course reviews ......................................................................................................................... 13

3. Course selection and preparation ..................................................................................................... 15

4. CSU Course design and approval .................................................................................................... 16

4.1 CSU Course design process ......................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Feedback Requirements ............................................................................................................. 19

4.2.1 Course Design Team feedback ............................................................................................. 19

4.2.2 Faculty Course Committee feedback ................................................................................... 20

4.3 Course design approval ............................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Indigenous Board of Studies: Indigenous content approval ....................................................... 22

4.5 CASIMS Documentation .............................................................................................................. 23

4.5.1 Course Documentation ........................................................................................................ 23

4.5.2 Subject documentation ........................................................................................................ 23

4.6 Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLOs) ......................................................................................... 24

4.6.1 Overview and Context .......................................................................................................... 24

4.6.2 The GLOs .............................................................................................................................. 24

4.6.3 GLO Advisors ........................................................................................................................ 25

4.6.4 Incorporating the GLOs ........................................................................................................ 25

5. Course modification .......................................................................................................................... 27

5.1 Triggers for course modification, review and redesign .............................................................. 31

5.1.1 Major course review and redesign triggers ......................................................................... 31

5.1.2 Major course review and redesign triggers ......................................................................... 32


6. Course development (interim) ........................................................................................................... 33

7. Transitional course design process .................................................................................................. 35

Appendix A: Course Selection & Preparation processes ...................................................................... 38

Appendix B: Course Design/Redesign process .................................................................................... 41

Appendix C: Module Design Requirements .......................................................................................... 50

Appendix D: CASIMS and CourseSpace relationship .......................................................................... 51

Appendix E: CASIMS Fields and CourseSpace ................................................................................... 53

Appendix F: Course development steps (interim) ................................................................................. 58

Appendix G: Transitional course design steps...................................................................................... 64

Appendix H: Transitional course design workplan template ................................................................. 72

Appendix I: Course development process template (interim) ............................................................... 73

Appendix J: Course development – subject integrity check (interim) ................................................... 74


Table of Tables

Table 1: Key to Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2: Key to Terms ................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 3: The Seven Course Performance Measures ..................................................................................... 15

Table 4: Minimum Feedback Table ............................................................................................................. 19

Table 5: CSU Course design approval process: Phases 1-3 ........................................................................... 21

Table 6: CSU Course modification options A-D ............................................................................................ 28

Table 7: Full course review and redesign triggers ........................................................................................ 31

Table 8: Major course review and redesign triggers .................................................................................... 32

Table of Figures

Figure 1: CSU Course Review and Modification decision tree 14

Figure 2: Overview of CSU course lifecycle 17

Figure 3: Course Modification Decision Tree 30

Figure 4: Course Development Process 34

Figure 5: Transitional Course Design process 36


Preamble

In late 2011, Prof Alan Bain began working with Course Directors in the Faculty of Education to explore a process of course design supported by an edge technology education platform. Prof Alan Bain has a long standing interest in the improvement of teaching and learning in educational settings, and in organisational change in education organisations to support this. Prior to introducing the concept of Smart Learning to CSU, he had undertaken projects in a range of education settings both in Australia and internationally, and had worked closely with the Inclusive Education team in the Faculty of Education, consistently implementing innovative approaches to course design that brought theory and practice together.

The system and process were piloted over 2012-2013 with the review and major reconstruction of the Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary), working with both faculty and school level academics to test the concept, and trial the software tool. The process is based on self organising systems theory and practice, backward design, authentic learning, subject and course alignment and emergent feedback. The design process is supported by a bespoke web platform, CourseSpace that provides a venue for the course design process to be recorded and developed.

Alan Bain led the Smart Learning Project as Director, testing the theory-practice connection and laying foundational work for organisational change across the University. The goal was improved design and development of courses across CSU, using a collaborative process and drawing in expertise from across the divisions to provide critical reviews of materials and plans. Alan’s vision was to engage academics, educational designers, external advisors, representatives of student support and the CLTC in the process of designing courses.

Professor Bain initiated a process of course design that has stimulated a major, long term change in the way CSU designs courses, works collaboratively and provides constructive feedback to support a process of continuous improvement, thus providing high quality student learning experiences.

In 2015, the Smart Learning Project was integrated into the Division of Student Learning in order to scale up the systems approach to course design across CSU. The Learning Design Unit is now responsible for the scale up.


Introduction

The CSU Lifecycle Handbook outlines the processes of CSU course review, design, CSU approval, development and modification that apply to courses at CSU. Course approval in this handbook refers to CSUs internal accreditation process. The Handbook should be read in conjunction with the related CSU Policies (see CSU Policy Library), the CSU Curriculum, Learning and Teaching Framework and CSU Curriculum, Learning and Teaching Subplans. The compilation of processes into the Handbook have arisen from the Smart Learning Refresh and at the instigation, and with the input and consultation of stakeholders, to show:

the interconnection of CSU course design, approval, development, modification and implementation processes in the lifecycle of CSU courses; and

the transition of courses to the CSU Smart Learning course design process.

The CSU course design process is an example of the Course Advisory Process in the Course Accreditation Policy, as is the Transitional course design process for courses that have not yet been nominated as a Smart Learning Wave course.

Each section of the Handbook provides an overview of one aspect of the course lifecycle.

Section 1 includes CSU’s course design guiding principles and an outline of the key policies related to the CSU course lifecycle and to all CSU courses.

Section 2 provides an overview of the CSU course review and modification decision tree which applies to all courses at CSU.

Section 3 provides an overview of the course selection and preparation process

Section 4 situates the Course Design process in the learning and teaching cycle and outlines the three phases of the course design and approval process for new courses that have been approved by University Course Planning Committee (UCPC) and existing courses nominated as Smart Learning Wave courses. These course teams engage in the complete CSU course design and approval process.

Section 5 outlines the CSU course modification processes that follow course approval, course development and course implementation. Courses that have previously completed either the CSU course design process or the Transitional course design process, and have been approved and implemented, move into a continuous improvement process. A range of triggers result in different levels of course modification. At the highest level a modification trigger may result in the complete redesign of a course. A minor modification engages a course team in the partial redesign of the course focussed on the identified modification. The course approval and course modification processes comply with Academic Senate and CASIMS requirements.

Section 6 outlines the interim CSU course development and development approval processes that follow course design approval. The development process will apply to courses that have completed either the CSU course design process or the Transitional course design process

Section 7 illustrates the Transitional course review, design and approval process for courses that have not yet been nominated as a Smart Learning Wave course. This process supports

https://policy.csu.edu.au/masterlist.php

http://www.csu.edu.au/division/student-learning/home/csu-curriculum/curriculum-learning-and-teaching-framework


the review of these courses through a structured process that guides the Course Director and course team and ensures the meeting of policy and approval requirements.

This document does not outline course implementation processes at this time.

Table 1: Key to Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

AQF Australian Qualifications Framework

CLTC Curriculum Learning and Teaching Committee

ESC Educational Support Coordinator

FCC Faculty Courses Committee

GLO Graduate Learning Outcome

HDR Higher Degree by Research

HOS Head of School

IBS Indigenous Board of Studies

OLM Online Learning Model

PD Professional Development

RAC Research Advisory Committee

QLT Quality Learning & Teaching

UCPC University Course Planning Committee

Table 2: Key to Terms

Term Meaning

Course Executive

Team

A management body charged with framing the terms of reference for the course review process, budgeting & workloads as per the CSU Course Review Process.

The Course Executive Team may include:

Executive Dean

Deputy Dean

Associate Dean (Academic)

Head of School

Sub Dean (Learning & Teaching)

Course Director

Example (Transitional Course Design process) : This is where the Course Director liaises with the Associate Dean (Academic) & Head of School to talk about scope, planning, & resources required for the review before the review commences

Course Leadership Team

The Course Leadership Team lead the process of course design

The Course Leadership Team may include any members of the Course Executive as well as:

Course Director

Discipline Lead (if appropriate)

Educational Designer and

Course Design Lead

The Course Director leads the team and course design/redesign/modification process and the Educational Designer co-leads the process. The Educational Designer & Course Design Lead provide advice and assistance to the Course Director.


Term Meaning

Course Team A multi-disciplinary team that contributes to the design, redesign, modification and development of a course.

It may consist of the Course Leadership Team as well as Discipline Leads, Subject Developers and a number of advisors (eg. GLO, OLM, QLT), and other stakeholders where appropriate.

Course Design Lead

A Course Design Lead works collaboratively with Faculty Course Directors to support and ensure that key events and milestones in course design, development and implementation are met. The Course Design Lead also supports the cultural change process in course design in the faculties they serve.

1. Practices and Polices

This section contains CSU’s course design guiding statements and principles and an outline of the key policies related to the CSU course lifecycle.

1.1 Guiding Statements and Practices of Course Design

CSU course design is a process that mixes the need to meet CSU, sector and professional or discipline standards for courses and the need for course, context and discipline flexibility as appropriate. CSU’s course design principles include the following.

1. Course performance, market analysis, market trends etc and baseline work are part of a Faculty planning process that informs:

a. Course design and implementation b. Course review/modifications to existing courses/subjects.

2. Integrated course-level standards that draw on CSU Graduate Attributes, AQF learning outcomes and/or professional or discipline standards are to be defined for all CSU courses.

a. Course-level standards for undergraduate and professional entry courses are expected to draw on all three: CSU Graduate Attributes, AQF learning outcomes and (where appropriate) professional or discipline standards.

b. Postgraduate courses are expected to draw on AQF learning outcomes and may choose to include some/all CSU Graduate Attributes and/or professional standards as appropriate.

