university education committee agenda – 15 …web/@gov/documents… · university education...

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE AGENDA – 15 JULY 2015 Agenda of the 04/2015 meeting of the University Education Committee to be held at 9.30am on Wednesday 15th July in Building 20, Room 5. PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS A1 Welcome, Apologies and Leave of Absence A2 Arrangement of Agenda A2.1 Conflicts of Interest A2.2 Starring of Items

A2.3 Adoption of Unstarred Items Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee adopt the resolutions that are put to the committee unstarred.

A3 Business Arising from the Minutes

*A4 Confirmation of Minutes ATTACHMENT p4

Draft Resolution that the minutes of the 03/2015 University Education Committee meeting of 13th May 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record

A5 Chair’s Report PART B – COMMITTEE BUSINESS B1 Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee

There has been no meeting of the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee held since the meeting of 28th April.

B2 Education Policy Review Subcommittee ATTACHMENT p14

Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee receive the draft minutes of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 17th June as attached to the agenda paper.

Ctee_2015_UEC_Agenda_150715 1

PART C – GENERAL BUSINESS *C1 Course Policy Framework ATTACHMENT p27 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee:

i. note the agenda paper on the development of a Course Policy Framework for the University of Wollongong;

ii. endorse the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review Procedures, the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents as outlined in the agenda paper;

iii. note the development of a Conferrals Policy as the final component of the Course Policy Framework is proceeding;

iv. forward the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review Procedures and the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and the proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents to Academic Senate for endorsement, and to the University Council for approval, to be effective immediately.

*C2 Academic Consideration Policy ATTACHMENT p191 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee endorse the revisions made to the academic consideration policy as set out in the agenda paper and attachments, and note the recommendation for a future policy review.

*C3 UOW Resilience Task and Finish Group Strategic Paper ATTACHMENT p222 Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee:

i. note the Discussion Paper, as attached to the agenda paper; ii. provide feedback; and iii. note that the final recommendations of the Wellbeing and Resilience Task & Finish group

will be presented to the University Education Committee for endorsement mid-2016. *C4 Annual Review Procedures – UOW Dubai ATTACHMENT p237 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee:

i. note that the draft quality assurance policy suite will be submitted to the 05/2015 university Education Committee;

ii. endorse the piloting of the revised annual quality assurance procedure at UOW Dubai at the 2015 scheduled annual review;

iii. provide feedback on the draft quality assurance checklist, as attached to the agenda paper. C5 Academic Advice to Students Policy ATTACHMENT p248 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee i. note the current issues relating to the provision of academic advice to students; ii. note that the finalised amendments will be submitted to the 05/2015 University Education

Committee.


iii. invite members to provide feedback on proposed amendments to the policy, and any other information that may inform the policy review.

C6 External Referencing Pilot Project ATTACHMENT p263 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee note the report on the External Referencing Pilot Project as attached to the agenda papers.

C7 Graduate Qualities Policy ATTACHMENT p265 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee note the case for revoking the Graduate Qualities Policy and approve the proposed action to progress to a university wide consultation phase.

C8 TEQSA Update ATTACHMENT p272 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee note the TEQSA Update as set out in the agenda paper.

C9 Other Business C10 Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 9.30am on Wednesday 16th September.


UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE – DRAFT MINUTES AGENDA ITEM A4 The minutes of the 03/2015 University Education Committee meeting, held on 13 May 2015, are attached to the agenda paper. Draft Resolution that the draft minutes of the 03/2015 University Education Committee meeting of 13 May 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record

ATTACHMENT

University Education Committee 03/2015 Meeting Draft Minutes Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Executive Officer, University Education Committee

Prof Eeva Leinonen, Chair, University Education Committee


UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE – 13 MAY 2015 MINUTES Minutes of the 03/2015 meeting of the University Education Committee, held at 9.30am on Wednesday 13th May 2015 in the University Council Room. PRESENT:

Professor Eeva Leinonen (Chair) A/Prof Michael Zanko Professor Paul Chandler A/Prof Margaret Wallace Professor Anne Cusick Mr Dominic Riordan Dr Jennifer Heath Dr Ian Piper Ms Megan Huisman A/Prof Rodney Vickers Dr Julie Kiggins Professor Wilma Vialle A/Prof Grace McCarthy Dr Marcus O’Donnell Dr Sandra Chapple Ms Fran Walder Dr Dominique Parrish A/Prof Katina Michael A/Prof Ian Porter Ms Marion Allen (Admin Assistant) Mr Jim Davies (Executive Officer)

IN ATTENDANCE: Ms Fiona MacDonald (Senior Manager, Library), Dr Joshua Lobb (Head of Students, Faculty of LHA), Ms Cathy Nicastri (Client & Strategic Relationships, IMTS), Dr Joanne Joyce-McCoach (Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing), Ms Carina Tobia and Ms YangMing Goh (incoming student representatives) Ms Jan Sullivan (Manager, Academic Quality & Policy, AQS) and Ms Tori Funnell (Academic Quality & Policy Specialist, AQS)

UNABLE TO ATTEND: Professor Tim Marchant, Professor Patrick Crookes, Ms Anne

Snowball, Associate Professor Gary Noble The Chair welcomed all members, and all those in attendance, to the meeting. PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS A1 Apologies and Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Prof Joe Chicharo, Mr Martin Smith, A/Prof Romy Lawson, Ms Margie Jantii, Prof Graham Williams, A/Prof Christian Ritz, Prof Mark Dowton, Ms Fiona Rankin, Ms Julie Renwick and Ms Debra Hocking. No members are currently on a Leave of Absence.

A2 Arrangement of Agenda

2.1 Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest noted.

2.2 Starring of Items


In addition to the items already starred on the agenda paper, the starring of items C6, C7 and C8 was requested.

A3 Business Arising from the Minutes *A4 Confirmation of Minutes

RESOLVED: 22/2015 that the minutes of the 02/2015 University Education Committee meeting of 18th March 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record

A5 Chair’s Report

The Chair drew members attention to the announcement by the Federal Government that the Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) will cease to exist on 30 June 2016. The press release noted that the work undertaken by the OLT will be redesignated under the banner of “Promotion of Teaching and Learning Excellence in Higher Education Programs”. Funding for the new body will extend to $28 million over three years, and all Australian universities will be invited to bid to host the new institution. However at present, the timeframe over which this funding will be made available, and the model to be implemented are still unclear. It is envisaged that the new body will retain the key elements of grants, Fellowships and Awards, all of which will remain competitive and peer assessed. However, it was noted that the focus for future grants and awards will be centred around substantial, sector-wide initiatives. It is likely that the program will invest in a targeted number of schemes, with a focus on systemic change. In response to this issue, members made the following comments:

• Enquiries should be made as to whether a consortium could be formed to host the institute. To have the institute hosted by one institution may draw allegations of bias.

• While the press release talks of a governance structure that is collaborative in nature, it also talks about the host institution in the singular.

• Australian Universities need to demonstrate support across the sector for the work being done by the OLT and highlight its benefits to ensure that the change is a positive one.

• The redesign of the OLT may be an opportunity to reassess the University’s approach to learning and teaching, allowing the changes to become a transformative one.

The Chair noted that further discussion on this issue would take place at the Universities Australia meeting of Deputy Vice-Chancellors Academic next week. The Chair informed members that Associate Professor Michael Zanko was retiring from the University from 3 July, and as a result this was to be his final University Education Committee. The Chair thanked Michael for his commitment to learning and teaching at the University, demonstrated over more than 28 years of service, in particular noting his strong commitment to excellence in learning and teaching through his work with the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee. Members recorded a vote of thanks for Associate Professor Zanko. The Co-Curricular Recognition project will be launched on 25 May under the name UOWx, and the chair invited members to attend the launch to support the initiative.


Members attention was drawn to the fact that Professor Mark Dowton would no longer be a representative on UEC, and that Senate would run elections to replace the three members who have left UEC since elections were last run.

PART B – COMMITTEE BUSINESS B1 Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee

RESOLVED: 23/2015 that the University Education Committee receives the draft minutes of the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee meeting of 28th April, as attached to the agenda paper.

B2 Education Policy Review Subcommittee

RESOLVED: 24/2014 that the University Education Committee receives the draft minutes of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 15th April, as attached to the agenda paper.

PART C – GENERAL BUSINESS *C1 Digital Learning Thresholds – Phase 1 Implementation

Dr Marcus O’Donnell thanked the Associate Deans Education and Dr Merilyn Childs for their work on the Digital Learning Thresholds (DLT), noting that the report on phase one implementation was very comprehensive. To date, 99.9% compliance with phase one requirements had been achieved. However, a number of points have been made in relation to data collection, systems changes and changes to work practices during the implementation process. In particular, consideration is being given to the development of a UOW-wide subject template within the subject management system, and feedback on self-assessment tools is being considered by the Technology Enriched Learning (TEL) group. In relation to the thresholds, members made the following comments:

• The issue has been passed by Senate. • The purpose of the self-assessment tool and subject outline template needs to be

clear. Is it to be used as an audit tool or an aide memoire for use in the writing of subject outlines?

• Consideration should be given to collecting and disseminating examples of best practice in relation to the publication of subject outlines.

• The consultation process throughout the implementation of the thresholds has been excellent, with feedback taken into account at all stages.

• Consideration may be required as to whether resources can be allocated to underpin the work that is being done within the faculties to implement the thresholds.

In relation to maintaining all resources to support the implementation of the DLTs in a single, easy to find section of the intranet to enable the implementation process, it was noted that discussions between the TEL group and IMTS are ongoing. Discussions are now leading to the nuancing of the DLTs to enable student learning and the development of teaching practice. It was noted by the Chair the there was some exceptional practice across the University in relation to digital teaching, and that the


thresholds are a means by which the whole University is encouraged to engage with blended delivery.

RESOLVED: 25/2015 that the University Education Committee notes the progress report on Digital Learning Thresholds.

*C2 Framework for Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses

The Chair noted that the framework presented today was the result of work that had started in response to findings contained in the AUQA audit in 2011. The present structure has been widely consulted on, and represents a framework into which faculties can fit their own structures as appropriate. Associate Professor Margaret Wallace acknowledged the work of Anne Melano in piecing together the feedback that had been received to enable the framework to remain workable for all. In particular it was noted that the framework does not mandate titles that are to be used, nor is any one person locked into carrying the responsibility for coordination of courses at a faculty level. Rather, the framework has been left open ended in order to recognise the different approaches used by each faculty in relation to this issue. In relation to this issue, the following comments were made:

• External moderation is mandated across the University, so does not require a statement in the framework. Rather, it should be seen as the task of the course coordinator to encourage and enable external moderation.

• The course-level perspective in the Code of Practice (Teaching and Assessment) will be enhanced. COPTA is well adapted to embedding the requirements of these roles.

• The draft course review structures will also pick up many of the themes outlined in the framework.

• The themes contained in the framework need to be embedded in the Standards and Quality Framework for Teaching and Learning.

The implementation of the framework needs further consideration. A draft implementation plan will be presented to the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee. In particular, timelines for implementation, documentary requirements and ownership of the framework needs to be outlined.

RESOLVED: 26/2015 that the University Education Committee endorse the Framework for Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses for submission to Academic Senate.

*C3 Learning Spaces Discussion Paper

Dr Marcus O’Donnell noted that the work on Learning and Teaching spaces has been ongoing for a long time. The University is transforming its learning and teaching spaces to embody the themes of Technology Enriched, Research Led and Community Collaboration, as is evidenced by the Science Teaching Building, Early Start Facility and the SMART Infrastructure building The University is progressing toward the concept that all learning and teaching spaces at UOW encourage active learning by students, and that the campus is designed for learning and teaching. However, there is a need to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately to ensure that this can be achieved. A solid technology framework is needed to enable that this can be taken forward.


In relation to the discussion paper, members made the following comments: • The design of timetabling should enable collaborative learning, rather than

timetabling by maximising the space based on student numbers. In relation to this it was noted that the wording of the Council KPI relating to space usage is misleading, and should be amended.

• With regard to lecture delivery, the fact that many lectures on the main campus are broadcast to other campuses needs to be taken into account.

• The University needs to start thinking about how it can integrate best practice into the design and use of teaching and learning spaces.

It was further noted that, with student numbers set to increase, there will be even more demand for lecture spaces.

RESOLVED: 27/2015 that the University Education Committee:

i. note the Discussion paper, as attached to the agenda paper; ii. provide feedback; and iii. note that the final recommendations of the Learning Spaces Task and Finish

Group will be presented to the University Education Committee for endorsement mid-2016.

*C4 UOW College Audit Report

Mr Dominic Riordan informed members that audit was the first instance of the University undertaking quality assurance activities against the Quality Assurance agreement between the University and UOW College. It was further noted that the report used the AUQA approach of commending good practice, affirming action that is being taken against issues already identified as requiring action, and recommending action be taken against issues identified by the audit panel. Mr Riordan drew members’ attention to the response document provided by the College, noting that many of the issues identified in the report were already being addressed. In addition, Mr Riordan assured members that items identified in previous audits would be assessed at the beginning of the following audit to ensure that the loop is closed. An audit procedure is being developed by the Academic Quality and Standards Unit, and a schedule of audit activities for the duration of the Quality Assurance Agreement has been put in place. Mr Riordan also expressed gratitude to the members of staff from UOW College who participated in the audit, noting their cooperation and assistance through the process.


i. receive the UOWC Audit Report 2014; and ii. note the findings of the report and the improvement actions taken by UOWC

subsequent to the audit. *C5 Credit Implementation Report

Ms Jan Sullivan noted that the new Credit for Prior Learning Policy was approved by the University Council at its February meeting, and that a group had subsequently been set up to guide implementation. Much discussion within the group has centred around the timing of applications for credit in recognition of information or non-formal learning, with no agreement having been reached to date. Ms Sullivan noted that most Australian universities only assess informal or non-formal learning credit requests post-enrolment. However, many within the University are noting


the importance of assessing all credit applications when applications for enrolment are submitted. This would enable students to make decisions on where they study based on factors like course duration and cost. In this sense, it would be beneficial to make the credit for informal or non-formal learning part of the offer package. In relation to the issues outlined by Ms Sullivan, members made the following comments:

• Staff development and support is required to ensure that staff have the tools that they need assess applications as equitably as possible.

• Information on the assessment of applications for credit for informal and non-formal learning should be made available on the public website, as it would enable students and prospective students to provide only information that is relevant and assessable.

• Assessment of applications is time consuming and difficult, even with guiding principles in place. This will remain so until staff have gained experience through the assessment of a number of applications.

• Faculty principles need to be developed before a University-wide set of principles can be put in place, though broad principles will be contained within the credit procedures currently under development.

Ms Sullivan drew members attention to the recommendation set out in the agenda paper that the Learning, Teaching and Curriculum portfolio embed training relating to the assessment of credit applications into their professional development calendar.

The Chair noted that a repository of applications and decisions should be built to enable future decisions to be based on precedent, and to remove some of the subjectivity implicit in the decision making process.


i. notes the Credit Implementation Report; and ii. requests that the required staff training and development be provided to

academic staff involved in credit assessment and that workshops be included in the LTC Professional Development Calendar.

*C6 Monitoring of External Accreditation of UOW Courses and Majors

Associate Professor Rodney Vickers noted that this work represented a significant step forward, but stated that some discretion needs to be given to the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee to change, monitor and implement the measures outlined in the agenda paper. It was confirmed by the Chair that AQSS would be the monitoring body. RESOLVED: 30/2015 that University Education Committee:

i. approve the measures proposed to establish improved central monitoring of external course accreditation process at the University of Wollongong as outlined in the agenda paper; and

ii. refer the proposed measures to the Academic Quality and Standards Unit for implementation, in conjunction with faculties, by December 2015, reporting to the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee.