3. Constructive alignment of capstone learning experiences that support students to demonstrate their capabilities and achievement of course-level standards. These are authentic, rich tasks, activities, or artefacts that enable students to demonstrate how they meet all course standards towards the end of their course. Capstone learning experiences/assessment are designed to remain stable over time and ensure the demonstration of the capabilities of potential graduands. Authority to change these course components rests with Faculty Courses Committee.

4. Graduate Learning Outcomes which are elaborations of CSU Graduate Attributes and where appropriate elaborated professional or discipline standards are embedded in subject-level learning outcomes and demonstrated in selected assessment tasks within designated subjects throughout the course to ensure development and progressive demonstration of relevant student capabilities


5. In all undergraduate degrees designated subjects contain subject learning outcomes, learning experiences and assessment tasks that ensure that the course design meets the requirements of the following policies:

a. English Language, Literacy and Numeracy Policy b. Indigenous Australian Content in Courses Policy c. First year experience strategies d. Academic Integrity Policy

6. All CSU subjects contain authentic and Criterion-Referenced and Standards-Based (CRSB) assessment tasks that map to course-level standards and subject-level learning outcomes and have clearly defined assessment criteria that makes explicit to the student what they need to achieve in order to receive a passing grade for the task (in line with the Assessment & Moderation Policy).

7. Assessment tasks that map to CSU Graduate Learning Outcomes or elaborated professional/course standards can only be changed with the authority of Course Director and relevant Head of School (or School Board). When designing these assessment tasks care needs to be taken to design them in ways that balance stability with currency and customisation for progressive cohorts. Clearly defined assessment criteria for passing requirements are detailed for all assessment tasks at the point of subject design/approval.

8. Subject conveners with the approval of the relevant Head of School (or School Board) and Course Director may make modifications to learning activities within modules where feedback and analytics from implementation or currency suggest changes are needed to module learning activities and resources only. These elements need to demonstrate alignment with subject-level learning outcomes and assessment as part of the MSI quality assurance process.

9. Course Progression Patterns are such that the majority of students will follow a designed sequence of subjects while individual flexibility will exist. In courses with majors and minors course progression patterns can be defined in terms of subject levels and pools of subjects from which students may choose subjects.

10. All CSU UG and professional entry courses go through Smart Learning processes unless exemption is sought from the Curriculum Learning and Teaching Committee.

The Smart Learning project is working to transition all course reviews into Smart Learning course review

1.2 Related Policies

This section briefly outlines the key policies referred to in the CSU Course Lifecycle Handbook. The CSU Policy Library contains all CSU approved policy.

The following policies are essential reading for Course Leadership Teams. The key policy for course review, approval and modification within CSU is the Course Accreditation Policy. The CSU course design process and the Transitional course design process are examples of the Course Advisory Process in the Course Accreditation Policy. Section 5 options B-D of the Handbook encompass the modification processes contained in the policy. The Course Accreditation Policy also makes provision where a course and therefore subjects are shared by Faculties. The Inter-Faculty Teaching Policy makes provision for collaboration between

https://policy.csu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00365


http://www.csu.edu.au/student/transition/staff.htm


https://policy.csu.edu.au/masterlist.php




faculties where subjects are shared. Other key policies include the Assessment Principles Policy and the Moderation Policy.

The Indigenous Australian Content in Courses Policy sets out CSUs requirements for the incorporation of Indigenous Australian content and is an extension of the course accreditation policies. As part of the course design approval process for all courses at CSU, all Indigenous content in courses requires approval by the Indigenous Board of Studies (IBS).

All CSU staff and students are expected to comply with the English Language, Literacy and Numeracy (ELLaN) policy which was ratified by Academic Senate effective 19 February, 2015. The Executive Dean for each Faculty report annually to Academic Senate on which courses comply through curriculum design and timelines for remaining courses to comply with the policy. The implementation of the ELLaN policy within curriculum is enacted through scheduled course review processes. The ELLaN Policy Implementation Steering Committee is working with the Division of Student Learning on strategies. For further information on the policy see the English language, literacy and numeracy policy at CSU Interact2 site or your ALLaN Faculty Liaison. Collaboration with ALLaN Faculty Liaisons has been included in the CSU and Transitional course processes.

There are a range of other policies that apply to the course lifecycle. The Office of Governance and Corporate Affairs has a Course Directors webpage that provides a filtered list of course related policies that courses need to comply with.






http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/ccinfo/


2. CSU Course reviews

At CSU there is a formal course review schedule and a process of continuous improvement of courses. New courses may be proposed based on changing workforce or market needs requiring approval by the CSU University Course Planning Committee (UCPC), and a complete design and development process. Under the Course Accreditation Policy and Curriculum Learning and Teaching Committee (CLTC) requirements existing courses are reviewed based on a five year internal review or CLTC approved faculty schedule, and/or external accreditation schedule. Changes to existing courses may also be triggered by data on course performance or changes in external requirements. Each of these triggers results in a range of design and modification processes.

Figure 1 illustrates the course review and modification decision tree for reviewing and determining the level of design or modification required by a course. Subsequent sections of the Handbook outline CSU’s design, approval, development and modification processes.

In the course review and modification decision tree designing a new course and a course redesign refer to the application of the full course design process, whether the Smart Learning or Transitional course design processes.

The modification processes apply to all courses:

A major course modification refers to the application of the course design process to a part of the course.

A minor course modification refers to changes made at a subject level that are approved by the Course Leadership Team or School Board, as part of the continuous improvement process.

A new course, a course redesign and major course modification involve approval of the course by Faculty Courses Committee (FCC).

Major and minor modifications need to be reflected in CourseSpace for Smart Learning wave courses to ensure alignment is maintained.


Figure 1: CSU Course Review and Modification decision tree


3. Course selection and preparation

Courses are identified for design, redesign, or modification as part of the course selection process.

The Course Performance Dashboard is reviewed when selecting courses for review. It provides a simple list of CSU Courses indicating each Course’s performance against relevant measures. There are seven Course Performance Measures (See Table 3: The Seven Course Performance Measures), but not all measures are applicable to all Courses. Each measure has a defined target, which has generally been set at the sector average in 2013/14. Where necessary, the measures have a separate target for internal and online offerings.

Table 3: The Seven Course Performance Measures

Measure Description CSU Standard

Commencing EFTSL

The percentage change in commencing Equivalent Full Time Student Load (EFTSL) compared to the previous year.

0% or above

EFTSL The percentage change in total EFTSL compared to the previous year.

0%or above

Commencing Progress

The proportion of successful student load for commencing students.

80% or above

Progress The proportion of successful student load for all students.

80% or above

First Year Attrition The proportion of students that do not return to study for their second year.

Internal – 18% or below Online – 33% or below

Student Experience

The proportion of students with who are engaged and satisfied with the quality of teaching

Teaching Quality 82% or above

Learner Engagement Internal – 64% or

above Online – 24% or above

% Full Time Work The proportion of graduates in full time employment.

78.1% or above

During the selection & preparation process course teams are established and course leaders prepare for the design process, including setting up a CourseSpace where the team will engage in communication, design, feedback and approval processes. Refer to Appendix A for the Course Selection & Preparation process diagrams.

https://bi.csu.edu.au/#/site/plan_published/views/CoursePerformance/Course?:iid=1


4. CSU Course design and approval

The CSU course design and approval process supports the design of courses to meet the needs of professional accreditation bodies and CSU standards. The CSU course design and approval process applies to new courses that have been approved by University Course Planning Committee (UCPC) and existing courses nominated as Smart Learning Wave courses. Course design and approval at CSU is a phased process that is supported by the CourseSpace software. Refer to Appendix B for the fully articulated CSU course design and approval process. The CSU course design and approval process meets the requirements of the Course Accreditation Policy. Appendix D & E outlines the documentation of the course and its subjects that needs to occur in the CASIMS administrative system.

Figure 2 illustrates in brief the CSU course lifecycle and situates the CSU course design and approval process in that cycle. The CSU course design, development and implementation process is an iterative process. The course design process consists of components of work that build the design of a course in three phases, refer to Section 4.1 CSU Course design process. Feedback from and approval of the design by the Faculty Course Committee (FCC) occurs at the waypoint for each design phase, refer to Section 4.3 Course design approval. Throughout the preparation, design and development processes course teams and their stakeholders share feedback that informs the design in an iterative process. Evaluation from the implementation process feeds into the selection and design phases.


Figure 2: Overview of CSU course lifecycle


4.1 CSU Course design process

The components of work in each phase of the course design process consist of:

Design Phase 1: Baseline, Standards and Products

Design Phase 2: Assessment and Subject Design

Design Phase 3: Module Design

Design Phase 1: Baseline, Standards and Products

In Design Phase 1 the course performance and market are analysed to inform the initial planning of the work to be done in a clearly defined process. The process supports course directors in planning and completing the work of a course review. Integrated course-level standards are developed drawn from CSU Graduate Learning Outcomes, AQF learning outcomes and Professional Standards. Evidence of the achievement of the standards is then described in a set of definable products, that are tangible evidence of student achievement of skills, knowledge and skill application that reflect the world of work.

Waypoint 1 approval by FCC occurs at the end of Phase 1.

Design Phase 2: Assessment and Subject Design

In Design Phase 2 authentic and criterion referenced and standards based assessment tasks are developed that map to the course-level integrated standards or outcomes and have clearly defined assessment criteria that makes explicit to the student what they need to achieve in order to pass (or receive a higher grade) for the task. In subject design intentionally designed learning experiences directly map to the subject learning outcomes and the relevant assessment tasks to demonstrate how students will learn what they need to know to successfully achieve the course outcomes.