*C7 UOW School of Nursing Inherent Requirements Project Update

Professor Anne Cusick noted that the principles contained in the update apply to a range of professionally accredited courses, and stated that within the Faculty of Social Sciences, staff in the schools of Psychology and Social Work would appreciate the


formation of a Task and Finish Group to develop University-wide principles, and support the roll-out of the project. It was noted that this matter was very complex, and could also be supported through professional development.

RESOLVED: 31/2015 that the University Education Committee notes the UOW School of Nursing (SMAH) Inherent Requirements Paper Update as set out in the agenda paper.

*C8 UOW Wireless and Internet Services

The Chair expressed her thanks to IMTS for bringing the issues paper to the committee, noting that the issues expressed in the paper were complex. However, it was noted that wifi is a basic requirement by all students, and that the issue of quotas also represented a barrier to students learning.

RESOLVED: 32/2015 that the University Education Committee notes the information on UOW Wireless & Internet Services.

C9 TEQSA Update

RESOLVED: 33/2015 that the University Education Committee notes the TEQSA Update as set out in the agenda paper.

C10 Procedure for Mandatory Reporting of Student Impairment to AHPRA

RESOLVED: 34/2015 that the University Education Committee

i. endorse the draft Procedure for Mandatory Reporting of Student Impairment to AHPRA, as attached to the agenda paper; and

ii. forward it to the Academic Senate for endorsement.

C11 Any Other Business There was no other business brought to the committee. C12 Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 9.30am on Wednesday 15th July in the

University Council Room.

The meeting closed at Signed as a true record:

------------------------------

Chair / /


Meeting/ Deadline

Issue Responsible Person/ Committee

Progress to Date Further Action Required

January 2015

Technology Enhanced Learning Benchmarking (ACODE)

Romy Lawson Report and presentation tabled

Nil

Academic Integrity Task and Finish Group

Stephen Kirk Establishment supported

Report back to UEC at 06/2015 meeting

Extension of Library Opening hours

Margie Jantti Report tabled Nil

Offshore Quality Assurance Framework – Update

Dominic Riordan Update submitted Report back to UEC at 04/2015 meeting

March 2015

Technology Enriched Learning Strategy

Romy Lawson/ Bill Ashraf

TEL strategy endorsed – forwarded to Senate

Nil

Assessment and Feedback Principles

Romy Lawson Principles endorsed – forwarded to Senate

Nil

Digital Learning Thresholds Phase 1

Bill Ashraf Update provided at the meeting

Nil

Inherent Requirements Project

Fran Walder Submitted to 03/2015 Meeting

Director - Student Experience, to form Task and Finish Group

Reasonable Adjustment Process Review

Fran Walder Held over until 04/2015 meeting

Learning Analytics Pilot Jennifer Heath Report provided at the meeting

Nil

Course design Procedures, Course Review Procedures and Course Policy

Dominic Riordan Update provided – policy documents to be submitted to UEC at 04/2015 meeting

Nil

UOW College Audit Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan Submitted to 03/2015 meeting

Nil

International Student Barometer Outcomes Report

Jennifer Heath Report provided and noted

Nil

Student Experience Questionnaire Outcomes Report

Jennifer Heath Held over until 04/2015 meeting

May 2015 Course Leadership Role Romy Lawson Submitted to

03/2015 meeting Implementation to follow

Learning and Teaching Spaces

Marcus O’Donnell

Submitted Nil

Teacher Evaluation Jennifer Heath Held over until 04/2015 meeting

Comparative Student Outcomes Report – Spring 2014

Dominic Riordan Report provided to 02/2015 meeting

Nil

Accreditation Status Across UOW Courses – Report

Dominic Riordan Submitted Nil – ongoing oversight by AQSS

COPTA Audit Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan Audit rescheduled for Q3 2015


Policy Reviews • Academic Advice to

Students • ESOS Framework • Mandatory Reporting of

Student Impairment to AHPRA Procedure

Dominic Riordan/EPRS

Mandatory reporting submitted, others pending

Indigenous Education Plan Paul Chandler Held over until 05/2015 meeting

July 2015 External Moderation (Peer

Networking) Model Margaret Wallace

WATTLE Review Paper Patrick Crookes Held over until 05/2015 meeting

Learning Analytics Early Adopters Update

Jennifer Heath

Co-Curricular Recognition Policy

Alexandra McPaul

ESOS Audit Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan

Review of WAMs – Report Dominic Riordan Policy Reviews:

• COPTA • L&T Good Practice

Guidelines Graduate Qualities Policy

Dominic Riordan, Romy Lawson, EPRS

September 2015

Learning Co-Op Alisa Percy

Teacher Evaluation Jennifer Heath Course Management

System Romy Lawson

Policy Reviews: • Supplementary

Assessment Guidelines • Exam Rules • Student Academic

Consideration Policy and Guidelines

• Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy

Dominic Riordan/ EPRS

Revision to Course Structures - Proposal

Dominic Riordan

November 2015

Continuous Professional Development

Romy Lawson

English Language Policy – Review

Alisa Percy

Co-Curricular Award Alexandra McPaul

Comparative Student Outcomes Report – Autumn 2015

Dominic Riordan

HE Standards Framework – Gap Analysis Report

Dominic Riordan

Course Management Audit – Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan

Annual Review of Offshore Courses – Report (Pending adoption of new approach to offshore QA)

Dominic Riordan


EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE – DRAFT MINUTES AGENDA ITEM B2 The minutes of the 03/2015 Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting, held on 17 June 2015, and the updated EPRS Workplan, are attached to the agenda paper. Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee receive the draft minutes of the 03/2015 Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 17 June 2015, as attached to the agenda paper

ATTACHMENT

i. Education Policy Review Subcommittee 03/2015 Meeting Draft Minutes ii. EPRS 2015 Workplan

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Executive Officer, Education Policy Review Subcommittee

Executive Officer, University Education Committee



EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES – Wednesday 17 June 2015 Minutes of the 3/2015 meeting of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee held at 10:00am on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 in Building 36, Room 304. PRESENT: A/Prof Ian Porter (Chair) Dr Stephen Brown Dr Julie Kiggins Mr John Littrich

Mr Cameron McLeod Dr Kellie Ridges Mr Dominic Riordan A/Prof Christian Ritz Prof Heather Yeatman

Prof Graham Williams IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Jim Davies (Academic Quality & Standards)

Ms Xanthe Knox (Student Services Division) Ms Jan Sullivan (Academic Quality & Standards) Ms Viji Venkat (Academic Quality & Standards) Dr Ruth Walker (Learning, Teaching and Curriculum)

Ms Tori Funnell (Executive Officer) UNABLE TO ATTEND: A/Prof Samantha Hardy

A/Prof Pauline Lysaght A/Prof Michael Zanko

PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS

A1 Welcome and Apologies The Chair welcomed all attendees to the meeting, particularly welcoming the new student member, Mr Cameron McLeod, and as an observer, Prof Greg Rose, who will take over the membership of A/Prof Michael Zanko as Deputy Chair of Senate, from 1 July 2015. The Chair welcomed the remaining non-members: Ms Xanthe Knox from Student Services Division, Dr Ruth Walker from Learning, Teaching and Curriculum, and Mr Jim Davies, Ms Jan Sullivan, and Ms Viji Venkat from Academic Quality & Standards.

The Chair noted apologies from A/Prof Sam Hardy and A/Prof Michael Zanko.

A2 Business Arising from the Minutes Mr John Littrich reported that the agreed action relating to the Legal Services Council

National Admissions Committee had been actioned accordingly.

A3 Confirmation of Minutes RESOLVED: 2015/12:

That the minutes of the previous meeting of EPRS held on 15 April 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record.


A4 Chair’s Report The Chair reported that this would have been A/Prof Michael Zanko’s final meeting of EPRS and took the opportunity to formally acknowledge and thank A/Prof Zanko for the valuable contribution that he has made to EPRS during his long-standing membership on the committee. The Chair reported that, given her upcoming retirement, it was also likely that this would have been A/Prof Pauline Lysaght’s final meeting of EPRS. A/Prof Lysaght is another long-standing member on EPRS, and the Chair formally thanked her for her significant involvement in and contribution to EPRS activities over the years. The Chair reported that the review group to look at EPRS Terms of Reference and membership has now been established, comprising A/Prof Romy Lawson as Chair of the group, A/Prof Ian Porter in his capacity as EPRS Chair, Prof Dominique Parrish as representative of the Associate Deans (Education), Prof Wilma Vialle as representative of the Associate Deans (International), Dr Louise Wright as representative of the Heads of Students, Dr Kellie Ridges as representative of Student Services Division and also as an EPRS member, and Mr Dominic Riordan and Prof Heather Yeatman as EPRS members. Outcomes of the review group will be reported in due course.

PART B – GENERAL BUSINESS B1 Student Academic Consideration Policy Review

The Chair opened the item, commending Ms Xanthe Knox for the exemplary work that she had done with the policy review. Ms Knox reported that, as outlined in the agenda papers, considerable consultation had been undertaken with stakeholders during the policy review, the outcomes of which informed many of the proposed policy changes. More recently, the working group established by EPRS had met to finalise the draft policy. As referred to in the agenda papers, a further review of the policy is recommended for late 2016 / early 2017 to consider broader issues that are tied up with system changes and will therefore require adequate time to develop and implement. Ms Knox outlined the major changes proposed to the policy, as documented in the agenda papers. The subcommittee discussed the following aspects of the proposed policy:

• Exemption from evidence requirements for known critical incidents by an appropriate, alternative, officer such as the Director, Student Services. In addition to the internal memo identifying such exemption, a reference of the exemption should also be included in the online application so that subject coordinators are aware of the issue and exemption.

• The requirement for medical practitioners to complete a UOW Professional Authority Form will likely invoke initial resistance from both medical practitioners and students. A comprehensive communications strategy will be required for both of these stakeholder groups. Ms Knox reported that UOW is one of a few universities yet to require such documentation, and as such, medical practitioners may not be as resistant as they once were in relation to this requirement.

• The definition of Registered Medical Practitioner may be unclear to students, particularly international students. Clear guidance, such as a list of examples of professions that are not applicable, would be useful. This guidance should be included on the SOLS application for Student Academic Consideration, as well as on the Current Students website.


• There should be some rules around the timeframe for which “further information” is required from students, as otherwise an application for academic consideration can sit within the student system indefinitely. The subcommittee agreed that the timeframe could be different depending on the circumstance and type of further information required. Ms Knox agreed to draft some wording for an additional clause in relation to this, which will be circulated to committee members for comment / endorsement.

• The wording relating to ineligibility for students to apply for academic consideration due to “situations which are caused by a student’s action or inaction” could give rise to unfair interpretation and disadvantage to a student for a genuine situation for which academic consideration could be sought. While the subcommittee agreed that the reference to “common occurrences”, “daily life’ and “reasonably” should reduce this risk, Mr Dominic Riordan agreed to draft some alternative wording which might reduce the possibility of the clause being utilised inappropriately to unfairly reject an application.

• The policy should specify that where a student is unable to undertake a supplementary assessment, this should be managed under the complaints procedure rather than an academic consideration request (which is not possible as the online application process shuts down after end of session).

• The policy should be clear about offshore application, including any modifications to roles and responsibilities for application by offshore officers.

ACTION Ms Xanthe Knox to draft an additional clause in relation to the timeframe for provision of additional information, and to circulate the wording to committee members for comment / endorsement. ACTION Mr Dominic Riordan to draft alternative wording for the ineligibility clause [“situations which are caused by a student’s action or inaction”], and to circulate the wording to committee members for comment / endorsement.

The Subcommittee discussed, and agreed upon, a number of other minor changes proposed to the policy, which Ms Knox agreed to make prior to submission of the policy to UEC in September. Resolved 2015/13:

that the Education Policy Review Subcommittee: i. endorse the draft revised Academic Consideration Policy as set out in the agenda

paper and attachments; ii. forward the draft revised Academic Consideration Policy to the University Education

Committee for endorsement; and iii. note the recommendation for a future review of the Academic Consideration Policy.

B2 Academic Integrity Task & Finish Group Report

The item was introduced by Dr Ruth Walker who spoke to the tabled agenda papers. The draft revised (and renamed) Academic Integrity Policy has been developed by the Task & Finish Group, with consideration given to best practice elements identified within an OLT project that looked at academic integrity policy across Australian universities. The current draft is now being unpacked and reassembled by the Task & Finish Group, who acknowledged that the first draft had too much content, much of which was repetition of provisions covered in other existing UOW policy.


The new draft, which will be seen as a values document, will have the following aims:

• To shift away from having a misconduct emphasis • To focus (as per the current trend) on educational strategies to promote academic

integrity • To identify a whole of university responsibility to promote academic integrity • To include the role of staff in both promoting, and demonstrating, academic integrity,

as well as including HDR students within the scope of the policy The next step for the Task & Finish Group is to map the linkages between existing policy documents that make reference to academic integrity-related activities and issues. There is also a need to develop a more procedural or guideline-type document to support the promotion of academic integrity. The Task & Finish Group recognises that resourcing implications, for instance those relating to the consistent and fair records management requirements of academic misconduct investigations, need to be explored and resolved prior to implementation of the policy. The subcommittee discussed the trend being seen in the sector, whereby student academic dishonesty is moving away from plagiarism, which can be relatively well detected via text-matching software such as Turnitin, and is instead showing increased numbers of students purchasing ghost-written assessments which are much more difficult to identify and prove as academic misconduct. Members discussed the importance of good assessment design to prevent academic dishonesty, with members putting forward different points of view in respect to the value of formal examinations, as well as the perceived cost/benefit of developing innovative assessment that not only prevents academic dishonesty but also serves as a way for students to learn about, and develop, academic integrity skills. Dr Walker reported that the draft revised Academic Integrity Policy is expected to be submitted to the August meeting of EPRS.

Resolved 2015/14:

that the Education Policy Review Subcommittee note the Progress Report on the work of the Academic Integrity Task & Finish Group, as provided at the meeting.

B3 Academic Advice to Students Policy Review Mr Jim Davies spoke to the item, explaining that the agenda papers included a discussion paper outlining the main aspects considered during the policy review, along with recommendations for policy changes which are relatively minor and straightforward. Consultation has included discussion with academic staff from various faculties regarding faculty practice in relation to the provision of academic advice. The review also involved consideration of SEQ data relating to student satisfaction with the academic advice that they had received. Mr Davies drew members’ attention to two main issues:


1) The record-keeping practice relating to the authorisation for staff to provide academic advice seems to be inconsistent across faculties, with a lack of evidence of compliance with the policy.

2) The Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice, currently an appendix to the policy, should be separated from the Policy to improve their visibility and to make updates to the Guidelines easier.

Mr Davies acknowledged that there is further work to do on the policy review, including resolution of the questions that were shown as comments on the draft revised policy included in the agenda papers, and welcomed feedback from EPRS members. The subcommittee discussed the record-keeping requirements of the policy, reporting wide variation in practice for record-keeping of advice to students. Mr Davies recommended the use of SAI to record provision of academic advice to students, as this creates a permanent, backed-up record that is visible by both the student and other staff members. Members discussed the policy provisions around the authorisation of academic advice, agreeing that it would be inappropriate to try to identify at a more granular level the appropriate officers to provide advice as these roles differ across schools and faculties. There was agreement amongst members that more training is required for staff members who are providing academic advice. Mr Dominic Riordan reported that the Academic Quality and Standards Unit is in the process of developing an academic policy training module which will be piloted with Heads of Students in the near future. Members discussed the proposal to remove the term “administrative advice” from the definition of “academic advice”, agreeing that this seemed to be a sensible move given that “administrative advice” is about provision of advice about ‘the rules’ as opposed to interpretation of those rules within an individual student’s circumstances. It should be made clear that faculty staff can provide some types of administrative advice. The subcommittee worked through the comments shown on the draft revised policy and provided advice to Mr Davies on each of these. Resolved 2015/15:

That the Education Policy Review Subcommittee: i. note the current issues relating to the provision of academic advice to students; ii. endorse the proposed approach, as outlined in the agenda paper; and iii. invite members to provide feedback on amendments to the policy.