Design Phase 3: Module Design

In Design Phase 3 module specifications are designed aligning the modules in a subject to the subject outcomes, learning experiences and assessment tasks. These specifications build out the learning experiences within the learning events across the timeline of the subject to scaffold student learning and achievement of knowledge, skills, and course-level standards. Refer to Appendix C: Module Design Requirements


Integral to the process is collaborative work within a course team and across faculties and divisions at CSU, enabling multiple perspectives on the work of course design, and distributed leadership within a course team. Feedback emerges at each stage of the design/review process, supporting ongoing design work that is iterative and responsive to the feedback and course approval. The course design process is supported by the CourseSpace. The CourseSpace functionality supports teams in building alignment from integrated standards through products and assessment tasks to subject modules that support students to demonstrate their capabilities and achievement of course-level standards.


4.2 Feedback Requirements

Feedback is an essential part of course design, contributing to a process of continuous improvement. Constructive, dynamic feedback from multiple sources about everyday work supports reflection and development of teaching and courses in a way that results in ongoing improvement (Bain & Zundans-Fraser, 2014; Hattie, 2012). While traditionally course and subject design tended to be undertaken by individual academics with a depth of knowledge in their field (Daniel, 2009), in the current higher education context, designing high quality courses requires various sources of expertise rarely possessed by one person (Chao, Saj & Hamilton, 2010). Using critical feedback in a transparent manner allows input from these sources as well as allowing courses to meet the demands of multiple stakeholders in the course design, approval and accreditation process. Feedback can also play an essential role in aligning teaching, learning and assessment, with engagement from a diversity of stakeholders examining courses and subjects as they develop, being more likely to drive a quality, aligned course than any individual’s efforts.

4.2.1 Course Design Team feedback

When providing feedback, the following minimum feedback from stakeholders is required for each item:

Table 4: Minimum Feedback Table

CourseSpace Feedback Function

Number of Questions

Feedback from the following people is required:

Minimum number of people to respond

Mandatory for Advisors?

Baseline 7 Course Director, Head of School, Assoc Dean (Academic), Discipline Leaders, Educational Designer, GLO Advisors, Advisory Group

6 Y

Integrated Standards Developer

5 Course Director, Head of School, Assoc Dean (Academic), Discipline Leaders, Educational Designer, GLO Advisors, Advisory Group

6 Y

Product Developer 5 Course Director, Head of School, Assoc Dean (Academic), Discipline Leaders, Educational Designer, GLO Advisors, Advisory Group

4 optional

Product Map 4 Course Director, Head of School, Assoc Dean (Academic), Discipline Leaders, Educational Designer, GLO Advisors, Advisory Group

4 Y

Assessment Task Developer

11 Course Director (of any course(s) containing the subjects) and/or Educational Designer on all Assessment tasks. Feedback from 2 others on each task as assigned by the Course Director: Discipline Leader, Subject Developer, Head of School, GLO Advisors

For each Assessment:

Course Director and/or

Educational Designer

And 2 others

optional


CourseSpace Feedback Function

Number of Questions

Feedback from the following people is required:

Minimum number of people to respond

Mandatory for Advisors?

Assessment Map 5 Course Director, Head of School, Discipline Leaders, Subject Developer, Educational Designer, GLO Advisors

4 Y

Subject Developer 10 Course Director (of any course(s) containing the subjects) and/or Educational Designer on all Tasks. Feedback from 2 others on each task as assigned by the Course Director: Discipline Leader, Subject Developer, Head of School, GLO Advisors

For each Subject



And 2 others

optional

Subject Map 6 Course Director, Head of School, Discipline Leaders, Educational Designer, Subject Developers, GLO Advisors

4 Y

Module Design 7 Course Director (of any course(s) containing the subjects), and/or Educational Designer on all Tasks. Feedback from 2 others on each task as assigned by the Course Director: Discipline Leader, Subject Developer, Head of School, GLO Advisors

For each Module:



And 2 others

optional

4.2.2 Faculty Course Committee feedback

Members of the Faculty Course Committee and any FCC subgroups will answer 2 questions on each component of the course design in the “Review -> Faculty Course Committee” function in CourseSpace.


4.3 Course design approval

This section outlines the course design approval process for Smart Learning Wave courses. The goal of the course design approval process is to engage all levels of feedback and review of a course and provide for course final approval. The process embeds the role of Faculty Courses Committees, School Boards and the Indigenous Board of Studies in course review, design and approval processes. Course design approval is via the university’s course process which is governed by the Academic Senate and articulated in the Course Accreditation Policy. Table 5: CSU Course design approval process: Phases 1-3 outlines the waypoints for approval in the course design process.

The course approval and course modification processes described below comply with CSU Policy and CASIMS requirements. The Course Accreditation Policy makes provision where a course and therefore subjects are shared by Faculties. In this case the Executive Deans appoint a host Faculty and working party with convener and representatives from each faculty. The Inter-Faculty Teaching Policy makes provision for collaboration between faculties where subjects are shared.

Table 5: CSU Course design approval process: Phases 1-3

Phase Course design approval process

Approval by whom

When Notes

Phase 1

Phase 1 waypoint approval of Baseline, Integrated Standards and Products components of the course design process

FCC following subgroup feedback at waypoint 1 in the course design process (CDP)

By September. Implementation year minus 2

1.As per course design process flowchart (Appendix B) and timeline, and FCC approval process

Phase 2

Phase 2 waypoint approval of Assessment Task and Subject Design components of the course design process

FCC following subgroup feedback at waypoint 2 in the course design process

By December. Implementation year minus 2

1.As per Course Design Process flowchart (Appendix B), timeline and FCC approval process

Phase 3

Phase 3 waypoint approval of Module specifications and final course approval from FCC

FCC following subgroup feedback at waypoint 3 in the course design process

By May. Implementation year minus 1

1.As per Course Design Process flowchart (Appendix B), timeline and FCC approval process 2.Required for postgraduate courses of 1 year duration full time 3. Requires archival of the course in CourseSpace




4.4 Indigenous Board of Studies: Indigenous content approval

As part of the course design approval process for all courses at CSU, all Indigenous content in courses requires approval by the Indigenous Board of Studies (IBS). If you are going to submit content to the IBS, please contact Jay Phillips, HoS, School of Indigenous Australian Studies to discuss. Contact details are; email [email protected] or phone 57330.

Submission template is available at: https://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1741949/IBS-Submission.pdf

For information about the Indigenous Australian Content in Courses Policy look here: https://policy.csu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00385

Information from the Indigenous Curriculum website is reproduced below:

The approval for Hybrid and Discipline-specific subjects need to be documented before these subjects can be approved by relevant Faculty Courses Committees or the Academic Program Committee.

All subjects with Indigenous Australian content must be submitted to the IBS for approval and classification. Applications to the IBS normally follow the following process:

1. New or revised subject profiles are submitted to School Board for approval;

2. New or revised subject profiles approved by the relevant School Board and

supporting documentation are submitted to for IBS for classification and approval;

3. Following IBS approval the profiles are progressed to the relevant Faculty Courses

Committee for approval.

The following documents and supporting information should be submitted:

New or revised subject profile;

Details of assessment and teaching strategies;

Information concerning how the subject fits within the course(s) served (for example,

is the subject compulsory or an elective).

Full details of the requirements and process of submission are available at: https://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/agendas-and-minutes/ICUP_at_CSU(v4).pdf

Meetings dates are available at: http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/agendas-and-minutes/Indigenous_BrdStud.htm

Note: These processes are currently under further review by the Deputy Vice Chancellor(Academic), the School and by Governance Services.

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1741949/IBS-Submission.pdf


https://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/agendas-and-minutes/ICUP_at_CSU(v4).pdf

http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/agendas-and-minutes/Indigenous_BrdStud.htm

http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/agendas-and-minutes/Indigenous_BrdStud.htm


4.5 CASIMS Documentation

As part of the course design and approval processes for all courses at CSU, documentation of the course and its subjects needs to occur in the CASIMS administrative system which is the workflow and archive system for the course accreditation process, and includes production of data for the final approval stage and for government reporting. This section outlines the process for Smart Learning Wave courses. Course and subject information recorded in CASIMS also feeds into other systems, such as the handbook and subject outlines. Key points where CASIMS documentation needs to occur is indicated in Appendix B: Course Design/Redesign process.

4.5.1 Course Documentation

In CASIMS course documentation has two parts.

PART A Part A can be completed using the work documented in the CourseSpace during the course design process. Some fields such as course names still being required to be input manually. Information for Part A is drawn from the Planner Overview in CourseSpace (see Appendix E: CASIMS Fields and CourseSpace). If subjects have been added/ changed/ removed in the course then the section on Subject Curriculum needs to be completed.

PART B For existing courses, the data from the previous version of the CASIMS documentation will be copied over and only items in the course that have changed (e.g. course structure, enrolment pattern, etc) need to be updated. For new courses this whole section needs to be completed. See Appendix E: CASIMS Fields and CourseSpace for information to be drawn from CourseSpace.

4.5.2 Subject documentation

This section needs to be completed for subjects that have changed or have been made obsolete. For new subjects the subject code needs to be obtained from DSA master files. Please liaise with your Administrative support to ensure CASIM documentation is completed.

The timeline for completing the CASIMS documentation is the May FCC meetings with further edits after the FCC meetings needing to be completed by the date published annually by Governance Services (date is normally late-May). Course approval is met when the course has completed Waypoint 3 and addressed any suggested amendments or feedback from the FCC meeting within the timeframe given by the FCC chair. This timeline is necessary to complete government reporting and ensure handbooks etc can be printed in time.

The FCC meeting dates can be found at http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/meetingschedule/

A written report to the FCC is also required to be completed for Wave courses. The suggested format for the Waypoint reports are available via DOMS: Phases 1, 2 and 3.

Additional information about CASIMS relationship to CourseSpace and CASIMS fields and data stored in CourseSpace is outlined in Appendix D: CASIMS and CourseSpace relationship and Appendix E: CASIMS Fields and CourseSpace.

http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/meetingschedule/

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/02c70b0e-a366-4cdb-ad5a-f4b4a0d1a036/1/CD_%20Report_FCC_Phase1.docx

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/items/0c28e9bf-0d15-4a13-8d6e-e73ece79868b/1/

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/items/3a44d4f3-e1a6-44de-825d-1d4109482590/1/


4.6 Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLOs)

4.6.1 Overview and Context

Charles Sturt University sits in a higher education landscape governed by the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA). Using the Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF), TEQSA evaluates higher education providers in a number of categories. The HESF includes the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) as well as a number of generic skills deemed to be achievable within the context of completing an undergraduate qualification, but not particular to a given qualification type or program. Wider society, including employers and professional bodies, have an expectation that graduates will display these attributes. At CSU, these generic skills are described in the Graduate Attributes Policy.

Supporting the implementation of the policy, CSU has developed a set of common Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLOs). These have been developed in a similar framework to the AQF standards, using ‘Knowledge’, ‘Skills’ and ‘Application’ in each set. The GLOs were developed to assist course teams with alignment between standards, course and subject outcomes, and assessment to produce what we refer to as “the CSU graduate”, a graduate who is prepared to succeed in life and work .

The GLOs align with:

CSU Graduate Attributes Policy which specifies the characteristics of CSU

Graduates (https://policy.csu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00257)

The criteria of the Australian Qualifications Framework (http://www.aqf.edu.au/)

Professional standards and accreditation requirements

The attributes are characteristics that employers and professional bodies expect graduates to exhibit along with their specific discipline knowledge. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) uses the published graduate attributes and evidence of their achievement in their accreditation process. This evidence can be shown through detailing how we achieve the GLOs in course design.

4.6.2 The GLOs

The nine Graduate Learning Outcomes cover:

Professional practice

Academic literacy and numeracy

Information and research literacies

Digital literacies

Ethics

Lifelong learning

Indigenous cultural competence

Sustainable practices

Details about each GLO, expanded to outline the knowledge attained, the skills acquired and the application of the knowledge and skills, are available at


http://www.aqf.edu.au/


http://www.csu.edu.au/division/student-learning/home/csu-curriculum/graduate-learning-

outcomes.

Inclusion of three GLOs in all courses is mandated by CSU Policy:

Indigenous Cultural Competency GLO aligns to the Indigenous Australian Content in

Courses Policy

Academic Literacy and Numeracy GLO aligns to the English Language, Literacy and

Numeracy Policy

Ethics GLO aligns to the Academic Integrity Policy

Inclusion of these aspects is reportable to Academic Senate.

4.6.3 GLO Advisors

Each of the nine Graduate Learning Outcomes has a dedicated GLO advisor with expertise on that topic. Their role is to assist teams with integrating the GLOs into discipline-specific content during course design, and providing feedback at the various approval stages.

4.6.4 Incorporating the GLOs

Incorporating the Graduate Learning Outcomes into course design is done at all phases of the process, including the preparatory steps and is documented in the GLO implementation process. When establishing the course team, planning for the role of the GLO advisors in the design is important. Course Directors and Course Leadership Teams can best determine how to optimise the expertise of the GLO advisors within their discipline.

Working with the GLO advisor during the Baseline/DSNR component helps ensure that the GLOs are considered at the earliest stage of development. It also helps ensure they are given consideration, along with the other standards, in the development of Integrated Standards, with the GLOs as a focus in designing the curriculum. This also assists the GLO personnel in understanding the context of a particular course.

During the Assessment Tasks and Subjects components, the GLOs are operationalised as learning experiences into the design. It is important to scaffold the GLO learning experiences to build on students’ knowledge and skills throughout the course. Rich assessment tasks can incorporate multiple GLOs, both complementing and integrating with the discipline-specific content.

Example of an assessment task with multiple GLOs:

A case based assessment task (developed from real practice) where students:

develop solutions to real problems (Professional Practice)

locate, access and evaluate information (Information & Research Literacy)

communicate effectively in digital environments (Digital Literacy)

critically challenge the values inherent in practice (Ethics)

surface personal values and biases about people from Indigenous cultural

backgrounds (Indigenous Cultural Competency)

seek and employ feedback to reflect on performance to enhance professional

development (Lifelong Learning)

http://www.csu.edu.au/division/student-learning/home/csu-curriculum/graduate-learning-outcomes

http://www.csu.edu.au/division/student-learning/home/csu-curriculum/graduate-learning-outcomes






https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/c62c2fb7-81d2-4cb7-8d17-557f967ed559/1/Generic%20GLO%20Introductory%20Resource.pdf

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/c62c2fb7-81d2-4cb7-8d17-557f967ed559/1/Generic%20GLO%20Introductory%20Resource.pdf


Whilst the embedding of GLOs is mandatory for SL courses, teams using the Transitional

design process are encouraged to consider how they can be realised in their courses, and

speak with the GLO advisors.


5. Course modification

In this section the course modification processes that apply following design, development, approval and implementation of a course are outlined. The course modification processes apply to all courses at CSU. The goal of the course modification process is to provide for different levels of course modification and approval that maintain the integrity of the original course design during implementation over a period of time. The course modification processes are represented in Table 6: CSU Course modification options A-D and in Figure 3: Course Modification Decision Tree Triggers for course modification and review are detailed in Section 5.1 Triggers for course modification, review and redesign.

The course review, improvement and approval cycle is a continuous process of implementation, feedback and analytics to determine modification or redesign actions by Course Directors and course teams. It also encompasses the feedback and approval processes of School Board and FCC. Where elements of a course that have been approved by IBS will change under the course modification options below, Course Directors need to consult with and seek re-approval by IBS.

The course modification processes described below comply with Academic Senate and CASIMS requirements. Options A-D encompass a range and depth of modification and approval requirements. For example, options in A are modifications with low workload implications arising from subject evaluations, and assessment and moderation processes (Assessment & Moderation Policies), that are addressed by the subject team and approved by the Course Leadership Team. Assessment and moderation as a peer review process provides data to inform decision making. Options B-D cover the Course Accreditation Policy modification requirements. Option D for example is a detailed modification involving changes to course and subject profiles and/or reporting fields or published information requiring FCC approval. See Appendix B for the Smart Learning course design/redesign process that may result from an option D course modification, or Section 7 for the Transitional course design process. Depending on the level of modification determined, Course Directors and course teams may design or redesign part or the whole of a component, multiple components of a course design, or a thread running through a whole course design.

Triggers for course modification may include the following (see 5.1 Triggers for course modification, review and redesignfor details):

Implementation data 1. Subject Evaluation data 2. Assessment & Moderation review 3. Course Evaluation data

Other Analytical data, e.g. Enrolment trends, industry trends

External requirements, e.g. Accreditation body, government changes

Course Accreditation policy


Table 6: CSU Course modification options A-D

Modification process

Description Approval by whom When

Ai Assessment task replacement only

Equivalent assessment task replacement based on currency, feedback and/or analytics, and addressing plagiarism. Replacement task needs to be criterion-referenced standards-based, and meet the same integrated standards and other course requirements to maintain alignment and design. Not requiring a CASIMS change - no subject profile/reporting fields or published information impacted.

Course Leadership Team.

By Subject Outline publication date for each session.

Aii Modification of assessment

Where feedback and analytics from implementation suggest changes needed to an assessment task, and potentially learning experiences and modules. The modified task needs to be criterion-referenced, standards-based, and meet the same integrated standards and other course requirements to maintain alignment and design. Not requiring a CASIMS change - no subject profile/reporting fields or published information impacted.

Course Leadership Team. Course Director to include in annual report to FCC.


Aiii Modification of Modules only

Where feedback and analytics from implementation suggest changes are needed to module learning events and resources only. The assessment task and subject outcomes, description, learning experiences and module headings remain unchanged. Subject alignment and design are maintained.

Course Leadership Team. Course Director to include in annual report to FCC.



Modification process

Description Approval by whom When

Not requiring a CASIMS change - no subject profile/reporting fields or published information impacted. Note: where module headings are changed this becomes an Option B modification requiring changes to CASIMS subject profile syllabus field.

B Modification of subject

Where feedback and analytics from implementation suggest changes needed to subject outcomes, learning experiences and modules. Requires a review of alignment. Some modifications require CASIMS subject profile changes, such as subject outcomes, descriptions and module headings.

Course Leadership Team and School Board representative do feedback on assessment task, subject and module design, development and alignment. FCC approval where subject profiles change. Otherwise Course Director to include in yearly report to FCC.

Approval by May FCC for following year implementation

C Course Structural modification

Where subjects are moved around in a course structure based on feedback and analytics. Requires CASIMS course profile changes and impacts published information

Course Executive Team and School Board representative provide feedback on course structure and course alignment. FCC approval


D Course modification

Major course modification which may involve: new accreditation requirements; new workplace learning requirements; changes to specialisations, exit or entry points or credit packages; and/or replacing or redesigning of subjects based on feedback and analytics. Requires CASIMS modification document and impacts published information. The approved course requires archival in CourseSpace

Course Executive Team. FCC following subgroup feedback (see course design and approval processes).