B4 Course Policy Framework The Chair opened discussion on the item, reporting that he had received an email from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) confirming that the University is committed to moving to a 6 credit point model and that EPRS should address this move within university policy accordingly. In response to a member’s enquiry, Mr Dominic Riordan confirmed that the ESOS Policy has not yet been seen by EPRS; however it has been the subject of consultation with the International Student Compliance team, UniAdvice, Strategic Marketing, and the Faculty International Units. It was also submitted to the Risk, Audit and Compliance Committee but was subsequently withdrawn due to a full agenda. The ESOS Policy is a straightforward document that outlines UOW’s policy requirements in relation to ESOS obligations.


Ms Viji Venkat reported on the recent consultation forum that was held following the last EPRS meeting. Over forty people were in attendance from across the University, and following a presentation of the Framework by Mr Dominic Riordan, attendees were invited to provide feedback and ask questions. Discussion at the forum centred around the relationship between external professional accreditation activities and the University’s internal “re-accreditation” process that is proposed in the new framework. Following the forum, further feedback was received via email. The agenda papers provide a summary of the feedback received and how the project group has responded to the feedback, noting that some issues are not able to be addressed within the framework as they relate to other ongoing activities such as Curriculum Transformation. Ms Venkat brought members’ attention to the following aspects of the proposed framework:

• Guiding principles have been developed to support implementation of the requirement regarding the conversion of 8 cp subjects to 6 cp subjects.

• Equivalence Principles have been included in the Course Design Procedures, building on the work undertaken by the Task and Finish Group led by Dr Grace McCarthy

• The Course Review Procedures now include: o more focussed evaluation criteria o a draft course review report o a provision to require consideration of Curriculum Transformation issues (as

reported by LTC) within the course review process o greater flexibility around the timeframes required for course review to allow

for delays in external accreditation processing

In response to a member’s query, the subcommittee discussed the use of the terms “accreditation” and “re-accreditation” to describe the internal course approval process. Mr Dominic Riordan reported that the Higher Education Standards Framework allows the use of either “accreditation/re-accreditation” or “approval/re-approval”. Members agreed that “approval/re-approval” is preferable for describing our internal process as this removes any potential confusion with external professional accreditation processes. Members identified some points of confusion related to the implementation of the recommendations made in a course review report and elsewhere in draft documents which Mr Riordan and Ms Venkat agreed to address and resolve. Resolved 2015/16:

that the Education Policy Review Subcommittee:

i. Note the agenda paper on the development of a Course Policy Framework for the University of Wollongong;

ii. Endorse the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review Procedures the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents as outlined in the agenda paper;

iii. Note the development of a Conferrals Policy as the final component of the Course Policy Framework is proceeding;

iv. Forward the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review Procedures and the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and the proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents to the University Education Committee and the Academic Senate for endorsement, and to the University Council for approval, to be effective immediately.


B5 COPTA Review Progress Report Ms Tori Funnell reported that progress continues on the review of the Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment, with the Working Party having met three times to work through identified issues. Mr Dominic Riordan reported that the review was reported at last week’s Heads of School meeting, with Heads of School asked to promote the review within their schools and encourage feedback to be sent to the Academic Quality and Standards Unit. EPRS members were reminded that the window to provide feedback on COPTA is still open. Members should also encourage their colleagues to provide feedback to the AQS team so that identified issues can be addressed within the review. Ms Funnell noted that the next stage of the review will involve incorporation of the issues within a draft revised version of the Code, which is anticipated to be presented to EPRS at its August meeting. Resolved 2015/17:

That the Education Policy Review Subcommittee note the Progress Report on the review of the Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment as attached to the agenda papers.

B6 Assessment Quality Cycle Progress Report

Ms Tori Funnell reported that work continues on the development of policy provisions relating to moderation of assessment, with recent efforts focussing on consultation forums which were held in the previous weeks within each of the faculties. Attendance was encouraging, seeing approximately 20 faculty staff in attendance at each forum, and feedback provided was extensive and valuable for the policy development. A member reported that further discussion had been taking place within their faculty in relation to what exactly is required in terms of moderation, such as double-marking. Mr Dominic Riordan reported that there is not yet a fixed position on the set requirements in relation to this aspect of the assessment quality cycle, and welcomed feedback on such. He noted a recently published journal article which reports that focussing efforts in the assessment design and establishing a “shared understanding” of assessment requirements across a teaching team can reduce the amount of work required later on to quality assure marking practice. Mr Riordan noted that a key part of the process is to provide an opportunity to reflect on the subject design and delivery, take something away from this reflection and make the subject better as a result. A member commented that there seems to be a tension between the dual messages within the academic circle where on the one hand cuts are being made to academic resourcing, with redundancies being offered, while on the other hand academic staff are being asked to do more within their workload. Mr Riordan reported that a review of the academic workload model is currently underway at the University, and that the Assessment Quality Cycle Working Group will recommend adequate consideration within the workload model if necessary. Resolved 2015/18:

That the Education Policy Review Subcommittee note the Progress Report on the Assessment Quality Cycle as attached to the agenda papers.


PART C – OTHER BUSINESS C1 2015 EPRS Workplan

There was no discussion on the 2015 Workplan.

C2 Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Wednesday 19 August, from 10:00am – 11:30am, in room 36.303.

C3 Other Business There was no other business. The meeting closed at 12:10pm.

Signed as a true record:

------------------------------ Chairperson

/ /


Actions Arising

Meeting Date (when the issue was

raised) Summary of Issue Responsibility

Status (In Progress, On Hold,

Completed)

4 June 2014

Supplementary Assessment Policy Prepare a briefing paper for the Senior Manager, Student Systems (ARD), regarding system change implications in relation to the anticipated review of the Supplementary Assessment Policy.

Executive Officer and Director, Academic Quality and Standards

On Hold

25 February 2015 Curriculum Policy Framework Create a feedback forum to document feedback received on the Curriculum Policy Framework and how this feedback has been addressed in the draft policy documents.

Ms Viji Venkat Completed

15 April 2015

Student Academic Consideration Liaise regarding practice at other Universities involving requirement for medical practitioner to complete a University-form in relation to student academic consideration requests.

Ms Xanthe Knox and A/Prof Sam Hardy Completed

15 April 2015

Academic Integrity Forward information to Dr Kellie Ridges regarding new requirements for conferring institutions to provide conduct reports for graduating law students to submit to the Legal Services Council National Admissions Committee.

Mr John Littrich Completed

17 June 2015

Student Academic Consideration Draft an additional clause in relation to the timeframe for provision of additional information, and to circulate the wording to committee members for comment / endorsement

Ms Xanthe Knox In Progress

17 June 2015

Student Academic Consideration Draft alternative wording for the ineligibility clause [“situations which are caused by a student’s action or inaction”], and to circulate the wording to committee members for comment / endorsement.

Mr Dominic Riordan In Progress


EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE WORKPLAN YEAR: 2015

Education Policy Project Activities

Responsible EPRS members

Deadline 2015 Progress

Progressed Items from 2014

Student Academic Complaints Policies (Coursework and HDR)

Revised policies in light of complaints handling report. Address issues that have been logged and undertake further work on complaints handling.

Project Officer: Tori Funnell Approval and implementation 2014/early 2015

Approved by University Council 6 Feb 2015. Implementation Autumn Session 2015.

Course Progress Policy Scheduled review to address issues that have been logged and identify through consultation any other issues.

Project Officer: Jim Davies Approval and implementation 2014/early 2015


Admissions Policy & Procedures

• Review, consultation and draft revisions to Policy 2013

• Revised Policy to UEC early 2014 Project Officer: Stephen Kirk Approval 2014/early 2015 for

implementation April 2015. Approved by University Council 6 Feb 2015. Implementation 1 April 2015.

Credit for Prior Learning Policy

• Benchmarking / mapping exercise with other Universities

• Develop draft Policy documents • Communicate and consult with stakeholders • Implement and communicate Revised Standards

Project Officer: Jan Sullivan Approval 2014/early 2015 for implementation April 2015.

Approved by University Council 6 Feb 2015. Implementation 1 April 2015.

Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience

Provide input into scheduled review being undertaken by Academic Quality & Standards Unit. Project Officer: Kim Earp

Review early 2014 Consultation, approval and implementation late 2014/early 2015






Carry Over Items from 2014

Course Policy Framework

Develop a policy framework that clarifies the relationship between course-related policy documents, identifies good practice and outlines regulatory requirements relating to course management:

- Review existing policy documents and develop new policy documents relating to course management

- Consult with stakeholders - Implement new policy framework

Project Officer: Viji Venkat

Staggered development, approval and implementation approach throughout late 2013 – 2015.

25 Feb 2015: Draft Course Review Procedures presented to EPRS 17 June 2015: Draft Course Policy package submitted to EPRS

Academic Integrity & Plagiarism Policy

Undertake scheduled review, with particular focus on Appendix 1 – Use of the Turnitin Text Matching Software.

Project Officer: Stephen Kirk

Review commenced late 2014, drafting & consultation early 2015, approval mid-late 2015, implementation 2016

25 Feb 2015: Drafting underway 15 April 2015: Update report presented to EPRS 17 June 2015: Update report presented to EPRS

New Items for 2015

Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment

Undertake major scheduled review to address issues that have been logged and identify through consultation any other issues.

Project Officer: Tori Funnell

Review early 2015 Consultation and approval mid – late 2015, implementation 2016

25 Feb 2015: Review underway 15 April 2015: Issues Paper presented to EPRS 17 June 2015: Progress Report presented to EPRS

Policy provisions to govern moderation of assessment practice

Provide input into policy development being undertaken by Moderation of Assessment Working Group.

Project Officer: Tori Funnell

Drafting 2014 - early 2015 Consultation and approval mid – late 2015, implementation 2016

25 Feb 2015: Drafting underway 15 April 2015: Draft policy provisions and background paper presented to EPRS 17 June 2015: Progress report presented to EPRS





University Examination Rules and related Procedures

Undertake scheduled review to address issues that have been logged and identify through consultation any other issues.

Project Officer: Leonie Prior TBA

Supplementary Assessment Guidelines


Project Officer: Jim Davies

Review mid 2015 Consultation and approval late 2015 – early 2016, implementation mid 2016

Student Academic Consideration Policy & Guidelines

Provide input into scheduled review being undertaken by Client Services Unit, Student Services Division

Project Officer: Xanthe Knox TBA

15 April 2015: Discussion Paper presented to EPRS 17 June 2015: Draft revised policy submitted to EPRS

Academic Advice to Students Policy


Project Officer: Jim Davies

Drafting early 2015 Consultation and approval mid – late 2015, implementation late 2015

17 June 2015: Draft revised policy submitted to EPRS

General Course Rules -WAMS

Undertake review of how WAMs are calculated, as part of curriculum/assessment review Project Officer: Stephen Kirk

Drafting early 2015 Consultation and approval mid – late 2015, implementation late 2015

15 April 2015: Update report presented to EPRS

General Course Rules – Minor Review

Minor review to resolve issues relating to: • variation of enrolment • double degree conferrals • double counting of subjects

Project Officer: Viji Venkat TBA 25 February: Item added to Workplan 15 April 2015: Discussion Paper presented to EPRS


COURSE POLICY FRAMEWORK AGENDA ITEM C1 Introduction After substantial development and a major round of consultation, the components of the Course Policy Framework are now ready to be submitted for endorsement by the University Education Committee. This work has been motivated by a number of factors

• The Higher Education Standards Framework has substantially revised the obligations of providers in relation to the development and review of their course portfolios

• The University has itself adopted a Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching, that is not yet fully reflected in policy and procedure

• The Curriculum Transformation Project is intended to be realised substantially through the course review process.

• The University requires settled ongoing policy and procedure to ensure that its courses remain consistent with the Australian Qualifications Framework.

• Existing Policy and Procedures are overdue for review This paper provides a brief overview of the various policies and procedures that have been developed and have been the subject of various means of consultation and feedback with stakeholders. While UEC has previously considered some elements of this package (notably proposals on moving to 6cp subjects), as it has undergone further review and amendment, it is appropriate that the entire package is reviewed for endorsement. Course Policy Framework The Academic Quality and Standards Unit initiated a review of all current course policies and procedures in 2014. The draft framework sets out the overall context for course design, approval and review. The proposal is for a framework of policy and procedure to assist in course development, approval and review (refer to Attachment 1, the Course Policy). The diagram gives an outline of the framework, including some reference to their relationship to what are internal standard operating procedures used by the Course Management Team in AQS. The components of the Framework submitted for endorsement are as follows:

• An overarching Course Policy (Attachment 1) • Related procedures developed in line with the curriculum renewal and curriculum transformation

priorities approved by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) covering: o Course and Subject Approval Procedures (already in place) o Course Design Procedures (Attachment 2) o Course Review Procedures (draft version to replace the existing provisions of the UOW

Academic Review Policy, as well as the Curriculum Review Procedures and Curriculum Review Guidelines – Attachment 3)

• An ESOS Compliance Framework Policy (Attachment 4) • A new Qualifications Issuance and Conferrals Policy to manage issues related to graduation,

conferrals, design and approval of testamurs and transcripts and the Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement and issues related to revocation of awards (under development)

What is happening to the UOW Academic Review Policy and the Standard on Courses? The UOW Academic Review Policy has several elements detailing the process for quality assuring new courses. These provisions (in section 7) overlap with the existing course and subject approval procedures, and are to be deleted, to be replaced with cross references to the relevant new policy and procedures. The current Standard on Courses has information relating to course definitions, structures and naming conventions, course related requirements and provisions on official course documentation. It is proposed


that the redundant provisions in the Standard on Courses will be deleted, and that the Standard as a whole will ultimately be replaced by the new Conferrals Policy. The Course Policy The draft Course Policy sets out the overall strategic and regulatory objectives and requirements in which course management operates at UOW. It sets out the overall framework for managing course-related matters at UOW. It contains critical cross references to key sector and institutional requirements, notably the Higher Education Standards Framework and the University’s own Quality and Standards Framework for Learning and Teaching. The Course Design Procedures This is a new procedure document drafted to provide procedural information, direction and guidance when designing, developing and/or amending a course at the University of Wollongong. The approach to its development has been driven by the desire for users of the course management system and processes to have a single place in which to identify course design related information. Existing provisions on course design from current policies and procedures have been consolidated into one procedure document. To these have been added new provisions required as a result of the AQF and provisions in the Higher Education Standards Framework. There are a number of new provisions included in these procedures. They include:

1. Describing focussed areas of study in postgraduate coursework degrees as specialisations, and mandating a minimum volume of learning for these specialisations – existing policy controls are silent on the size of a postgraduate specialisation. It is proposed to set the specialisation at 18cp or more.

2. Subject credit point values – it is proposed to move to standardise subject credit point values for coursework subjects at 6 credit points. Subjects may, where good reasons exist, also be offered as 2, 3, 12, 18, 24 and 48 credit point subject. This would see an end to 8cp subjects, and implementation of this measure is already underway in some faculties. There are enhanced implementation provisions included in the procedures to assist faculties with this transition. The measure is proposed to be fully in place by the end of 2018. The reasons for this proposal are: • To end the issue of student study choices being complicated by differences in credit point

values across schools and faculties. • To prevent students managing overloads or shortfalls in credit point values due to studying

mixes of 6 and 8 credit point values. • To standardise the credit point value and workload requirements around subject delivery. • To avoid difficulties in student study loads for the purposes of Commonwealth benefit

entitlement and for international visa purposes – currently a student may lose the entitlement to Commonwealth benefits or cease to be compliant with their student visa if they withdraw from one of 3 x 8 cp subjects in a single session.