Figure 3: Course Modification Decision Tree


5.1 Triggers for course modification, review and redesign

Under a continuous improvement approach, there are a range of triggers for a course modification and review that may result in either a course redesign or a major or minor course modification. This would then involve a course team engaging in the CSU course design and approval processes outlined in Section 4. CSU Course design and approval or Section 7. Transitional course design process. See Appendix B: Course Design/Redesign process for a flowchart of the course design process applied in an option D course modification for a previously approved Smart Learning Wave course. Some triggers for course modification under the Course Accreditation Policy may entail seeking approval from Faculty Courses Committee (FCC), the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) for higher degrees by research (HDRs) or the University Course Planning Committee (UCPC), refer to Table 7: Full course review and redesign triggers and Table 8: Major course review and redesign triggers below.

5.1.1 Major course review and redesign triggers

The events tabled below are triggers for a full review and course redesign. These are

required to address the quality of the course design and content. These triggers come from

course feedback and evaluations, and the Course Accreditation Policy.

Table 7: Full course review and redesign triggers

Implementation and feedback data triggers Approval by

SPI data sources show that the course is not achieving successful enrolments, interest, retaining students or graduating students who are employable

Triggers requiring course redesign and

approval by FCC

There are major concerns about the quality of the graduates, the course structures and the pedagogical frameworks within the course

There has been a major shift in the field, resulting in course accreditation standards and processes changing in a major way

Data shows that the course is not performing well across many dimensions

The faculty wanted the course to take a different direction or attract different students

Course Accreditation Policy triggers Approval by

Change of nomenclature FCC or RAC for HDRs

Change of duration (usually only master courses - includes shortening or lengthening of course by altering the length of the dissertation or by deleting coursework subjects, but may also apply to a double degree program as a result of changes to a constituent course)

FCC, or RAC for HDRs, and UCPC if any resource issues

Creation or deletion of an exit point only course FCC

Change or addition of a location UCPC

Change or addition of a funding source UCPC

Change to or addition of a mode UCPC, and FCC if adding DE mode with new subjects

Change of Faculty ownership UCPC

Addition or phase-out of a joint study in Bachelor of Business

FCC, and UCPC if any resource issues


5.1.2 Major course review and redesign triggers

The events tabled below are triggers for a major review and redesign. These are required to address the quality of the course design and content. These triggers come from course feedback and evaluations, and the Course Accreditation Policy. Refer to the table below

Table 8: Major course review and redesign triggers

Implementation and feedback data triggers Approval by

Student Evaluation surveys highlight some particular areas of need within subjects but the overall course evaluation is high

Triggers may require course redesign and

approval by FCC/ School Board The course teaching team feels there is a need to review elements of

the course structure including subjects or assessments

Course Evaluation Questionnaires in the previous 2 years show only minor gaps in terms of quality in areas of student satisfaction, quality of experience, quality of teaching, and the way course provides current and effective learning

Triggers may require course redesign and

approval by FCC

The accreditation agency has changed the standards and this impacts on the current design, but not in a major way

CSU strategies have changed which impacts on course content and approach – new policies require some additional aspects

The earlier course was not mapped to a set of integrated standards or did not include GLOs

A key area of the field has changed and needs to be addressed but feedback on the course is strong overall

The course was included in Smart Learning Wave 1-3 of the course design and approval process

Course Accreditation Policy triggers Approval by

Addition of a Major or Minor or phase-out of a Major or Minor


Addition of a specialisation

FCC, or RAC for HDRs, and UCPC if any resource issues

Variation to the content or structure of a course specifically for an identified category of students


Change of session type/pattern e.g. from session-based to trimester-based

UCPC

Addition of a specialisation to a shell course FCC, and UCPC if any resource issues

Modifications to subject outcomes, subject descriptions and module headings affecting subject profiles

FCC


6. Course development (interim)

The course development process follows course design approval and includes the staged module development. The development process will apply to courses that have completed the CSU course design process or the transitional course design process.

Figure 4: Course Development Process illustrates the high level elements of the Course Development process. See Appendix F: Course development steps (interim) for an explanation of the Course Development process steps. Appendix I: Course development process template (interim)provides a sample workplan template to help guide completing of course development.

A Subject Integrity check occurs at the end of course development. The Subject Integrity Discussion encourages collegiality between the range of stakeholders charged with ensuring quality and integrity of subjects. Central to the process is the academic who is charged with delivery. The Course Director also takes a pivotal role in organising the process and ensuring the subjects maintain its integrity with the approved course design. See Appendix J: Course development – subject integrity check (interim) for more information.


Figure 4: Course Development Process


7. Transitional course design process

This section illustrates in brief the Transitional course review, design and approval process for existing courses that have not yet been nominated as a Smart Learning Wave course. This process supports the review of these courses through a structured process that guides the course director and course team and ensures the meeting of policy and approval requirements.

Figure 5: Transitional Course Design process illustrates the high level elements of the Transitional course design process. For an explanation of the steps, refer to Appendix G: Transitional course design steps. Appendix H: Transitional course design workplan template provides a sample workplan template to help guide completing of the transitional course design process.

The Transitional course design process is an example of the Course Advisory Process in the Course Accreditation Policy. The process includes completion and approval of the CASIMS course approval document.


Figure 5: Transitional Course Design process


Appendix A: Course Selection & Preparation processes

Course Selection process


Course Preparation process


Appendix B: Course Design/Redesign process


Appendix C: Module Design Requirements

The final course design component in the CSU course design process defines each module in a subject, specifying: the intent and pedagogy of each module and learning event; indicative content that will be covered; learning resources and technologies; and the alignment of the module to one or more subject learning experience/s and learning outcome/s, to ensure that the subject occurs with the intent expressed in the course design.

Module design requirements are:

1. Name of module

2. Length of time (weeks ) that module is expected to take

3. Suggested pedagogical approaches (this provides a starting point for someone taking and finishing the module to develop & teach)

4. Summary of content to be covered

5. Focus questions or learning outcomes for each week of the module in a series of learning events

6. Suggested strategies for student activity online or face to face, allowing the design to reflect a balance of approaches

7. Suggested resources or ideas for useful resources, including technologies

8. Align to show connections between module & learning experiences

9. Align to show connections between learning events & subject outcomes. All linkages/connections within CourseSpace necessary to ensure that the module design is consistent and that there is alignment across modules

In designing a module a subject designer creates

1. A module description in narrative or dot points to the student, including the following:

a. Name of module

b. Length of time in weeks the module is expected to take

c. Summary of content to be covered

d. Suggested teaching or pedagogical approaches or strategies to be employed

e. Suggested technologies & resources to be used

2. A series of Learning Events for each module including the following:

a. Name of Learning Event

b. Focus question/s or event specific learning outcomes

c. Suggested student activities and tasks

d. More explicit resources and technologies that enable the learning in the activities and tasks


Appendix D: CASIMS and CourseSpace relationship

This appendix is relevant to courses that are engaged in the CSU course design process. CourseSpace (CS) and CASIMS have fundamentally different roles. CourseSpace is where courses and subjects are designed, and the CourseSpace is also a venue for the design process, providing a single unified space for the collaborative work and feedback involved. CASIMS is a system that records the information about a course for dissemination to a range of CSU systems and external-facing locations. It records the internal accreditation process that is required to meet governance and regulatory requirements (eg TEQSA) as CSU is a self-accrediting institution. Information in CASIMS feeds into the CSU handbook, government reporting, CAL, SAL, Banner master data, the on-line course brochures and subject outlines.

Now that CASIMS and CourseSpace aren’t linked as systems, this is the suggested way to manage the ongoing course design and approval work, for the Smart Learning Wave courses.

1. Course design work takes place in Smart Learning in CourseSpace. Course reporting all derives from CASIMS.

2. Course/subject design work in CourseSpace can be either copied directly into the appropriate CASIMS sections during the course design process, or entered into CASIMS documents in preparation for each Waypoint. It is recommended that the Course Director works with their Course Administration team to set up the appropriate CASIMS documents in the early stages of the design process.

3. The Faculty must have a QA process that checks the fidelity of what’s been entered into CASIMS against what was designed in CourseSpace.

4. A course review is complete when the Faculty Courses Committee approves the completion of Waypoint 3 including any requested amendments. This will be minuted in the FCC actions.

5. At this point, the FCC presiding chair will inform the Manager, Course Administration Team to finalise all CASIMS documents

Special Notes

1. If there are urgent modifications1 needed to be applied to the course/subjects before the course design process is complete then

a. The Associate Dean(Academic) discusses it with the appropriate Administration team

b. The Administration team will need to i. PDF the current CASIMS information and delete the unapproved

course/subject ii. Setup a modification/revision for the urgent course/subject change iii. Manage approvals

c. The course design team need to incorporate the CASIMS changes into CourseSpace

1 Urgent modifications are expected to be rare, and should only occur if there are accreditation problems or by directive from the Associate Dean(Academic)


d. The Administration team then need to setup the appropriate CASIMS document using the previously-saved PDF

2. If a Faculty does step 3 above, then they should add the summary of the changes

they have made to the Planner in CourseSpace, so that the design team is aware of them and can incorporate them into the design.


Appendix E: CASIMS Fields and CourseSpace

This appendix is relevant to courses that are engaged in the CSU course design process.

There is a correspondence between the fields in CASIMS and the content in CourseSpace.

When preparing CASIMS documents for FCC Course Directors draw information from

similar areas of CourseSpace.

Course Directors need to speak to the Manager, Course Administration team (MCAT) early

enough to ensure a course review or modification document has been opened according to

Faculty procedures.

The following documents contain instructions as to information is required in each part of the

review, and what the administration process is:

Document Location

CASIMS Guidelines http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/CASIMS/docs/Course_Document_Guidelines_2012_1.pdf

FAC-PROC-CRS-015D-001-Faculty Courses Committee

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/aa4cfc85-fc0f-4cee-ad82-21714e8be0f5/1/FAC-PROC-CRS-015D-001-Faculty%20Courses%20Committee.pdf

Tips for CASIMS Course Documents

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/d265a5ce-510c-4c69-a2cf-4ecdf6f3ee59/1/Tips%20for%20CASIMS%20Course%20documents.docx

Tips for CASIMS Subject Documents

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/321fc326-ed66-4e68-b943-565035a81685/1/Tips%20for%20CASIMS%20Subject%20documents.docx

The following items will be obtained from CourseSpace. All other items to be completed

following the CASIMS Guidelines.

Please note that PART A of the document is evidence of the course design

process.

All actual changes to the course flowing from the design process are made in

PART B.

Part A: Course Review and the related CourseSpace information

CASIMS Fields in Part A Information to be obtained from CourseSpace

1.1 Rationale for review

(this needs to be completed for any course review)

Information may be available in the CourseSpace Planner to support the narrative here.

The Baseline DSNR information provides evidence for the narrative.

2.1 CSU Staff

(this needs to reflect the current review)

The course team who worked on the review should be listed in the Planner, or the list can be found in the Administration of CourseSpace.

http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/CASIMS/docs/Course_Document_Guidelines_2012_1.pdf













2.2 Advisors These people may be listed in the Planner as part of the preparation.

2.4 Advisory process Information on meetings and input from external (to CSU) advisers would be in the Planner.

2.6 Recommendations The content in the Baseline (DSNR, Planner meeting notes, commitments, conceptual model) will support the preparation of this section.

3.2 Demand

3.3 Resources

3.4 Quality of teaching

Information from the DSNR will support the completion of these sections.

3.5 Graduate Attributes Mandatory for undergraduate courses drawn from the Graduate Attributes Policy referenced in CourseSpace discussions

Graduate Attributes Policy – Undergraduate Courses is found on the policy site: https://policy.csu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00257

4.1.1 Aims Here you will write the rationale for any changes planned for this review.

This can be drawn from the rationale that has been written for the conceptual model as well as the Commitments and the needs in DSNR

You will enter any changes to the Aims in in Part B

Note: CASIMS will display the aims from the current approved course in this section

4.1.2 Objectives Here you will write the rationale for any changes planned for this review.

This can be drawn from the rationale that has been written for the conceptual model as well as the Commitments and the needs in DSNR

You will enter any changes to the Objectives in Part B

Note: CASIMS will display the objectives from the current approved course

4.2.1 Course Structure This section allows the user to include the rationale for any

changes to course structure & enrolment pattern.

The rationale can be constructed from the Subject Mapper,

and any discussions that have been recorded in the Planner

The CASIMS editor will show a slightly different set of

information – which allows a combined rationale for both but

is displayed separately

Note: CASIMS will display the course structure from the

current approved course




4.2.2 Enrolment Pattern The rationale for changes to the enrolment pattern is entered in 4.2.1 Course Structure section

Note: CASIMS will display the enrolment pattern/s from the current approved course

4.2.3 Complete Summary of Subjects

This section contains a list of subjects in the current approved course structure.

There is no action required here

4.5 Inter Faculty Teaching Arrangements (previously known as Service Teaching)

The Course Director needs to identify subjects being taught from another Faculty

The Course Director needs to work through the list of imported subjects in CourseSpace & determine which ones are taught by another Faculty.

Note: On submission to FCC, CASIMS detects when a subject is from another faculty and emails all people in the Faculty Executive Officer (FEO) and the Document Administrator roles.

PART B

CASIMS Course: This is the part which will become the next version of the course

when approved. The following fields have related content in CourseSpace.

CASIMS Fields in Part B Information to be obtained from CourseSpace

Course Structure Information for this will be found in the Subject Mapper

Enrolment Pattern Information for this will be found in the Subject Mapper and from the Planner.

Subject/Curriculum The list of subjects for this will be found in the Subject

Developer

Course (CRS) Specific Fields

CASIMS Fields in Part B Information to be obtained from CourseSpace

CASIMS Course Identifier If the course is a complex set each course name is required,

eg Articulated Sets, Integrated Honours

The Identifier will be the name of the CourseSpace that was

created for the course design. Any linked courses will be

identified in the Planner


Aims Each course listed above will have separate Aims

commensurate with the award level

Writing this will be supported by the rationale that has been

written for the conceptual model, as well as the

commitments and the DSNR (needs).

Objectives Each course listed above will have separate Objectives

commensurate with the award level

Writing this should be drawn from the development of Products linked to the Integrated Standards

The section names from Integrated Standards can be used as the Objectives with an appropriate stem

All other PART B and CRS SPECIFIC fields are required to be completed with reference to

the CASIMS Guidelines and Tips for CASIMS Course Documents.

The following table details how to complete the Subject Profiles.

CASIMS Fields in Subject Profiles

Information to be obtained from CourseSpace

Subject Profiles

(Where there have been changes to the subject during the course design process)

Fields 1-4 will be completed by your Manager, Subject Administration Team (MSAT) or Subject Administration Officer (SAO) in readiness for completion.

5. Standard subject data The response to the first question includes pedagogical frameworks and can be informed from learning experiences as described in the Subject Developer.

The other questions require responses based on Course Director/Subject Coordinator knowledge.

7. Abstract This is the subject description from the Subject Developer.

This may need to be reworked to align with CASIMS guidelines (50-100 words)

8. Learning Outcomes These are listed in CourseSpace in the Subject Developer. Check they read correctly with the stem provided by the CASIMS document. Course Director may choose to use the short version (verb stem phrase) of their CourseSpace learning outcome.

9. Syllabus Module titles provide the syllabus details in Subject Modules.

Appendix A

This information is only required for a new subject profile. It is not editable in

A new subject requires Course Director to include

a) Assessment strategies: describe the assessment regime in the subject including Assessment Task descriptions (drawn from (from CourseSpace,


CASIMS Fields in Subject Profiles

Information to be obtained from CourseSpace

subsequent documentation. Assessment Tasks Developer) and

b) Body of Literature: list the body of literature which has informed the design of the subject. Text books and required readings will be found in the Subject Modules.

c) Teaching Strategies: describe the core teaching strategies that are suggested for the subject. These can be found in the learning experiences in CourseSpace.

Notes:

All other fields will need to be as per CASIMS Guidelines. It may not always be necessary to update CASIMS fields.

Ensure that the document contact is the Course Director and the school office email

for subjects, and the faculty email for courses. This is to enable the location of the

correct academic staff when future roles have changed.


Appendix F: Course development steps (interim)

-Th

is p

roce

ss

is d

es

ign

ed

to ta

ke

ap

pro

xim

ate

ly 1

2-1

4 w

eek

s b

eg

inn

ing

afte

r Ma

y F

CC

ap

pro

va

l.

Activity and Indicative Time to Allow

Course Director Tasks Course Development Team tasks

Possible Resources needed

Notes

Course Director prepares for Development Process

Approximately 20hrs work

Meet with Associate Dean (Academic), Head of School and Learning Design Manager to:

identify team members/academics who will be responsible for subjects

identify resourcing needs

Include course development work in the EDRS for the team members

review workload allocations for academics and Educational Designer

Identify if the course is part of other initiatives eg. QLT, OLM, etc

plan the process & the approach to development

set meeting times

Conduct a risk assessment on the subjects

Contact Learning Resources unit through Educational Designer to contribute to design decisions

n/a Learning

Resources Unit

Learning Academy

ADA

HoS

Learning Design

Manager

Preparation is necessary to create timeline of work, identify needs and ensure meeting/workshop times are set.

CD will then need to contact relevant team members, others who will have input into the team’s work

An Educational Designer will be allocated to support the CD for design and for development. If this is a different person, a handover will occur.

Need to do a risk assessment: What subjects does the Development process have responsibility for and what subjects they don’t have responsibility for (shared subjects)

Determine what subject development can be done in the School

Determine what specialisations are feasible to do now & what require further development later

Learning Resources Unit is consulted at this point for forward planning and to inform team of possible resources.

Learning Academy members (GLOs) for advice

Course Development Team

Introduce course team to CourseSpace; look at baseline to understand

Orientation workshop (2 hours)

Attend professional

Will need to invite these people to interact with team:

Course team includes Educational Designer and subject coordinators/ convenors who are responsible for


-Th

is

pro

ce

ss

is

de

sig

ne

d

to

tak

e

ap

pro

xim

at

ely

12

-14

we

ek

s

be

gin

nin

g

afte

r

Ma

y

FC

C

ap

pro

va

l.




Notes

Orientation, Information and Preparation

Over 2 weeks

CD: approximately 10 hours

Team: 5 hours

foundation of design

Workshop the way the team will work together. Set protocols and processes.

Identify professional learning needs and people resources

Contact resources teams as early as possible to ensure timelines can be managed

development that draws links between curriculum advisory groups (GLO/ALLaN/IBS/QLT Assessment/EFPI) and the design into delivery actions (2-3 hours)

Complete ICCP if not completed (own time)

GLO advisors

ALLaN advisor

IBS faculty representative

Library representative

ESC/ LDU development team members

QLT assessment team

OLM advisor

EFPI advisor

Sub Dean Learning and Teaching

subjects in the course

EDRS requirements may need to be considered here – discuss with ADA/HOS

All members need access to CourseSpace.