3. There are new controls on how much subject content and subject assessment is appropriate to

ensure that learning against course learning outcomes can be assured. 4. AQF requirements are now consolidated into a single comprehensive reference point for faculties

based on qualification type. 5. New controls on double badging of subjects, implemented in practice in 2014 as part of AQF work,

have been included. The Course Review Procedures These new procedures will replace existing “curriculum review” policy and procedure and consolidated requirements for course review in a single location. Several elements are new:


1. We describe the activity as course review not curriculum review, in line with the language in the

Higher Education Threshold Standards, and to differentiate a course from a curriculum. 2. The procedures introduce the notion of courses being approved by the University and, on review,

re-approved, via Academic Senate. This is consistent with the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework, which make it clear that a self-accrediting provider such as a university must approve or accredit, and then periodically re-approve or re-accredit, its courses. Hence there is a time limit on the approval of all courses that should work to trigger action to ensure the course is reviewed.

3. The procedures provide that external accreditation is a potential PARTIAL substitute for course review, but cannot be a full substitute, and that the extent of the partial substitution is to be determined having regard to the scope of the accreditation process.

4. It is proposed that a small governing or oversight committee with two external members will oversee course reviews, and that the faculty also establishes a course review team (which would include the LTC team).

5. The procedures provide that that oversight committee can perform the role of both overseeing the review and conducting the ECAC on any substantial amendments to a reviewed course, or on any new course, should an ECAC be required.

6. It is proposed that courses are reviewed in conjunction with related courses according to a course review schedule (i.e. clustering of courses).

7. The procedures include a process for reviewing stand alone subjects (but they provide that core and capstone subjects within courses and majors should be reviewed as part of the course review).

8. The procedures include a detailed table setting out the evaluation criteria for courses under review: a. These are based on the questions in the existing Curriculum Review Procedures but have

been substantially reworked as guiding questions for each of the areas of an existing course under review.

b. These include reference points in the HE Threshold Standards, the UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching, the UOW Curriculum Model and elsewhere

c. These include references for sources of data and advice on the issues in question. 9. The procedures include a draft Course Review Report that is designed to record not only the

outcomes of the course review against the themes of quality, viability and strategic alignment, but that also outlines the changes proposed to the course(s) to conform to the UOW Curriculum Model.

ESOS Compliance Framework Policy The Educational Services for Overseas Students Act, 2000 (the ESOS Act) regulates the University's delivery of educational services to international students. The National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007 (the National Code) sets out the 15 Standards that the University and other higher education providers must follow when delivering education to international students. The purpose of the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy is to comprehensively outline the University’s approach to compliance with the requirements stipulated in the ESOS Act and the National Code. The development of this policy is in response to a recommendation made in the last external audit of the University’s compliance with the ESOS Act and the National Code. The audit report included a recommendation that the University develop this framework to better articulate its approach to meeting National Code requirements. This policy identifies unit-specific roles and responsibilities in relation to each of the applicable standards set out in the National Code, along with the corresponding UOW policies and procedures that give effect to our obligations. It has been developed by the Academic Quality and Standards Unit, which is responsible for institutional compliance matters relating to the ESOS Act and the National Code. Consultation The Course Policy and the related procedures have been through various consultations to date. In response to feedback from members from various committees and faculties, the Course Management Team held a consultation forum on 20 May 2015, where academic and professional services staff were provided with an outline of the proposals and given an opportunity to provide feedback. Over 40 staff attended the forum. AQS established a Moodle site to facilitate further comment and provide interested


staff with access to the latest versions of the documents. The package was endorsed by the Education Policy Review Subcommittee at its meeting on 17 June 2015. A summary of the consultation processes undertaken is set out below: Name of Document Committee Stakeholders

Course Policy

EPRS: 2 April 2014 EPRS: 2 December 2014 (Endorsed to go to UEC, Senate & Council) UEC: 18 March 2015 - update provided EPRS: 17 June 2015 (Endorsed)

Policy Directory Universe L&T Liaison Group Meeting AQS Policy update newsletter – Senate, AQSS Course Policy Consultation Forum

Course Design Procedures

EPRS: 2 April 2014 EPRS: 3 June 2014 EPRS: 13 August 2014 EPRS: 2 December 2014 (Endorsed to go to UEC, Senate & Council Subject to getting a directive from the DVC(A)) UEC: 18 March 2015 - update provided EPRS: 17 June 2015 (Endorsed)

Policy Directory Universe L&T Liaison Group Meeting A/D (E)s AQS Policy update newsletter – Senate, AQSS Course Policy Consultation Forum

Credit Point Discussion Paper UEC: 9 July 2014

Course Review Procedures

EPRS: 25 February 2015 AQSS: 24 February 2015 SCDC: 4 March 2015 UEC: 18 March 2015 - update provided EPRS: 17 June 2015 (Endorsed)

Policy Directory Universe A/D (E)s L&T Liaison Group Meeting AQS Policy update newsletter – Senate, AQSS Course Policy Consultation Forum

ESOS Framework Policy EPRS: 17 June 2015 (Endorsed)

Policy Directory Targeted consultation with Student Services Division and Faculty International Units

Feedback received has been substantial and it is detailed on the Feedback Summary document (Attachment 5), which includes details of what changes, if any, have been made in response. Consequential Amendments The Course Policy Framework will, on approval, necessitate a number of changes to related policies and procedures, notably the following:

1. UOW Academic Review Policy – to remove existing provisions relating to curriculum review and to place the provisions relating to the membership of an ECAC in the Course and Subject Approval Procedures – New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses.

2. Standard on Courses – to remove existing provisions that are now incorporated in the Course Design Procedures, pending the approval of the proposed Conferrals Policy. There are some other changes that are needed to ensure that the provisions relating to approval of non-award courses are operating smoothly.

3. AQF Implementation Procedures and AQF Validation Procedures – to confine their scope only to those courses that existed as at 1 January 2015 but are yet to be validated against the AQF.

4. Curriculum Review Procedures and Curriculum Review Guidelines – to be replaced by the Course Review Procedures.

New delegations will also be required consistent with the new procedures. AQS and LTC are also working on a resource to assist faculties with changing 8 cp subjects to 6 cp or 12 cp subjects.


Conclusion The development of this package of policy and procedure has been careful, consultative and collaborative. Behind the policy and procedures has been substantial work with the Learning Teaching and Curriculum Unit to align this work with the implementation of the UOW Curriculum Model. Faculties have been provided with opportunities to comment, and the response to comments received is available for review in the Feedback Summary. Draft Resolution: that the University Education Committee:

a) Note the agenda paper on the development of a Course Policy Framework for the University of Wollongong;

b) Endorse the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review Procedures the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents as outlined in the agenda paper;

c) Note the development of a Conferrals Policy as the final component of the Course Policy Framework is proceeding;

d) Forward the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review Procedures and the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and the proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents to Academic Senate for endorsement, and to the University Council for approval, to be effective immediately.

Attachments

1. Draft Course Policy 2. Draft Course Design Procedures 3. Draft Course Review Procedures

4. Draft ESOS Framework Policy 5. Feedback Summary

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

Director, Academic Quality and Standards


Chair, University Education Committee


Course Management, Academic Quality and Standards Unit

COURSE POLICY Date first approved:

Date of effect: Immediately

Date last amended: (refer Version Control Table) Not applicable

Date of Next Review: December 2018

First Approved by University Council

Custodian title & e-mail address

Course Management Coordinator, Academic Quality and Standards Unit

Responsible Division & Unit

Director, Academic Quality and Standards [email protected]

Supporting documents, procedures & forms of this policy

Course Design Procedures Course and Subject Approval Procedures – New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses Course and Subject Approval Procedures - Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses ESOS Compliance Framework Policy CRICOS Registration and CRICOS Amendments Procedures Course Review Procedures AQF Validation Procedures AQF Implementation Procedures Credit for Prior Learning Policy General Course Rules Delegations of Authority Policy

Relevant Legislation & External Documents:

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, 2011 (Commonwealth) Higher Education Standards Framework UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching Higher Education Support Act, 2003 (Commonwealth) Australian Qualifications Framework Standards - Commission for Academic Accreditation, UAE

Audience Public – accessible to anyone

Contents

1 Introduction / Background ................................................................................................................ 2

2 Scope / Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 2 3 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................ 2

4 Course Policy Framework ................................................................................................................ 3

5 Course Attributes ............................................................................................................................. 3

6 Course Design ................................................................................................................................. 4

7 Course Approval .............................................................................................................................. 4

8 Course Review ................................................................................................................................. 4 9 Roles & Responsibilities .................................................................................................................. 5

10 Version Control and Change History .......................................................................................... 6

Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 7


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058649.html



http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hesa2003271/

http://www.aqf.edu.au/AbouttheAQF/TheAQF/tabid/108/Default.aspx

http://www.caa.ae/caa/images/standards2007.pdf

1 Introduction / Background 1. UOW is a registered self-accrediting higher education provider with the Tertiary

Education Quality and Standards Agency, with authority to self-accredit courses of study that it offers or confers.

2. UOW is responsible under the TEQSA Act, 2011 for ensuring that all self-accredited courses of study comply with the Higher Education Standards Framework.

3. The Higher Education Standards Framework includes the following requirements:

a. There are processes for internal approval of the delivery of a course of study, or, where a provider has authority to self-accredit, internal accreditation, of all courses of study leading to an Australian Higher Education Qualification.

b. Course approval and self-accreditation processes are overseen by peak institutional academic governance processes and they are applied consistently to all courses of study, before the courses are first offered and during re-approval or re-accreditation of the courses.

c. A course of study is approved or accredited, or re-approved or re-accredited, only when:

i. the course of study meets, and continues to meet, the applicable Standards of the Higher Education Standards Framework

ii. the decision to (re-)approve or (re-)accredit a course of study is informed by overarching academic scrutiny of the course of study that is competent to assess the design, delivery and assessment of the course of study independently of the staff directly involved in those aspects of the course, and

iii. the resources required to deliver the course as approved or accredited will be available when needed.

4. The Course Policy describes the UOW policy and procedural framework and the core functions within course management at UOW, being:

4.1. course design,

4.2. course approval, and

4.3. course review.

5. This policy supports the UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching.

2 Scope / Purpose 1. The Course Policy operates in conjunction with the General Course Rules and the

policies and procedures regulating course design, course approval and course review.

2. This policy applies to all UOW courses (AQF award and non-award courses) including all courses that are approved by UOW and delivered by third party providers at onshore and offshore delivery locations.

3 Definitions

Word/Term Definition (with examples if required)

Award course A course recognised under the Australian Qualifications Framework and approved by the Delegated Authority as an award or degree offered at the University of Wollongong. An award course leads to a higher education award as detailed in the General Course Rules.

AQF The Australian Qualifications Framework


Course A program of study offered by the University leading to an AQF qualification, or a non-award course.

Course Structure The specific program of subjects which a candidate undertakes to meet the requirements of a course as specified in the Course Handbook for the year the student commenced the course.

Delegated Authority A person or body granted decision-making authority as detailed in the Delegations of Authority Policy

Non-award course Any courses that is not an award course, and the successful completion of which does not lead to a higher education award.

Pathways Pathways allow students to move through qualification levels with full or partial recognition for the qualifications and/or learning outcomes they can demonstrate.

4 Course Policy Framework 1. The Course Policy Framework (Appendix 1) describes the policy framework on all

curriculum related activities at UOW, and how they related to the UOW Quality Framework.

Course Design 2. The Course Design Procedures regulate course design for all proposed and approved

UOW courses.

3. The Credit for Prior Learning Policy and accompanying procedures set out provisions relating to qualification pathways and recognition of equivalence in content and learning outcomes, and the governing principles and processes for credit.

4. The AQF Validation Procedures and the AQF Implementation Procedures detail the AQF validation and implementation processes for courses that were suspended as at 1 January 2015 and are yet to be validated againt the AQF.

Course Approval 5. The Course and Subject Approval Procedures – New Courses and Significant

Amendments to Existing Courses and the Course and Subject Approval Procedures - Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses detail course approval procedures for all courses at UOW.

6. The ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and the CRICOS Registration and CRICOS Amendments Procedures set out the University’s procedures to meet ESOS requirements.

Course Review 7. The Course Review Procedures set out the processes for monitoring, review and re-

approval of existing courses.

5 Course Attributes 1. All courses offered by UOW should reflect the following attributes:

1.1. Quality – judged by reference to relevant sector and disciplinary standards and through benchmarking and other comparators;

1.2. Viability – judged by reference to financial and academic sustainability measures, and


1.3. Strategic Alignment – judged by reference to the strategic priorities of the University and of the faculty.

6 Course Design 1. The University shall:

a. develop, adopt and implement a set of procedures for course design for the UOW course portfolio that is in line with and supports the course attributes for a UOW course;

b. include within the procedures specific details relating to:

i. appropriate entry standards and entry and exit pathways, including articulation from other studies and to further studies,

ii. AQF qualification levels criteria and qualification type descriptors,

iii. structural requirements of all courses by qualification type,

iv. processes for effective assurance of Course, Major and Subject Learning Outcomes,

v. appropriate engagement by students in intellectual inquiry consistent with the nature and level of the units being taught and the expected learning outcomes of the course of study;

c. provide staff with guiding or explanatory material to support and implement the process of course design;

d. ensure that course design takes account of the credit students may gain for prior learning, subject to preserving the integrity of learning outcomes and/or discipline requirements of the award to which it applies; and

e. adopt strategies to monitor, review and improve the course design through the course approval and course review processes.

7 Course Approval 1. The University shall:

a. maintain an effective framework to ensure all approved UOW courses reflect the course attributes for a UOW course;

b. implement a strategic and efficient governance process for course approval;

c. adopt procedures that describe and regulate the approval process;

d. adopt procedures to appropriately manage amendment and discontinuation of courses;

e. include within the procedures specific details relating to the assessment of relevant matters in course approval; and

f. adopt strategies to monitor, review and improve faculty managed processes for course approval.

8 Course Review 1. The University shall:

a. maintain effective processes to monitor, review and re-accredit the course portfolio;

b. support the course review process through annual course performance monitoring;

c. adopt procedures to support both internal and external course and subject reviews;


d. provide guiding and explanatory materials to support and implement the process of course and subject review; and

e. adopt strategies to monitor, review and improve course review processes.

9 Roles & Responsibilities 1. The University is responsible for:

a. establishing effective processes to take into account new or amended legislation, national standards, discipline standards and relevant external benchmarks that may affect the Course Policy;

b. ensuring that compliance with legislation, standards and benchmarks is taken account of within procedures where detailed actions need to be taken for business continuity and/or risk management purposes;

c. providing guiding or explanatory materials to support and implement the process of compliance with this policy.

2. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit is primarily responsible for the administration of this policy, and is responsible for administering course-related procedures, processes and systems in accordance with this policy.

3. The Course Management Coordinator and the Course Management Team are responsible for monitoring the implementation of this policy.

4. Learning, Teaching & Curriculum is responsible for providing information, advice and consultation to faculties and individual academics to facilitate the design of subjects, major study areas and courses which are constructively aligned and reflective of research-based educational practice.

Management 5. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) has executive oversight of the implementation

of this policy.

6. Each Faculty Executive Dean and each Associate Dean (Education) are jointly responsible within their respective faculties for:

a. ensuring that faculty processes and governance arrangements are in place and operating as required to contribute to course related activities outlined in this policy;

b. overseeing course activities in accordance with the provisions of this policy; and

c. reporting the outcomes of these activities as required under the strategic planning process and the course portfolio planning process. .

Committees 7. The Strategic Course Development Committee, the Quality Assurance Review Group

and the Academic Senate provide general oversight of course approval and course review.

8. The Strategic Course Development Committee is responsible for overseeing the development of new courses and significant amendments to existing courses.

9. Academic Senate is responsible for final approval of new courses, significant amendments to existing courses and the review and re-approval of existing courses.

10. Faculty Education Committees have the oversight of less significant amendments to existing courses.


10 Version Control and Change History

Version Control

Date Effective Approved By Amendment

1 University Council New Policy arising from a review and re-orientation of the Standard on Courses to become the Course Policy


Appendix 1

UOW Curriculum Model

Course Policy

Course and Subject Approval Procedures –

New Courses and Significant Amendments

to Existing Courses

Course & Subject Review

Procedures


Course Information Production Procedures

Course Database Maintenance Procedures

Procedures for CMC for Course

DB Rollover

Administration of Student Income

Support Payments Procedure

Document Naming and Records Management

Procedure

Course and Subject Approval Processing

Procedures

AQS Standard Operating

Procedures

Standards & Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching

Design Support Delivery Performance

Design Approval

UOW QUALITY FRAMEWORK

Compliance

Course and Subject Approval Procedures –

Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses

AQF Validation Procedures

AQF Implementation

Procedures

CRICOS Registration and Amendment

Procedures

Review

ESOS Compliance Framework Policy


Academic Quality and Standards Unit

COURSE DESIGN PROCEDURES

Date first approved:

Date of effect: On approval

Date last amended: (refer Version Control Table) Not applicable


First Approved by: University Council

Custodian title & e-mail address:

Director, Academic Quality and Standards [email protected]

Author: Course Management Coordinator, Academic Quality and Standards Unit

Responsible Division & Unit:

Academic Quality and Standards Unit, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Portfolio

Supporting documents, procedures & forms of this policy:

Course Review Procedures Course and Subject Approval Procedures – New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses Course and Subject Approval Procedures - Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses CRICOS Registration and CRICOS Amendment Procedures AQF Validation Procedures AQF Implementation Procedures Principles of Equivalence UOW Assessment and Feedback Principles General Course Rules Course Policy Credit for Prior Learning Policy English Language Policy Delegations of Authority Policy UOW Quality and Standards Framework for Learning and Teaching UOW Curriculum Model (as approved by Academic Senate in September 2014)

Relevant Legislation &

External Documents:

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, 2011 (Commonwealth) Higher Education Standards Framework Higher Education Support Act, 2003 (Commonwealth) University of Wollongong Strategic Plan 2013- 2018 Australian Qualifications Framework Standards - Commission for Academic Accreditation, UAE

Audience: Public – accessible to anyone

Contents

1 Introduction / Background ............................................................................................................. 4

2 Scope / Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 4

3 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 5

4 Design Matters Related to Qualification Levels and Types .......................................................... 8






http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hesa2003271/

http://www.aqf.edu.au/AbouttheAQF/TheAQF/tabid/108/Default.aspx

http://www.caa.ae/caa/images/standards2007.pdf

5 Course Names and Course Codes ............................................................................................. 10

6 Course Naming Abbreviations and Post-Nominals .................................................................... 11

7 Course Duration and Volume of Learning .................................................................................. 11

8 Course Admission ....................................................................................................................... 12

9 Qualification Pathways, Articulation and Credit Arrangements .................................................. 12

10 Delivery Mode(s), Delivery Location(s) and Delivery Session(s)................................................ 13

11 The UOW Curriculum Model ....................................................................................................... 14

12 Course Structure ......................................................................................................................... 15

13 Principles for Assurance of Learning .......................................................................................... 16

14 Subjects and Credit Points ......................................................................................................... 17

15 Principles for Double Badging Subjects ...................................................................................... 18

16 Principles for Zero Credit Point Subjects .................................................................................... 19

17 Academic and English Language Skills ...................................................................................... 19

18 Cross Counting of Subjects ........................................................................................................ 19

19 General Elective Subjects / General Elective Schedule ............................................................. 20

20 Roles & Responsibilities ............................................................................................................. 20

21 Version Control and Change History .......................................................................................... 20

Appendix 1: AQF Qualification Type and Qualification Level (Level 7 and above) .............................. 21

Appendix 2: Similarities and Differences between Joint and Dual Awards (Refer to TEQSA Guidance

Materials)............................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix 3: Course Names – AQF Level 7 and above ........................................................................ 23

Appendix 4: Course Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 24

Appendix 5: Other Course Descriptor Abbreviations ............................................................................ 25

Appendix 6: Field of Study Abbreviations ............................................................................................. 26

Appendix 7: Credit Points and EFTSL .................................................................................................. 30

Appendix 8 – Bachelor Pass Degree .................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 9 – Bachelor Double Degree ................................................................................................. 34

Appendix 10 – Bachelor Honours Degree ............................................................................................ 37

Appendix 11 – Graduate Certificate ...................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 12 – Graduate Diploma ......................................................................................................... 44


Appendix 13 – Masters Degree (Coursework) ...................................................................................... 47

Appendix 14 – Masters Degree (Research) .......................................................................................... 51

Appendix 15 – Doctoral Degree ............................................................................................................ 54

Appendix 16 – Table: Guide on the Use of Double Badged Subjects .................................................. 57

Appendix 17 – Principles of Equivalence .............................................................................................. 58


Introduction / Background 11. Course design at UOW supports the overall strategic goals for learning and the student

experience.

2. Course design supports the University’s strategic objectives of student-centred, challenging, high standard, technology-rich learning environment that develops all students for their graduate roles in society and the global workplace; and

3. The Course Design Procedures have been developed to assist in:

a. providing information and guidance for designing, developing and/or amending a course at the University of Wollongong; and

b. ensuring that course naming, course structure and course content for all UOW Qualifications (AQF award and non-award courses) meet the requirements as set out in the General Course Rules.

Scope / Purpose 21. The Course Design Procedures operate in conjunction with the General Course Rules and

the Course Policy Framework.

2. These procedures apply to all UOW courses (award and non-award) including all courses that are approved by UOW and delivered by third party providers at onshore and offshore delivery locations.

3. Course design is supported by and operates in conjunction with the following procedures:

3.1. Course and Subject Approval Procedures - New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses

3.2. Course and Subject Approval Procedures - Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses

3.3. Course Review Procedures

3.4. AQF Validation Procedures (only in relation to courses suspended as of 2015 without being AQF validated but later reactivated)

3.5. AQF Implementation Procedures (only in relation to courses suspended as of 2015 without being AQF validated but later reactivated).

4. The course design provisions relating to qualification pathways and recognition of equivalence in content and learning outcomes, and the governing principles and processes are addressed in the Credit for Prior Learning Policy and accompanying procedures.

5. All new UOW courses must adhere to the relevant provisions of the Course Design Procedures.

6. All existing UOW courses that are not in conformity with must be reviewed and re-designed to meet the Course Design Principles when next under review in accordance with the Course Review Schedule determined under the Course Review Procedures.

Course Variations for Offshore Delivery Locations

7. All UOW courses must be delivered in accordance with their approved structure applicable for the relevant delivery location (taking into account, in the case of offshore locations, the Principles of Equivalence) unless academic approval is granted by the Delegated Authority to vary course requirements for an individual student.

8. Courses, major study areas, specialisations and individual subjects that are offered at both the University of Wollongong onshore and offshore must have equivalent course, major study and subject learning outcomes having regard to the Principles of Equivalence.

9. Particular requirements imposed by relevant local higher education accreditation agencies may be approved as variations to the course, major study or to subjects by the Delegated Authority.


Definitions 3


100 level subject A subject at first year undergraduate level.

200 level subject A subject at second year undergraduate level.

300 level subject A subject at third year undergraduate level.

400 level subject A subject at fourth year undergraduate level.

600 level subject A subject at graduate entry undergraduate level.

800 and 900 level subjects

Subjects at postgraduate level.

Assurance of learning The quality assurance processes by which the University ensures that graduates of a course achieve stated educational outcomes.

Award course A course recognised under the Australian Qualifications Framework and approved by the Delegated Authority as an award or degree offered at the University of Wollongong. An award course leads to a higher education award as detailed in the General Course Rules.

AQF The Australian Qualifications Framework.

AQF Levels An indication of the relative complexity and/or depth of achievement and the autonomy required to demonstrate that achievement. AQF levels criteria describe the relative complexity and/or depth of achievement and the autonomy required to demonstrate that achievement for each AQF level.

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

Contextualisation The adaptation of one or more elements of a subject to increase its relevance to the location and cultural context where the course is being delivered

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

Co-requisite Subject A subject which must be completed successfully before or taken concurrently with the subject for which it is prescribed.

Customisation The alignment of subject design and materials with its students’ profile to promote effective learning for that cohort of students.


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

Credit As defined in the AQF, the value assigned for the recognition of equivalence in content and learning outcomes between different forms of learning and/or qualifications. Credit reduces the amount of learning required by students in order to complete a course, subject to course requirements.

Credit points Credit points are defined as the number value attached to a subject that indicates the study load.

Course structure The combination of core and elective subjects that a candidate must undertake to meet the requirements of a course. For award courses, this is specified in the Course Handbook for the year the student commenced the course.

Curriculum design The designing and sequencing of learning activities, learning support, resources and assessment tasks that enable a student to attain specified learning outcomes. At the course level, it involves consideration of the design and sequencing of core, elective and capstone subjects along with other learning experiences that do not form part of a required subject in order to enable students to attain the course learning outcomes

Delegated Authority A person or body granted decision-making authority as detailed in the Delegations of Authority Policy.

Delivery Mode A description of the way teaching and learning activities are carried out to support and enable learning.

Double Badged Subject A duplicate version of a subject originally designed for delivery as part of an AQF qualification type (typically a Bachelor Pass degree) that is created for delivery as part of a different, usually higher, AQF qualification type (typically a postgraduate qualification type).

Double Degree An approved course leading to the conferral of two degrees as separate awards upon a candidate who has complied with the course requirements for the double degree.

EFTSL Equivalent Full-Time Study Load - a measure of the study load, for a year, of a student undertaking a course on a full time basis, where the student undertakes a standard load.

Elective Subject An elective subject is a subject the selection of which is optional for students meeting course, major study or minor study requirements.

Equivalent Two courses or two areas of major study or specialisations are equivalent when the structure of the course, major study or specialisation includes the same core subjects, has course, major or minor learning outcomes that share the same intent, and are assessed as being at the same level of the Australian Qualifications Framework.


Flexible delivery A combination of online and face-to-face component where the face-to-face component is compulsory.

General Elective Schedule

The General Elective Schedule is a list of undergraduate subjects that are open for enrolment by any undergraduate student, often to make up the total number of credit points required for their degree.

Generic Learning Outcomes

Transferable, non-discipline specific skills a graduate may achieve through learning that have application in study, work and life contexts. The four broad categories in the AQF are:

• fundamental skills; • people skills; • thinking skills and • personal skills.

Joint or Dual Awards Involve two or more providers collaborating in developing and offering a course which results in either a single award being conferred jointly by all providers (a joint award) or multiple separate awards being conferred by the participating providers (a dual award).

Learning outcomes The expression of the set of knowledge skills and the application of the knowledge and skills a person has acquired and is able to demonstrate as a result of learning.

Major or Major Study As defined in the General Course Rules

Minor or Minor Study As defined in the General Course Rules

Nested qualification A qualification that includes articulation arrangements from a lower level qualification and/or into a higher level qualification to enable multiple entry and/or exit points.

Non-award course Any course offered by the University that does not lead to an AQF award at the University.

On campus delivery mode

Involves formal, recurring and compulsory face to face delivery (such as weekly lectures and/or tutorials and or/labs), and may be combined with the use of online mediums.

Pre-requisite subject A subject which must be completed satisfactorily before the subject for which it is prescribed may be taken.

Principles of Equivalence

Two courses or two areas of major study or specialisations are equivalent when the course, major study or specialisation is designed and delivered in conformity with the Principles of Equivalence as set out in Appendix 17.

Program A combination of two or more courses, for example a Double Degree Program.

Qualification Type Descriptors

The set of statements that describes the learning outcomes of each of the AQF qualification types in terms of knowledge, skills and the application of knowledge and skills.

Session A period in which subjects may be offered.


Sessions include Autumn Session and Spring Session, as well as Summer Session and Trimesters 1, 2 and 3.

Specialist Degree An award course that is designed to provide learning focussed on a specific field of study or discipline. It is also referred to as a ‘deepening’ course.

Standard load One year of full-time study, equivalent to 48 credit points is a standard load.

Student A person registered for a course.

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

UOW University of Wollongong.

UOWD University of Wollongong in Dubai.

Volume of Learning The notional duration of all activities required for the achievement of the learning outcomes specified for an AQF qualification type, expressed in equivalent full time years.

Year A calendar year period of 12 months.

Design Matters Related to Qualification Levels and Types 4

UOW Qualifications 1. The following courses of study are offered by the University:

a. AQF qualifications (detailed in Appendix 1 AQF Qualification Type and Qualification Level (Level 7 and above)), being courses leading to the following higher education awards:

i. Doctoral Degree

ii. Masters Degree (Research)

iii. Masters Degree (Coursework)

iv. Graduate Diploma

v. Graduate Certificate

vi. Bachelor Honours Degree

vii. Bachelor Pass Degree

b. Other courses not leading to an AQF award.

Cognate Courses 2. Cognate courses are courses with similar names and content (e.g. Bachelor of Commerce

and Bachelor of Commerce (Dean’s Scholar)). The course structure for cognate courses must be designed to differentiate cognate courses from each other. Distinguishing content may include:

a. a core or capstone subject or subjects that is or are not available to students undertaking the cognate course or that is or are only available to students in the cognate course as an elective subject(s); or


b. setting the volume of learning for one course at a level higher than that for the cognate course, enabling students to undertake additional core and/or elective subjects.

Dean’s Scholar, Scholar and Advanced Degrees

3. Dean’s Scholar and Scholar courses are for use in conjunction with high demand undergraduate courses, in order to attract high achieving students.

4. Advanced undergraduate courses are for use when seeking to attract academically gifted student. They are to be characterised by:

a. Higher entry requirements;

b. A more challenging curriculum, including exposure to research concepts and methods, research or project study and to advanced knowledge in the relevant discipline areas;

c. Greater flexibility in the curriculum (including the opportunity to study subjects at a higher level sooner and the opportunity to undertake more credit points per semester); and

d. Options for and encouragement for students to complete an honours award (end on honours or, for 4 year programs, embedded honours).

5. Advanced Masters courses are to be at least 96 credit points, with a minimum of 72 credit points at 900 level for a 96 cp course.

6. Advanced Masters courses can be either broadening or deepening courses. Broadening Advanced Masters courses are to provide students with the opportunity to undertake a broader range of elective subjects.

Joint and Dual Awards

7. Courses and subjects may be designed with a variety of partner institutions, either onshore and/or offshore. This collaboration by two or more providers may lead to two types of awards – a Joint Award or a Dual Award. Appendix 2 sets out details of relevant TEQSA requirements.

Joint Awards

8. Joint awards involving the University involve the awarding of a single qualification which is jointly conferred by two or more partner institutions and recognised within the Australian Qualifications Framework. Joint awards involve close cooperation among the institutions in curriculum development, design, organisation, course delivery, and assessment of learning outcomes as well as requirements necessary for awarding the qualification.

9. Joint award arrangements must:

a. be the subject of a formal written agreement between the University and the relevant partner institution(s) and signed by the appropriate Delegated Authority; and

b. follow the applicable course nomenclature set out in the Appendix 3.

10. The formal written agreement must provide for comparable rules and policies to be applied by the partner institution(s) to students undertaking the course regarding matters including but not limited to assessment, and academic misconduct.

11. The availability of Study Abroad or exchange studies at another institution within an award course does not by reason of this alone constitute a joint award.

12. A joint award arrangement must only be entered by the University of Wollongong with a partner institution that, in the opinion of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), will enhance the reputation of UOW and is:

a. a Universities Australia recognised university;


b. an international institution with which the University has an agreement under the International Alliances Policy; or

c. an institution assessed under the Australian Education International National Office of Overseas Skill Recognition skills assessment process as offering university standard qualifications.