Need to consider what processes or protocols are required for seeking assistance with development materials

Plan Interact2 course site and which course design information will be added

QLT Assessment Team: Attend meeting and identify inputs. Plan collaboration with CD and ED wrt assessment mapping including types and timing, alignment with LOS, GLO assessment and inclusion of first year principles including early low stakes tasks.

EFPI Support course team through Professional Practice and Ethics GLO Advisor roles.

EFPI Provide support for courses that have WPL as a mandatory requirement to enhance the quality of WPL experiences; provide support for courses that are considering

embedding WPL.; provide professional

development sessions for course teams as required.

Review course design and maps

Review course design to inform subject development– highlight links across the course;

Review module design in CourseSpace and discuss approaches with Course (1 hour team meeting +

Educational Designer identifies resources available in Learning Design Unit and may begin making contact to alert them to possible need.


-Th

is

pro

ce

ss

is

de

sig

ne

d

to

tak

e

ap

pro

xim

at

ely

12

-14

we

ek

s

be

gin

nin

g

afte

r

Ma

y

FC

C

ap

pro

va

l.




Notes

Over1 week

CD approximately 10 hours

Team members: 3 hours

scaffolding of learning, assessments and how they map together.

Draw links to accreditation needs

individual meetings with subject groups).

Course Director, Educational Designer and course team review mapping to highlight how subjects addresses standards and links to products in a Smart Learning course.

EDs to provide high level consultation and analysis of course mapping to provide advice on how subjects meet standards and link to products.

EDs will work with various team members to review modules and advise on how they can be enacted in the i2 environment, face-2-face and blended context.

Course team/Discipline teams plan their work

Over 1 week

CD: 10 hours

Team: 2-3 hours (individual)

Support all team members to review CourseSpace and navigate around the CourseSpace.

Collate team needs for resourcing and PD.

Identify and report professional learning needs to development team (LDU)

Team workshop to make design decisions (1 hour if needed)

Review CourseSpace and identify personal professional learning or resource needs to develop the design.

Educational Designer supports team members as necessary to plan needs

Course team reports needs to Course Director who

passes onto the Associate Dean Academic

On-line learning support

Identify other support needed to create materials in design

Pedagogy/assessment

Workplace resources

LRU

EFPI

OLM Make decisions about (eg) course icons, patterns in Interact2 subject sites, consistent messaging through visual or text materials.

If additional Educational Designers are required, then an SRS request will need to be submitted by the Course Team

EFPI Liaise with course teams regarding useful resources for professional development and develop appropriate resources as needed e.g exemplars of good assessment practice.

QLT Assessment lead: Familiarise with the work plan process for individual course review – SL or non-SL and undertake professional learning as required. Gather data to support assessment design considerations.

Subject Developers

Support as needed

Call regular course team

Report in to course team (1 hour each week). Develop

ESC

IBS

The timings for this will depend on the gap analysis of the material, the type of


-Th

is

pro

ce

ss

is

de

sig

ne

d

to

tak

e

ap

pro

xim

at

ely

12

-14

we

ek

s

be

gin

nin

g

afte

r

Ma

y

FC

C

ap

pro

va

l.




Notes

develop Module Learning Events, Learning Resources & Interract2 sites based on approved course design

Over 5 weeks

CD: 10 hours a week

Team:

(estimated time: 41.5 hours/subject)

NB. Design specification already completed in the review process. This relates to implementing the specification

meeting (1 hour) to report on progress and identify needs or resources needed. Report back to leadership team.

Identify any professional development needs re pedagogies, teaching strategies, etc

Report to School board.

The Interact2 sites include the subject sites and the course site if appropriate

I2 site with assistance from the ECS.

Continue to work on the building out of the Interact2 subject sites and the learning materials/resources

Connect to GLO/ALLaN/library/others when needed to provide advice and feedback.

Educational Designer presents relevant professional learning, EDs and ESCs to coordinate the involvement of other DSL staff as needed

PD about developing online sites/Educational Designer allocation as required

Subject Administration team

QLT assessment lead

material to be developed, and the availability of resources for the development

Timings will also be impacted by marking & grading activities, residential schools and other university activities

If a need for change to design specification arises, Course Director and subject developer meet to discuss changes, update CourseSpace and minute in planner, report to governance if appropriate (see course and subject modification table)

Any change to subject outcomes, descriptions, module headings will need to be approved at an FCC meeting but implementation timing will need to meet governance requirements

Contact IBS if necessary and adjust CASIMS subject profile if necessary – as above

QLT Assessment Team: support development of rationale, criteria and standards that align to LOs and ensure that pass standards meet learning needs.

EDs & ESCs work with academics to build their capacity to enact the design through the development of i2 sites and other L&T resources.

.Support as required via the i2 Help site and the Learning Technologies website.; maintain i2 as custodian


-Th

is

pro

ce

ss

is

de

sig

ne

d

to

tak

e

ap

pro

xim

at

ely

12

-14

we

ek

s

be

gin

nin

g

afte

r

Ma

y

FC

C

ap

pro

va

l.




Notes

Review & provide feedback on developed materials

CD allocates team members to do this:

2 hours per subject

Invite team members to review and provide feedback on the materials being developed by

responding to Module feedback questions in CourseSpace (if used for the course) using all developed resources

Provide feedback on learning materials across the course spaces – collaborative sharing of work being developed.

This could be done concurrently with development of materials

Ensure CASIMS documents are accurate – any course modification required.

All advisory groups: Participate in any review/evaluation process of learning resources for quality assurance

Develop Subject Outlines based on approved assessment design and module development

1 day/subject to develop

Completion 3 weeks before start of session allowing for QA process

Support as Required Individual team members develop Subject Outlines using CourseSpace assessments and Interact2 content as the source of information

Create MSI documents within timeframe of faculty/school

Subject Administration team

The outlines must be ready for publication 2 weeks prior to the start of the session, unless there is a session variation for the subject which must be considered instead

Information about timeline for subject outline publication decided by Faculty

Finalise materials

Support as required. Prepare any information to be placed on Course Interact2 site for student information.

Prepare course landing page and links for resources.

Convene team meeting to prepare for implementation of

Finalise teaching/learning materials, supported by Educational Designer

Attend team meeting focussed on teaching

This may happen within last month prior to session start.

EDs / ESCs assist in the finalization; LDU Managers tracking and reporting on progress.

LRU Archiving resources and assets.

LTU Support as required via the i2


-Th

is

pro

ce

ss

is

de

sig

ne

d

to

tak

e

ap

pro

xim

at

ely

12

-14

we

ek

s

be

gin

nin

g

afte

r

Ma

y

FC

C

ap

pro

va

l.




Notes

course Help site and the Learning Technologies website.

Maintain i2 as custodian

Waypoint 4

Prior to Session Start

After School Board

Under discussion as to what this involves

This will be governance at the School level

The completion and approval of subject material is required by the publication date for subject outlines

GLO: Participate in conversations and meetings with SIAS and relevant Ed’s

Staged Module Development

Including Seek School Board representative feedback on Modules development & Obtain School Board approval for Modules Development

Under discussion with Subject Integrity/ Waypoint 4 and School Board

Intent: Follow staged module development plan for rest of course development

These steps will need to be completed each session (or annually) until the course is fully implemented.

Things to Consider:

Workload allocations each year

Development course team members

Support

Processes for Subject Approval (School Board processes)

Timing of submission to FCC and impact on implementation of changes


Appendix G: Transitional course design steps

Process Step Description Notes

Course Review Trigger

A course review may be initiated for any number of reasons or a new course may be designed to meet a need.

Faculty determines that a course will be reviewed (refer to Section 2, CSU Course Reviews) and provides direction for the review.

Curriculum Learning & teaching Committee (CLTC) approval is required if Faculty chooses to delay a 5 year review.

Triggers could include:

CSU Review cycle

– CSU Course Accreditation Policy states the period of time between reviews shall be 5 years https://policy.csu.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00259

– Business courses are reviewed every 3 years.

Accreditation/Policy/Legislation changes

Identified Learning issues eg. from Student Evaluations

Industry changes

Etc

If there are major modifications, then the Faculty Course Modification process may be used, which includes use of the CASIMS Course Modification document.

the Course Modification section contains a list of possible modification options. See 5. Course modification

CASIMS Guidelines contain detailed instructions as to what information is required in each part of the review, http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/CASIMS/docs/Course_Document_Guidelines_2012_1.pdf

Note: A new course (or award with resource implications) will not enter this process unless it has University Course Planning Committee (UCPC) approval

Course Director conducts preliminary investigation

Course Director conducts preliminary investigation to inform the scope of review

Gathers data from a variety of sources

Analyses information

The Course Director conducts

initial planning with the Head of School to determine the team

preliminary analysis (gaps, policies, etc) in line with Faculty direction on the course

Gap analysis includes Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), CSU Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLOs), Online Learning Model (OLM), workplace learning, residential schools and CSU policies (ie. Indigenous, ELLaN policy, Assessment,





Identifies & maps gaps

Checks professional standards & policy documents

Defines scope of work for the review

Sets out a workplan (timeline) for the review process

Moderation), etc

Should also indicate whether the course is part of CSU course Improvement Initiatives eg. CSU Priority Marketing, OLTM pilot subjects, etc

Based on this the Course Director can make a decision as to what level of course review is required (eg. course redesign, major or minor course modification) and determine the resources required to support the review

The scope is a 1 page document that contains a summary of what is required & is used to inform Course Executive team

The Course Director may need to draw on additional resources eg. GLO Adviser, Practice-Based Education, Educational Designer, etc for the scope of work

Course Director liaises with Course Executive team

Course Director liaises with the Course Executive team to talk about scope, planning & resources including course team, workload and requirements at the Faculty level, and whether to use CourseSpace

Course Executive team may include a Head of School, Associate Dean (Academic) and the Course Director. It may include a Discipline Lead and/or Educational Designer where appropriate

Note: Some subjects may cross multiple Schools, there needs to be a Head of School from one of those Schools in the Course Executive team

The discussions around CourseSpace will need to consider support arrangements, and the need for PD on “How to setup a Primary Standard”

If the Course Executive team endorse the use of CourseSpace then the CourseSpace will need to be setup according to the Course Preparation process (see Course Preparation process)

Decision: Faculty approves review to proceed?