13. There must be an equitable proportion of course content offered at UOW and at the partner institution(s), including

a. a minimum of one year’s study at the partner institution, or a combined minimum of one year of study between multiple partner institutions for an undergraduate degree; or

b. 50% of course content at the partner institution for a postgraduate degree.

14. There must be evidence of collaborative course design leading to comparable awards at all institutions involved. The degree title that each institution confers must be the same.

Non Award Courses

15. Non-award study is offered by the University. These non-award courses may be designed for various purposes:

a. to maximise student’s potential and learning experience in a specific area that may or may not be directly related to the discipline specific course content (for example: academic and English Language and other communication skills development, Mentoring programs, Academic Information Skills);

b. to provide the knowledge and skills that are determined to be critical to the course of study and assists in bridging the gap for students before they begin the course of study (for example, discipline bridging courses);

c. to provide research skills and are embedded as part of a research degree program for Level 10 AQF Qualification (for example: Research Methods, Research Principles, and Fundamentals of Research courses);

d. to provide formalised content and assessment but where the subject involves minimal resources from the University in terms of supervision, delivery, assessment etc.; or

e. to provide professional development or special interest information for specific or general audiences.

There is no defined or prescribed structure, content and other teaching and learning elements specified for these kinds of courses. Short courses do meet the AQF qualifications requirements and hence do not lead to or count towards a formal degree. Approval of non-award courses is regulated in the University’s course approval procedures.

Principles of Equivalence 16. The University offers award courses both onshore and offshore. Any UOW course or area of

major or minor study offered offshore should be equivalent to the course offered onshore, having regard to the Principles of Equivalence (Appendix 17).

Course Names and Course Codes 51. All courses must be named according to the UOW naming convention:

a. Qualification Type

b. Field of Study

as set out in Appendix 4.


2. A course title that contains an embedded descriptor that is not related to the field of study or discipline in the course title (such as “Scholar”, “Dean’s Scholar” or “Advanced”) will only meet AQF requirements if the course has:

a. distinct course learning outcomes; and

b. distinguishing curriculum content to differentiate it from any cognate course.

3. It is permissible to include a merit descriptor on a student’s testamur (for example, with Distinction, Class Honours II Division 1 etc.) to reflect the level of achievement of the student in the course. Merit descriptors cannot be included in qualification names as set out in Appendix 5.

4. New courses are allocated a unique 3 or 4 digit course code by the Institutional Research and Government Reporting Unit. This remains the course code for the duration of the course.

5. Course codes cannot be reissued or reused under any circumstances. When a course is discontinued the code is also deactivated. Should a discontinued course be reinstated the same course code is reactivated subject to no significant changes in the course prior to discontinuation.

6. Where a discontinued course is reinstated and amended so as to have an amended name, course type and/or course structure, a new course code must be issued.

Course Naming Abbreviations and Post-Nominals 61. Courses and areas of major study must be named in accordance with the abbreviations for

courses, fields of study and other descriptors set out in Appendices 5 and 6

2. Abbreviations are recorded in the Course Handbook and the Course Database and are used by graduates as the post-nominal representation of their course qualification.

Course Duration and Volume of Learning 71. All award courses must have a course duration that meets AQF requirements. The volume of

learning table in the AQF identifies the notional duration of all activities required for the achievement of learning outcomes specified for a particular AQF qualification. It is expressed in equivalent full-time years.

2. The specified duration of award courses at UOW is set out for each qualification type in Appendices 7 - 15.

3. Students are able to complete their course in shorter time on the basis of approved study at a higher study load than specified, or on the basis of credit.

Credit Points and Equivalent Full-Time Study Loads

4. For each course, the notional duration and the equivalent full-time study load are calculated using credit points.

5. Award courses involve students undertaking a standard load for the duration of the course, taking in to account the work requirements for a subject. Certain professional graduate entry degree courses and double degree courses require a study load of greater than a standard load.

6. The credit point and equivalent full-time study load for UOW award course types across different session patterns are listed in Appendix 7. These represent standard study loads. If a faculty proposes to exceed the standard study load, it must demonstrate that students are not disadvantaged or unduly inconvenienced in undertaking the course at the proposed load.

Total Credit Points and Minimum and Maximum Specifications

7. All UOW award courses must adhere to the specified minimum and maximum credit point requirements for an award course at the relevant AQF level as set out in Appendices 8 - 15.


8. For double degree programs, the credit point savings listed in Appendices 8 - 15 are maximums. The maximum saving will not be available in all double degree programs. For example:

a. the number of credit points saved by a student may be limited by the prescribed structure of some degrees that form a strand of a double degree program;

b. the saving may not be distributed across both single strands degrees and may be possible in relation to only one of them.

9. The LLB component of a double degree that includes a Bachelor of Laws is defined as a 4 year component for purposes of course design and student load.

10. Any proposed double degree program must be designed having regard to minimising any issues associated with delivery of the program (such as limits on resourcing or with combining two prescribed courses).

Course Admission 81. Details of admission criteria must be specified for each course. Any variations in admission

criteria for different student cohorts and/or delivery sites must be specified. Different student cohorts may include:

a. domestic or international applicants applying through UAC;

b. domestic applicants applying by direct application; and/or

c. international applicants applying by direct application.

Course Entry Requirements 2. Where relevant, admission requirements for different student cohorts (domestic, international,

contract) and/or delivery sites must be specified for each course, including:

a. English language requirements;

b. academic requirements;

c. professional experience; and/or

d. other selection criteria (written application, interview, audition, etc.).

3. Admission criteria are approved at the point of approval of a course and thereafter determined on an ongoing basis in accordance with the Admissions Rules and the Admissions Procedures.

Qualification Pathways, Articulation and Credit Arrangements 91. In designing an award course, there must be consideration given to the development of

qualification pathways and articulation arrangements for students to progress into and between qualification levels. These pathways must be detailed in course approval documentation for new courses.

2. Qualification pathways should be horizontal across qualifications at the same level as well as vertical between qualifications at different levels.

Nested Qualifications 3. Nested qualifications are qualifications that include articulated arrangements from a lower

level qualification into a higher level qualification to enable multiple entry and exit points.

4. Each course of study within a nested set of qualifications leading to each AQF award, must meet the requirements of the relevant Higher Education Standards Framework, including the specifications for each level of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).


5. A student who is admitted in the first instance only to a course at a lower AQF Level and who completes a course successfully may be granted a defined amount of credit towards admission into the higher course.

6. In a three-stage program (Figure 1), which contains exit points at the end of each stage, this would typically entail one third credit being granted for completion of each level.

Figure 1

7. A student who is enrolled directly into the higher AQF Level course at the outset may proceed through the entire course, unless they decide to exit with a lower AQF Level qualification.

Principles for Nested Qualifications 8. Each course leading to a Graduate Certificate or a Graduate Diploma nested within a Masters

course must have specified learning outcomes for the relevant AQF Qualification Level and Qualification Type. Nested qualifications should clearly state how the learning outcomes for each nested course are assured, and show their distribution throughout the entire course.

Credit for Prior Learning 9. Credit for Prior Learning is available for students to have their prior educational and career

experience recognised towards meeting the course learning outcomes in their UOW course. It means students are able to seek a reduction in the length of their degree and cost of their degree, including tuition and living costs.

10. In designing courses, consideration must be given to appropriate supporting credit arrangements (including formal articulation arrangements) and other means for recognition of prior learning having regard to the principles and provisions as set out in the Credit for Prior Learning Policy.

Delivery Mode(s), Delivery Location(s) and Delivery Session(s) 10

ESOS / CRICOS Requirements 1. All courses offered to onshore international students on a student visa must meet relevant

requirements of the Education Services to Overseas Students Act, 2000, with respect to their delivery mode.

2. Standard 9.4 of the ESOS National Code provides that:


http://www.uow.edu.au/future/credit/forms-and-policies/UOW189823

http://www.uow.edu.au/future/credit/forms-and-policies/UOW189823

2.1. An international student may be permitted to undertake no more than 25% of the student’s total course by distance and/or online learning.

2.2. A provider must not enrol students exclusively in distance or online learning subjects in any compulsory session (e.g., Autumn or Spring Session / Trimester).

On Campus and Flexible Delivery Modes

3. The number of subjects available for on campus and/or flexible modes at each course level for each session must be set so as to enable international onshore students to comply with the requirements set out in 10.2

Use of Technology for International Students Studying Onshore

4. A course can use online electronic technology (e.g. Moodle, eLearning, EduStream, Janison) as an additional or supporting tool or medium to enhance teaching and learning.

5. The online medium must not be used with the intent to replace the face-to-face lectures and/or tutorials. This will change the intent of the delivery mode.

6. Online mediums like Skype Chat and/or Yahoo Chat should not be used as a substitute for face-to-face delivery for international students. These online mediums separate the teacher and student in time and/or space.

7. Where a proposal for a new course includes the use of technology as a tool for teaching and learning activities, minimum requirements must be satisfied in order to offer the course to international students onshore in accordance with ESOS requirements:

a. compulsory face-to-face arrangements must be available for international students for a subject to meet the definition of on campus or flexible; and

b. these compulsory arrangements and additional support provided must be verifiable.

Delivery Location 8. When designing a course, careful consideration must be given to the selection of delivery

locations (existing or new) taking account of the capacity of the University to provide an equivalent academic experience for students at the delivery location.

9. Where a new delivery location is proposed for delivery of a course, in order to ensure the systems needs, operational requirements and compliance requirements involved in delivery at the new location can be resolved, the proposing Faculty must facilitate wide consultation with central units before the course at the delivery location is approved.

Session of Offer and Session of Delivery

10. All courses and subjects offered onshore should, where practicable, use the UOW approved standard sessions (Autumn, Spring, Summer and Trimesters 1, 2 and 3).

NB: The onshore versions of Autumn and Spring sessions are different to the offshore Autumn and Spring sessions.

11. Non-standard sessions can be used where there are sound pedagogical or logistical reasons to do so. Creation of new non-standard sessions is managed under the Sessions Management Policy (under development).

12. Changes to existing sessions are managed through the Manager, Enrolments and UAC Admissions.

The UOW Curriculum Model 111. The UOW Curriculum Model sets out five transformative practices to maximise student success

and build on and enhance UOW’s reputation for top quality teaching and learning.


Curriculum Themes 1. The Curriculum Themes developed to define the future UOW curriculum comprise a student

learning experience that is:

a. Intellectually challenging;

b. Research/enquiry based;

c. Real world focused; and

d. Technologically enriched.

UOW Curriculum Design Principles 2. The UOW Curriculum Design Principles comprise:

a. Transition;

b. Synthesis; and

c. Broadening

UOW Curriculum Transformational Practices 3. A set of five Transformational Practices has been developed and that are to be integrated into

all courses to bring the UOW curriculum themes to life:

a. First Year Experience @ UOW;

b. My Portfolio @ UOW;

c. Hybrid Learning @ UOW;

d. Connections @ UOW; and

e. Capstones @ UOW.

4. All award courses must, on being proposed or being reviewed, incorporate in their design the curriculum themes, principles and transformative practices of the UOW Curriculum Model.

Course Structure 121. In order for an award course (and the majors or specialisations within it) to meet AQF

requirements, the University must ensure that each course that lead to a qualification located at Levels 7, 8, 9 or 10 of the AQF meet the corresponding specifications in the AQF for a course of that level and type, including:

a. AQF Levels Criteria,

b. Qualification Type Descriptors,

c. Volume of Learning, and

d. Generic Learning Outcomes as detailed in the AQF.

General Factors in Structuring an AQF Compliant Course

2. For a course to meet AQF requirements, the following elements are required:

2.1. Course learning outcomes and subject learning outcomes are in place;

2.2. Course learning outcomes are aligned with the relevant AQF qualification type descriptors (refer to Appendices 8 – 15);

2.3. Assessment at the subject level demonstrably supports achievement of the subject learning outcomes and, where applicable, the major study and course learning outcomes;

2.4. The course has a volume of learning that, at a minimum, meets AQF requirements for the relevant AQF level and qualification type;


2.5. The course learning outcomes incorporate achievement of the Generic Learning Outcomes detailed in the AQF; and

2.6. The course has a course award title that is consistent with the AQF.

Learning Outcomes

1. Learning Outcomes should be specific to the course of study, measurable, achievable and, within the context of the volume of learning and the resources available, realistic

2. Course Learning Outcomes may be supplemented by Major and/or Specialisation Learning Outcomes.

3. The Course, Specialisation and/or Major Learning Outcomes must embed Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level descriptors and, where they exist, discipline Threshold Learning Outcomes.

4. Where applicable, professional accreditation requirements and requirements of regulatory and disciplinary bodies are also embedded in the course learning outcomes.

Major Study, Specialisation and Minor Study Credit Points

5. A major study or specialisation must meet the minimum credit point requirements as set out in Appendices 8 - 15.

6. A minor study must meet the minimum credit point requirement set out in Appendices 8 - 15.

7. A minor study may be available to all UOW students subject to the relevant course requirements, by being listed on the Schedule of Minor Studies set out in the General Course Rules.

Subjects and the AQF

8. In order for subjects to be consistent with the AQF levels, and subject to the restrictions as set out in the Appendices 8 - 15:

a. subjects offered in AQF Level 7 and embedded AQF Level 8 undergraduate courses will be at 100 Level, 200 Level and 300 and/or 400 Level;

b. subjects offered in AQF Level 8 undergraduate end on honours courses will be at 400 Level or 800 Level;

c. subjects offered in AQF Level 8 postgraduate courses will be at 400, 800 or 900 Level; and

d. subjects offered in AQF Level 9 postgraduate courses will be at 800 or 900 Level.

9. Due to limitations in the existing subject database, subjects offered in AQF Level 10 postgraduate courses will be designed to meet the requirements of Level 9 and Level 10 of the AQF but will be designated as 900 Level and, for the thesis subjects, will have the prefix THES.

10. A subject may be approved subject as a pre-requisite subject or a co-requisite subject provided the Delegated Authority is satisfied there is academic justification for requiring students enrolling in the subject for which the pre-requisite or co-requisite is prescribed to undertake the pre-requisite or co-requisite.

Principles for Assurance of Learning 131. Assurance of learning involves a systematic process of:

a. Identifying and developing expected course learning outcomes

b. designing courses in a whole of course approach to foster attainment of course learning outcomes

c. collecting data about student attainment of course learning outcomes


d. reviewing and benchmarking this data, and

e. continuously developing and improving courses and subjects.

2. The purpose of Assurance of Learning is to ensure UOW graduates achieve the learning outcomes we claim they will achieve. As well as contributing to the improvement of our courses, assurance of learning is also a way of demonstrating our accountability to students and external stakeholders.

3. A well-developed Assurance of Learning process is characterised by:

3.1. clear course learning outcomes, which are consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded and informed by national and/or international comparators;

3.2. teaching and learning activities arranged to foster progressive and coherent achievement of expected learning outcomes;

3.3. methods of assessment which are capable of confirming that students are achieving the course learning outcomes;

3.4. judgements on assessments that reflect the level of student achievement;

3.5. course review and improvement activities, including periodic comprehensive reviews of all courses of study;

3.6. review and improvement are informed by consideration of indirect measures of learning (graduate surveys, employers surveys, alumni feedback) and regular benchmarking; and

3.7. evidence of the way in which this information (learning outcomes, student performance, indirect measures) influences teaching, learning and research by informing students, initiating curriculum change or developing teaching practice and resource development.

4. These elements of an Assurance of Learning process characterise particular requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework (2015).

Attaining Learning Outcomes

5. Confirmation of student attainment of course learning outcomes will be provided through the design of a set of assessments planned across the course.

6. These assessments should be authentic and challenging tasks which offer students rich opportunities to develop and integrate their learning. They are typically real-world focused and are ideal for inclusion in student portfolios.

7. There should be at least one assessment that allow students to demonstrate attainment of each Course Learning Outcome (and, for courses with separate Specialisation or Major Learning Outcomes, each Specialisation or Major Learning Outcome).

8. Design and development of course, subjects and assessments should ideally take place as collaborative and inclusive process with the course team.

9. The design of assessment and feedback within a course should be in line with the UOW Assessment and Feedback Principles.

Subjects and Credit Points 141. For undergraduate and postgraduate coursework courses, in order to support cross

disciplinary study and to simplify and make consistent the University’s subject structures, a subject must be designed with the following credit point values:

a. 0 credit points (as a result of which no fee may be charged for students to undertake the subject);

b. 2 credit points;

c. 3 credit points;

d. 6 credit points;


e. 12 credit points;

f. 18 credit points;

g. 24 credit points; and

h. 48 credit points.

2. The standard credit point value for an undergraduate coursework or postgraduate coursework subject is 6 credit points.

3. Use of 2 and 3 credit point subjects should be exceptional and should not result in students being unduly inconvenienced in achieving the minimum number of credit points required to be eligible to graduate and/or declare a major study or minor study.

4. Subjects of 12 credit points and above should be used to cater for study at greater depth or for project based study.

5. Where a new subject is designed, care should be taken to eliminate any potential barriers associated with cross disciplinary study and prevent students having small shortfalls or over-runs in the credit points achieved to meet course requirements.

6. The credit points should reflect the work requirements for a subject. Each credit point approximates to 1.5 to 2 hours of work (in class and self-directed study) per week.

Implementation

7. Faculties with subjects that are 8 or 16 credit points in value must adopt the following approach to meet the UOW approved standard credit point controls:

a. Subjects that core or capstones within a course or major study must be amended to align to the credit point controls in conjunction with the next course review or external re-accreditation process for that course or major study;

b. Elective subjects must be amended to align to the credit points so as to minimise any adverse impact to students;

c. Subjects offered at offshore locations must be amended taking account of offshore accreditation requirements in consultation with offshore partners.

8. All coursework subjects must be aligned to the credit point controls by 31 December 2018 for the 2019 academic year.

9. In aligning subjects, faculties may reduce content and assessment or increase content and assessment to ensure the credit points consistent with the approved credit point controls.

Principles for Double Badging Subjects 1510. Double badging of a subject is typically achieved by changes to the subject learning

outcomes and to assessment so that the second version of the double badged subject, as delivered, can cater to the needs of students studying at a different AQF Qualification Level.

11. A core principle of course design for bachelors pass, bachelor honours, graduate diploma and masters qualification types is to provide a curriculum that introduces, develops and assures learning.

12. Double badged subjects should be kept to a minimum within a course

13. Double badged subjects should be designed to meet the requirements of students studying at the relevant qualification level and type for the course in which they are enrolled.

14. Double badging of undergraduate subjects as postgraduate subjects should occur only with adjustments to subject learning outcomes and assessment to reflect their delivery at a higher level and for a higher qualification type in the AQF.

15. Adjustments for postgraduate versions include:

a. Varying subject learning outcomes to meet the qualification type descriptors for Level 8 and Level 9 qualifications


b. Including additional content to provide greater breadth or depth of knowledge to meet the qualification type descriptors for Level 8 and Level 9 qualifications and in line with the varied subject learning outcomes

c. Setting more demanding assessment tasks to meet the qualification type descriptors for Level 8 and Level 9 qualifications and in line with the varied subject learning outcomes.

Exceptions

16. Double badging of 400 level subjects as 800 level subjects may occur without modification to subject learning outcomes or assessment on the basis that the relevant qualifications (Bachelor Honours, Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma) sit at the same level of the AQF as set out in Appendix 17.

17. This is provided that subjects are consistent with the relevant AQF qualifications levels and qualifications types.

18. Double badging of 200 and 300 level subjects as 800 level subjects may occur without alteration as set out in Appendix 16, (and therefore at the assurance level of a Level 7 Bachelor’s degree) but only if the subjects are:

a. offered as foundation or introductory level subjects within a Masters course and provided that there are no more than 18cp of double badged subjects per 72 cp Master’s degree or 24cp of double badged subjects per 96 cp Master’s degree; or

b. offered as part of a Level 8 qualification (but with a strict limit of 6cp in a Graduate Certificate or 12cp in a Graduate Diploma)

19. These principles do not apply to higher degree research degrees.

Principles for Zero Credit Point Subjects 161. Zero credit point subjects are permissible provided the subject is for one of the following

purposes:

1.1. To maximise student’s potential and learning experience in a specific area that may not be directly related to the discipline specific course content (for example: academic and English language and other communication skills development, mentoring programs, Academic Information Skills)

1.2. To provide the knowledge and skills that are determined critical to the course of study and assists in bridging the gap for students before they begin the course of study.

1.3. To provide students with work experience and placement opportunities.

1.4. To provide research skills and are embedded as part of a research degree program for Level 10 AQF Qualification (for example: Research Methods, Research Principles, and Fundamentals of Research).

1.5. To provide formalised content and assessment but where the subject involves minimal resources from the University (supervision, delivery, assessment etc.).

1.6. To provide for compulsory prerequisite content.

Academic and English Language Skills 171. In order to meet the needs of students in the development of academic and English language

and other communication skills, faculties must offer subjects and/or embed strategies, methods and practices to assist students in the ongoing development and improvement of academic and English language and other communication skills within their courses, and throughout the course of study consistent with the English Language Policy.

Cross Counting of Subjects 181. Subject to clause 18.2, no more than one subject may be counted towards:


a. more than one major study or specialisation; or

b. more than one minor study; or

c. a major study and a minor study; or

d. a major study or a specialisation or a minor study, and core degree requirements.

2. Clause 18.1 does not apply where:

a. the course rules for a course expressly restrict the cross counting of subjects for any purpose outlined in clause 18.1 or

b. if academic approval for the cross counting of more than one subject is obtained from the Delegated Authority.

General Elective Subjects / General Elective Schedule 191. Undergraduate subjects listed on the General Elective Schedule are open for enrolment by any

undergraduate student.

2. This is subject to the structure and requirements of the undergraduate courses. Courses may prescribe content by reference to a general schedule of elective subjects as part of course requirements.

3. The approval process for a general schedule of elective subjects is provided for in the Course and Subject Approval Procedures – Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses.

Roles & Responsibilities 201. Faculties are responsible for designing courses and subjects that meet the requirements of

these procedures.

2. The Faculty Education Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving or endorsing proposals for courses and subjects that meet the requirements of these procedures.

3. The Strategic Course Development Committee is responsible for endorsing proposals for courses that meet the requirements of these procedures.

4. The Quality Assurance Review Group is responsible for scrutinising course related and subject related proposals for adherence to these procedures.

5. The Academic Senate is responsible for final approval of proposals for new courses and significant amendments to existing courses that meet the requirements of these procedures.

6. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit is responsible for maintaining and reviewing these procedures.

7. Learning, Teaching & Curriculum are responsible for re responsible for providing information, advice and consultation on the alignment of these procedures to the University's approach to higher education teaching and learning principles.

Version Control and Change History 21

Version Control Date Effective Approved By Amendment

1 University Council First Version.


Appendix 1: AQF Qualification Type and Qualification Level (Level 7 and above)

AQF Level AQF Qualification Type

Level 7 Bachelor Degree

Level 8 Bachelor Honours

Vocational Graduate Certificate

Graduate Certificate

Vocational Graduate Diploma

Graduate Diploma

Level 9 Masters Degree (Coursework)

Masters Degree (Research)

Masters Degree (Extended)

Level 10 Doctoral Degree


Appendix 2: Similarities and Differences between Joint and Dual Awards (Refer to TEQSA Guidance Materials)

Joint Award Dual Award

May also be referred to as ‘jointly badged’ or ‘collaborative’ award

May also be referred to as ‘collaborative double degree’ or ‘combined degree’

Single qualification and (normally) single testamur jointly conferred by two or more providers

Two qualifications and two testamurs conferred separately by two providers

Joint program of study – close collaboration in course and curriculum design, course delivery, and requirements for awarding qualification

Two programs of study

Student may be enrolled at both institutions or at one institution

Student enrolled at both institutions

Duration of the course is normally not extended compared to an individual course

May provide students with the opportunity to complete two awards in a shorter timeframe than if completed separately

Physical and/or virtual mobility of students and/or staff and/or course content

Physical and/or virtual mobility of students and/or staff and/or course content

Facilitated through a MOU or formal agreement between two or more providers. May also involve separate individual student agreements between the HEP and the other institution/s.

Facilitated through a MOU or formal agreement between two providers


Appendix 3: Course Names – AQF Level 7 and above

AQF Qualification Type UOW Course Naming Convention Course Type Example

Bachelor Degree “Bachelor of [Field of Study]” Bachelor Degree (Pass Bachelor with core/capstone, major study and minor study)

Bachelor of Science

(Majors)

Bachelor Degree (Specialist degree) Bachelor of Education – The Early Years

Bachelor of Nursing (Conversion)

Bachelor Degree (with Dean’s Scholar) Bachelor of Arts (Dean’s Scholar)

Bachelor Double Degree (2 single degrees)

“Degree Name 1 – Degree Name 2”

Bachelor of Arts – Bachelor of Commerce

Bachelor of Commerce – Bachelor of Laws

Bachelor Honours “Bachelor of [Field of Study] Honours” Bachelor Honours Bachelor of Engineering Honours

Graduate Certificate Graduate Certificate in [Field of Study] N/A Graduate Certificate in Adult Education

Graduate Diploma Graduate Diploma in [Field of Study] N/A Graduate Diploma in Adult Education

Masters Degree (Coursework)

Master of [Field of Study] Coursework Master of Accountancy

Masters Degree (Research)

Master of [Field of Study] - Research Research Master of Accountancy - Research

Doctoral Degree Doctor of [Field of Study] Doctoral Doctor of Philosophy


Appendix 4: Course Abbreviations

Full Name Abbreviation

Certificate Cert

Diploma Dip

Advanced Diploma AdvDip

Associate Degree AD

Bachelor B

Graduate Certificate GCert

Graduate Diploma GDip

Honours (Hons)

Master M

Doctor D / PhD


Appendix 5: Other Course Descriptor Abbreviations


Advanced Adv

Dean’s Scholar (Dean’sSchol)

Scholar (Schol)

Honours (Hons)

With Distinction (Dist)


Appendix 6: Field of Study Abbreviations If no abbreviation is listed, a commonly accepted abbreviation may be used or if no commonly accepted abbreviation is available, the full word must be used. When selecting an abbreviation, consideration should be given to whether the abbreviation is likely to have meaning outside of the University.


Accounting Accy

Advocacy Advocacy

Adult Adult

Applied App

Arts A

Asset Asset

Biotechnology Biotech

Business Bus

Business Administration BA

Change Chg

Chemistry Chem

Coaching Coach

Commerce Com

Communication Comm

Communication and Media Studies CMS

Computer Comp

Creative Arts CA

Crime Crime

Development Dev

Dietetics Diet

Dementia Care DementiaCare

Disability Disability

Economics Econ


Education Ed

Engineering E (if only word in degree) or Eng (if used with other words). E.g. BE or MEngMgmt

English Engl

Environmental Env

Exercise Ex

Finance Fin

Forensic For

Gerontology and Rehabilitation Studies G&RStud

Gifted Gifted

Health Hlth

Higher Higher

Human Resource Management HRM

HIV/AIDS HIV/Aids

Indigenous Indig

Industrial Ind

Industry-Based Ind-based

Informatics Informatics

Information Info

Information and Communication Technology ICT

Information Systems IS

Information Technology IT

International Int or Intl

Internet Internet

Journalism Jrnl

Law LL (expressed by convention as LLB) or Law

Leadership Lead

Learning Lrng


Legal Legal

Literacy or Literature Lit

Logistics Log

Management Mgmt

Marine Mar

Maritime Maritime

Marketing Mark

Materials Mat

Mathematics Math

Media Media

Medical or Medicinal or Medicine Med (or M in the context of the MBBS)

Mental Mntl

Multicultural Multi

Nanotechnology Nanotech

Natural Nat

Nursing Nurse

Nutrition Nutr

Quality Qual

Occupational Health and Safety OH&S

Occupational Hygiene Practice OHP

Outdoor Outdoor

Physical Phy

Physics Phys

Practice Prac

Prevention Prev

Primary Prim

Policy or Politics Pol


Professional Prof

Project Proj

Prosecutions Pros

Psychology or Psychological Psyc

Public Pub

Radiation Rad

Relations Rel

Resources Res

Rolling Stock RollStock

Science Sc

Social Soc

Special Spec

Statistics Stat

Strategic Strat

Studies Stud or St

Surgery Surg (or S in the context of the MBBS)

Systems Sys

Technology Tech

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

TESOL

Transnational Trans

Vocational Education and Training VET

Welding and Joining WeldJoin


Appendix 7: Credit Points and EFTSL

Credit points EFTSL Session/Trimester Notional Duration

Years Weeks

48 1 S1/0.5, S2/0.5 1 52

T1/0.33, T2/0.33, T3/0.33

72 1.5 S1/0.75, S2/0.75 1.5 78

T1/0.5, T2/0.5, T3/0.5

96 2 S1/0.5, S2/0.5, S3/0.5, S4/0.5

T1/0.5, T2/0.5, T3/0.5 & T1/0.5, T2/0.5, T3/0.5

2 108

Sessions EFTSL

1 Session

2 Sessions

3 Sessions

4 Sessions

5 Sessions

6 Sessions

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 Trimester

2 Trimesters

3 Trimesters

4 Trimesters

5 Trimesters

6 Trimesters

.33

.66

.99 ≈ 1

1.33

1.66

1.99 ≈ 2


Appendix 8 – Bachelor Pass Degree

AQF Qualification Type Bachelor

(Pass Bachelor – Non Specialist or Specialist Degree) AQF Qualification Level Level 7

Course Name and Abbreviation:

Award Name and Abbreviation:

Bachelor of [Field of Study] / Bachelor of [Field of Study] Advanced / Bachelor of [Field of Study] Dean’s Scholar

B[Field of Study Abbreviation] / B [Field of Study Abbreviation] Adv / B [Field of Study Abbreviation] (Schol)

Course Code

Issued by Institutional Research and Government Reporting Unit (3 or 4 digits)

Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning The volume of learning of a Bachelor Pass Degree is typically 3 – 4 years

Total Credit Points for 3 year Bachelor Degrees / Bachelor Dean’s Scholar Degrees

Bachelor Pass Degree must have a minimum of 144 credit points

A minimum of 36 credit points at the 100 level, and a maximum of 60 credit points at the 100 level for a single degree, and a minimum of 24 credit points at the 300 level for a three year degree.

These provisions do not apply to the Bachelor of Medicine – Bachelor of Surgery degree.

Total Credit Points for 4 year Bachelor Advanced Degrees

Bachelor Advanced Degree must have a minimum of 192 credit points

A minimum of 36 credit points at the 100 level, and a maximum of 60 credit points at the 100 level for a single degree, and a minimum of 24 credit points at the 300 level plus a minimum of 24 credit points at the 400 level for a four year degree.

Course Learning Outcomes In order for a Bachelor Pass Degree to be compliant with Level 7 requirements of the AQF, it is necessary for the course content and course learning outcomes to be distinct from any cognate Level 7 or 8 Degrees.

Major Study

A major study or specialisation in a course is an approved combination of subjects offered by one or more academic units which have a minimum value of one third of the total degree requirements.

In a three year pass bachelor degree, a minimum of 24 credit points at 300 level or higher.

Where a specialist bachelor degree has a core of 96 credit points or more, a major study may be permitted to be less than the minimum prescribed, however the major must not be less than 24 credit points and must be predominantly


made up of subjects at 300 level or higher.

Cross counting restrictions apply.

Minor Study

A minor study in Bachelor Pass Degree, is an approved combination of subjects which have a minimum value of 24 credit points offered by one or more academic units.

A minor study must include at least 12 credit points at 200 level or higher.