Faculty approves the review to go ahead

The decision point needs an endorsement of recommendation by the Associate Dean (Academic)

The approval may be made by the Executive Dean of the Faculty or by Faculty Courses Committee (FCC)

A review may not receive approval to go ahead if:

It is decided that the review will be postponed. If a review is postponed, then CLTC/DVC(Academic) approval is required

More work is required on scoping to ensure there is adequate information for the



Faculty

It is decided that the course can be phased out

Decision: Is UCPC approval required?

Determine if UCPC approval is required for the course modifications

Course Accreditation policy determines the circumstances in which UCPC is required

Seek UCPC approval Raise Course Modification with UCPC if required

UCPC may recommend to

add course components

phase out course components

phase out a course

Review process terminated:

1. Review if extension

2. Course phase out

The course review is either postponed or actions are undertaken to phase a course out

CLTC approval is required for extensions of time for scheduled reviews

UCPC approval is required to phase out a course

Consult with Manager, Course Administration Team & Manager, Subject Administration Team & begin CASIMS documentation

The course profile in CASIMS is started

Subject profiles are added/modified during the course design process

CASIMS subject profiles are presented to the School Board and IBS as part of approving the course.

Full CASIMS documentation is submitted for FCC

The Course Director & Course Administration officer start CASIMS Part A

Course Team reviews the Course

This step is expanded in the second diagram & table

Course team consists of a minimum of the Course Director, Discipline Lead and Educational Designer, and Subject Developers where required

External Review An external advisory panel reviews the course

The external advisory panel needs to be defined as part of the course review scope. Refer to faculty guidelines regarding how to engage with the external stakeholders

It can include representatives from the discipline, industry experts, GLOs, IBS, ELLaN adviser and Learning and teaching services and will depend on the demands of the course

It may need to include representatives from CSU Learning Academy and other Divisions

Need to consider what benchmarking will be required

Outcomes of the external review are documented in Part B of the CASIMS document



Finalise CASIMS documentation for submission

Finalise CASIMS documentation on course & subject profiles ready for submission

Seek School Board approval for subjects/assessments & IBS approval for indigenous content

School Board approves subject & assessment modifications

Indigenous Board of Studies (IBS) approves the indigenous content in courses

School Board “…shall consider and make recommendations to the Faculty Board with respect to decisions and recommendations about academic and research matters impacting the School”

The School Board receives a list of subjects for the courses, including details of major changes, subject removals & subject additions

Indigenous Board of Studies is responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of the Indigenous Australian content in undergraduate programs policy at CSU and is the approval body for all Indigenous Australian Studies subjects

Submit for approval to Faculty Courses Committee

Submit the Course Approval document and related subject profiles to be approved by Faculty Courses Committee (FCC)

May FCC is the latest at which a course can seek approval to commence in the following year as per Course Accreditation policy

Complete CASIMS documentation

On approval complete all CASIMS documentation and include changes from Faculty Courses Committee (FCC)

Submit for Accreditation

The course is submitted to the accrediting body for accreditation

Not all CSU courses are externally accredited, however CSU accredits all its courses

Course Development & Implementation

Course Development process

Course Implementation process

These steps are covered by separate processes

The following table expands on the “Course Team reviews the course”

Section Description Notes



Course team reviews existing information & workplan

The course team reviews information collated by the Course Director and the work plan

The review of existing information would include:

Outstanding issues from the last review

Key objectives to be achieved

Trends indicated by the collated information, etc

Advisers on GLOs, IBS, ELLaN, Online Learning Model, Assessment, Moderation and Practice Based Education, Practice Based Education may also be included at this point depending on time commitments

Revisit Planning The course team makes adjustments to the work plan based on the review of information & workplan

Depending on the adjustments this may need approval by the Course Executive team

Include Course Review in EDRS & workload allocation for the course team

Include course review work in the EDRS objectives

Include course review work in workload allocation for staff

Course Design Professional Development

Professional Development on Course Design is available if required

DSL provides PD on

Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLOs)

CSU Curriculum, Learning & Teaching framework

Course Design

Online Learning Model

Pedagogy – understand of learning & teaching theories & strategies

Assessment Design & CSU Assessment policy

etc

Define baseline information

Define the bigger picture in how will the course be designed taking into account the preliminary analysis & direction by Faculty, key influences on the course through Drivers, Strengths, Needs & Risks, what the course is committed to and what does the course need to comply with

The baseline for a course engaged in the transitional course design process includes

Drivers, Strengths, Needs & Risk assessment (DSNR)

Complete a needs analysis as required

Course Commitments

Defining what standards need to be complied with (eg. AQF, GLOs, accreditation standards, industry standards, etc



Consideration: CourseSpace could be used to document DSNR, Course Commitments and the standards being used. However, support issues would need to be addressed

Review assessments and identify needs

The course team reviews assessments and identifies improvements to be made by checking:

Clarity of task description

Appropriateness of assessment criteria

Differentiation of performance rubric

Alignment of assessment criteria to subject outcomes and standards

Currency of data in assessments

If all assessments are criterion-referenced standards-based assessment tasks

Professional development in certain areas may be required

It is important to engage with the advisors on GLOs, IBS, ELLaN, Online Learning Model and Assessment & Moderation in the review, and in the redesign & alignment

At this point, there may be a determination to pre-populate the assessments & subjects with the information currently held in the Subject Outline for a given subject.

Collaboratively redesign assessments

The course team redesigns the assessments and check the appropriateness of technology for learning experiences

Rewrite task if necessary

The course team should consult the body of literature for latest & best practices, liaise with Community of Practice and/or professional networks

Assessment tasks and marking criteria are redesigned by relevant subject coordinator or discipline team leader in collaboration with relevant team members and advisors such as QLT assessment leads

Course team reviews the draft and provides feedback on the redesign.

Check alignment of subject & assessments against standards

For each assessment check:

Connection between content in modules & assessment task, assessment criteria & outcomes

Learning experiences against assessment criteria

Scaffolding within the subject & connected subjects



Review subjects and identify needs

The course team review subjects and identifies improvements to be made by checking:

Role of subject within the course considering the Needs and Course Commitments

Currency, clarity & appropriateness of subject material

Constructive alignment of assessment criteria to subject outcomes, subject outcomes to learning experiences

Review and redesign work on assessments and subjects often occur concurrently

Collaboratively redesign subjects

The course team redesigns the subject and checks the appropriateness of technology for learning experiences

Rewrite subject if necessary (abstract, outcomes, learning experiences)

The course team should consult the body of literature for latest & best practices, liaise with Community of Practice and/or professional networks

Outcomes and learning experiences are redesigned by relevant subject coordinator or discipline team leader in collaboration with relevant team members and advisers such as GLOs, IBS, on-line learning adviser, ELLaN adviser, etc

Course team reviews the draft and provides feedback on the redesign.

Check alignment of subject to course

Checking the alignment of modules within the subject and across connected subjects

Course team reviews alignments

After all the components have been re-designed, check all the alignments, course structure, particularly scaffolding across the course & connected subjects

Check that the subject load is balanced for both teaching & student needs

Course Executive reviews redesigned course

The redesigned course is reviewed by the Course Executive

UCPC approval may be required at any stage of the process depending on what emerges from the review

For example

1. As a result of the review, a component of the course needs to be phased out



2. The review has indicated that the existing resources are not adequate to support the course and CSU funding is required for improvements

External Review Mentioned in previous table

Consult with:

GLO Adviser

IBS

ELLaN adviser

Online Learning Model adviser

Assessment & Moderation Policy adviser

Practice Based Education adviser

Engagement with different advisers occurs during the process of assessment and subject review and/or redesign

Course Director expands team membership to actively include advisers on GLOs, IBS, ELLaN, Online Learning Model, Assessment & Moderation, and Practice Based Education

Their involvement will vary depending on the identified gaps in the course & their time commitments.


Appendix H: Transitional course design workplan template Template can be downloaded from DOMS

Activity Key Tasks

Involved/process

Person (s)

Responsible

People

required

Date to be

Completed

Status Notes

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/0b6d7af5-620c-4c08-9943-1b5681dbc142/1/Transitional%20Work%20Plan%20Template%20v2.docx


Appendix I: Course development process template (interim)

Template can be downloaded from DOMS

Activity Key tasks/process

involved Person

responsible People

required Date to be completed Status Notes

Course Director prepares for Development Process

Course Development Team Orientation, Information and Preparation

Review course design and maps

Course team/Discipline teams plan their work

Subject Developers develop Module Learning Events, Learning Resources & Interract2 sites based on approved course design

Review & provide feedback on developed materials

Develop Subject Outlines based on approved assessment design and module development Finalise materials

Subject Integrity Check

https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/5f1a2bf2-8e5b-405a-a404-64e40ee1336d/1/Development%20template.xlsx


Appendix J: Course development – subject integrity check (interim)