AQF Qualification Summary Graduates at this level will have broad and coherent knowledge and skills for professional work and/or further learning

AQF Learning Outcomes Criteria and qualification type descriptors:

Knowledge: Graduates of a Bachelor Degree will have broad and coherent body of knowledge, with depth in the underlying principles and concepts in one or more disciplines as a basis for independent lifelong learning. Graduates at this level will have broad and coherent theoretical and technical knowledge with depth in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

Skills:

Graduates at this level will have well-developed cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to:

• Analyse and evaluate information to complete a range of activities

• Analyse, generate and transmit solutions to unpredictable and sometimes complex problems

• Transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates of a Bachelor Degree will have::

• Cognitive skills to review critically, analyse, consolidate and synthesise knowledge

• Cognitive and technical skills to demonstrate a broad understanding of knowledge with depth in some areas

• Cognitive and creative skills to exercise critical thinking and judgement in identifying and solving problems with intellectual independence

• Communication skills to present a clear, coherent and independent exposition of knowledge and ideas

Application of Knowledge and Skills:

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well-developed judgement and responsibility:

• In contexts that require self-directed work and learning


• Within broad parameters to provide specialist advice and functions

Graduates of a Bachelor Degree will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills:

• With initiative and judgement in planning, problem solving and decision making in professional practice and/or scholarship

• To adapt knowledge and skills in diverse contexts

• With responsibility and accountability for own learning and professional practice and in collaboration with others within broad parameters


Appendix 9 – Bachelor Double Degree

AQF Qualification Type Bachelor

(Pass Bachelor - Straight or Specialist Double Degree) AQF Qualification Level Level 7

Course Name and Abbreviation


Bachelor of [Field of Study] - Bachelor of [Field of Study]

B[Field of Study Abbreviation]- B[Field of Study Abbreviation]

Double Degrees must be displayed as “Degree Name 1 – Degree Name 2”. For example “Bachelor of Arts – Bachelor of Commerce”.

The two degrees must be separated by a dash (-) and must be displayed as such in all documentation provided by the University of Wollongong.

The degree of the owning faculty is listed first, with the exception of:

• the Bachelor of Laws, which is always listed last, and • the degrees that are listed first due to marketing,

promotional and accreditation requirements.

Where both degrees are owned by the same Faculty, the degree names must be ordered alphabetically.

Course Code


Total Credit Points for Bachelor Double Degrees

Bachelor Double Degrees - where the constituent degrees are:

• 3yr + 3yr, the double degree must have a minimum of 216 credit points with a maximum of 72 credit points savings

• 4yr + 3 yr, the double degree must have a minimum of 264 credit points with a maximum of 72 credit points savings

• 4yr + 4 yr, the double degree must have a minimum of 286 credit points with a maximum of 96 credit points

Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning The volume of learning of a single Bachelor Pass Degree is typically 3 – 4 years


Course Learning Outcomes In order for a Bachelor Pass Double Degree course to be compliant with Level 7 requirements of the AQF, it is necessary to demonstrate that any reduction of credit points required by a student separately undertaking the two constituent degree courses is justified by virtue of there being complementary course learning outcomes existing within one or both of the constituent degree programs making up the double degree.

Major Studies


In any strand of a double degree that includes a major study, a minimum of 24 credit points at 300 level or higher.

Where a specialist bachelor degree comprising a strand of a double degree has a core study of 84 credit points or more, a major study may be permitted to be less than the minimum prescribed, however the major must not be less than 24 credit points and must be predominantly made up of subjects at 300 level or higher.


Minor Studies

A minor study in a course for a Bachelor degree, is an approved combination of subjects which have a minimum value of 24 credit points offered by one or more academic units.

A minor study must include at least 12 credit points at 200 level or higher.


AQF Qualification Summary Graduates at this level will have broad and coherent knowledge and skills for professional work and/or further learning

AQF Learning Outcomes Criteria and

Knowledge: Graduates of a Bachelor Pass Degree will have broad and coherent body of knowledge, with depth in the underlying principles and concepts in one or more disciplines as a basis for independent lifelong learning. Graduates at this level will have broad and coherent theoretical and technical knowledge with depth in one or more disciplines or areas of practice


qualification type descriptors:

Skills:

Graduates at this level will have well-developed cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to:

• Analyse and evaluate information to complete a range of activities

• Analyse, generate and transmit solutions to unpredictable and sometimes complex problems


Graduates of a Bachelor Pass Degree will have::

• Cognitive skills to review critically, analyse, consolidate and synthesise knowledge

• Cognitive and technical skills to demonstrate a broad understanding of knowledge with depth in some areas

• Cognitive and creative skills to exercise critical thinking and judgement in identifying and solving problems with intellectual independence

• Communication skills to present a clear, coherent and independent exposition of knowledge and ideas


Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well-developed judgement and responsibility:

• In contexts that require self-directed work and learning

• Within broad parameters to provide specialist advice and functions

Graduates of a Bachelor Pass Degree will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills:

• With initiative and judgement in planning, problem solving and decision making in professional practice and/or scholarship

• To adapt knowledge and skills in diverse contexts

• With responsibility and accountability for own learning and professional practice and in collaboration with others within broad parameters


Appendix 10 – Bachelor Honours Degree

AQF Qualification Type Bachelor Honours AQF Qualification Level Level 8



Bachelor of [Field of Study] Honours

B[Field of Study Abbreviation] (Hons) Course Code


Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning

The volume of learning of a Bachelor Honours Degree is typically 1 year following a Bachelor Pass Degree. A Bachelor Honours Degree may also be embedded in a Bachelor Degree, typically making it of four (4) years, duration.

Total Credit Points

48 credit points for a 1 year Honours

A one year Honours course must consist of at least 48 credit points total which includes:

• at least 12 credit points at 400 level excluding honours thesis or project subject, • a 400 level thesis or project subject with value of at least 24 credit points.

192 credit points for an embedded (4 years) Honours

For a four year embedded Honours course must consist of:

• at least 36 credit points at 300 level • at least 12 credit points at 400 level excluding the honours thesis or project subject, • a 400 level thesis or project subject or subjects with value of at least 12 credit points.

For a Level 8 Bachelor Honours Degree, unlimited credit points at 800 level may be used, provided the subjects are available for students enrolled in the course either with or without academic approval.

All Bachelor Honours Degree courses must contain:

• subjects and/or subject content that involve the development of ‘advanced knowledge’; • subjects and/or subject content that introduce and develop knowledge of research principles and methods; and


• research project subject or subjects of 12 credit points’ value or more.

Course Learning Outcomes

In order for a Bachelor Honours course to be compliant with Level 8 requirements of the AQF, it is not permissible for students to receive the award of honours based solely on merit.

AQF requirements are that to graduate with a Level 8 Bachelor Honours degree, the student must demonstrate:

• the development of advanced knowledge, • the application of knowledge and skills “...to plan and execute project work and/or a piece of research and

scholarship with some independence”, and • “knowledge of research principles and methods.”

Major Studies


In a four year bachelor honours degree, a minimum of 24 credit points at 400 level or higher.

Where a specialist four year bachelor honours degree has a core study of 96 credit points or more, a major study may be permitted to be less than the minimum prescribed, however the major must not be less than 24 credit points and must be predominantly made up of subjects at 400 level or higher.


Minor Studies

A minor study in a course for a Bachelor degree, is an approved combination of subjects which have a minimum value of 24 credit points offered by one or more academic units

In a four year bachelor honours degree, a Minor Study should include at least 12 credit points at 200 level or higher.


AQF Qualification Summary Graduates at this level will have advanced knowledge and skills for professional/highly skilled work and/or further learning

AQF Learning Outcomes Criteria and qualification

Knowledge:

Graduates at this level will have advanced theoretical and technical knowledge in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

Graduates of a Bachelor Honours Degree will have coherent and advanced knowledge of the underlying principles and concepts in one or more disciplines and knowledge of research principles and methods


type descriptors:

Skills:

Graduates at this level will have expert advanced cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to:

• Analyse critically, evaluate and transform information to complete a range of activities

• Analyse, generate and transmit solutions to complex problems


Graduates of a Bachelor Honours Degree will have::

• Cognitive skills to review, analyse, consolidate and synthesise knowledge to identify and provide solutions to complex problems with intellectual independence

• Cognitive and technical skills to demonstrate a broad understanding of a body of knowledge and theoretical concepts with advanced understanding in some areas

• Cognitive skills to exercise critical thinking and judgement in developing new understanding

• Technical skills to design and use research in a project

• Communication skills to present a clear and coherent exposition of knowledge and ideas to a variety of audiences


Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well-developed judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Graduates of a Bachelor Honours Degree will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills:

• With initiative and judgement in professional practice and/or scholarship

• To adapt knowledge and skills in divers contexts

• With responsibility and accountability for own learning and practice and in collaboration with others within broad parameter

• To plan and execute project work and/or a piece or research ad scholarship with some independence

Options for an embedded Level 8 Bachelor Honours course structure include:

a. All students enrolling in and completing an embedded four year Bachelor Honours course, at the conclusion of which students graduate with a degree “Bachelor of (Course Name) (Honours)” either with or without a merit descriptor (Class I, Class II and Class III);

b. Students enrolling in a four year Level 8 Bachelor Honours course, but with the possibility of transferring, with


approval, to a four year Bachelor Pass course (which must be differentiated from the Bachelor Honours degree by, for example, excluding advanced knowledge, the introduction and development of research principles and methods and an independent project or independent research and scholarship).

c. Students enrolling in a four year Level 7 Bachelor Pass course, but with the possibility of transferring, with approval, to a four year Bachelor Honours course (which must be differentiated from the Bachelor Pass degree by, for example, including advanced knowledge, the introduction and development of research principles and methods and an independent project or independent research and scholarship).

Honours / Thesis component

• Each honours program must have an assessment component that is a thesis or project.

• The assessment component must be clearly listed on the course handbook with the delivery session.

• Where a thesis or project can be undertaken part-time, care must be taken not to split the subject in two sessions rather offer it as one whole subject but make it available as an annual subject.

• Each honours program must clearly state the honours method for calculating the class of honours. Each program must opt for a method as set out in the General Course Rules.

• Any change to the honours method for calculating the class of honours must be approved through the faculty course and subject approval process.


Appendix 11 – Graduate Certificate

AQF Qualification Type Graduate Certificate AQF Qualification Level Level 8



Graduate Certificate in [Field of Study] Graduate Certificate in [Field of Study] GCert[Field of Study Abbreviation]

Course Code Issued by Institutional Research and Government Reporting Unit (3 or 4 digits)

Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning The volume of learning of a Graduate Certificate is typically 0.5 – 1 year

Total Credit Points

A Graduate Certificate course must have a minimum of 24 credit points,

• for a Level 8 Graduate Certificate that operates as a pathway course, no more than six (6) credit points can be at 900 Level (but for a Specialist Graduate Certificate, up to twenty four (24) credit points can be at 900 Level);


• In order to comply with the AQF, exit only Graduate Certificates must contain different learning outcomes from the Level 8 and/or Level 9 course with which they are associated.

• AQF requirements are that to graduate with a Level 8 Graduate Certificate degree, the student must demonstrate the development of specialised knowledge. In order to comply with this requirement, all Level 8 Graduate Certificates must contain sufficient subjects and/or subject content to meet the requirement for the development of ‘specialised knowledge’;

• AQF requirements are that to graduate with a Level 8 Graduate Diploma degree, the student must demonstrate the development of advanced knowledge. In order to comply with this requirement, all Level 8 Graduate Diplomas must contain subjects and/or subject content that involve the development of ‘advanced knowledge’;

Qualification Pathways, Articulation and Credit Arrangements

• Graduate Certificate courses may be offered as nested qualifications within Masters Degree courses to allow students to meet appropriate entry requirements for postgraduate study and to proceed into a Level 9 course and to satisfy volume of learning requirements for Level 9 qualifications.

• Graduate Certificate courses may also be offered as nested qualifications within Graduate Diploma and Masters courses.

• Credit (up to 24 credit points) may be awarded for students articulating into a Masters Degree course upon


successful completion of a nested Graduate Certificate.

• Credit (up to 24 credit points) may also be awarded for students articulating into a Graduate Diploma course upon successful completion of a nested Graduate Certificate course.

AQF Qualification Summary Graduates at this level will have advanced knowledge and skills for professional/highly skilled work and/or further learning


Knowledge:


Graduates of a Graduate Certificate will have specialised knowledge within a systematic and coherent body of knowledge that nay include the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills in a new or existing discipline or professional area

Skills:





Graduates of a Graduate Certificate will have:

• Cognitive skills to review, analyse, consolidate and synthesise knowledge and identify and provide solutions to complex problems

• Cognitive skills to think critically and to generate and evaluate complex ideas

• Specialised technical and creative skills in a field of highly skilled and/or professional practice

• Communication skills to demonstrate an understanding of theoretical concepts

• Communication skills to transfer complex knowledge and ideas to a variety of audiences.



Graduates of a Graduate Certificate will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills:

• To make high level, independent judgements in a range of technical or management functions in varied


specialised contexts

• To initiate, plan, implement and evaluate broad functions within varied specialised technical and/or creative contexts

• With responsibility and accountability for personal outputs and all aspects of the work or function of others within broad parameters


Appendix 12 – Graduate Diploma

AQF Qualification Type Graduate Diploma AQF Qualification Level Level 8



Graduate Diploma in [Field of Study]

GDip[Field of Study Abbreviation] Course Code


Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning The volume of learning of a Graduate Certificate is typically 0.5 – 1 year

Total Credit Points A Graduate Diploma course must have a minimum of 48 credit points,

• for a Level 8 Graduate Diploma that operates as a pathway course, no more than eighteen (18) credit points can be at 900 Level (but for a Specialist Graduate Diploma, up to forty eight (48) credit points can be at 900 Level)


Graduate Certificate courses may be offered as nested qualifications within Graduate Diploma courses.

• Credit (up to 24 credit points) may be awarded for students articulating into a Graduate Diploma course upon successful completion of a nested Graduate Certificate course.

Graduate Diploma courses may be offered as nested qualifications within Masters courses.

• Credit (up to 48 credit points) may be awarded for students articulating into a Masters course upon successful completion of a nested Graduate Diploma course.

• Exit points for Graduate Diplomas must be designed so that students who leave at the exit point have undertaken a coherent body of study and have achieved the learning outcomes for the course.


• In order to comply with the AQF, exit only Graduate Diplomas must contain different learning outcomes from the Level 8 and/or Level 9 course with which they are associated.

• AQF requirements are that to graduate with a Level 8 Graduate Diploma degree, the student must demonstrate the development of advanced knowledge. In order to comply with this requirement, all Level 8 Graduate Diplomas must contain subjects and/or subject content that involve the development of ‘advanced knowledge’;



Knowledge:

Graduates at this level will have advanced theoretical and technical knowledge in one or more disciplines or areas of practice. Graduates of a Graduate Diploma will have advanced knowledge within a systematic and coherent body of knowledge that nay include the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills in a new or existing discipline or professional area

The content and learning activities of each course of study engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry consistent with the level of study and the expected learning outcomes, including:

• current knowledge and scholarship in relevant academic disciplines

• study of the underlying theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the academic disciplines or fields of education or research represented in the course, and

• emerging concepts that are informed by recent scholarship, current research findings and, where applicable, advances in practice.

Skills:





Graduates of a Graduate Diploma will have:

• Cognitive skills to review, analyse, consolidate and synthesise knowledge and identify and provide solutions to complex problems

• Cognitive skills to think critically and to generate and evaluate complex ideas

• Specialised technical and creative skills in a field of highly skilled and/or professional practice

• Communication skills to demonstrate an understanding of theoretical concepts

• Communication skills to transfer complex knowledge and ideas to a variety of audiences.



Graduates of a Graduate Diploma will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills::

• To make high level, independent judgements in a range of technical or management functions in varied


specialised contexts

• To initiate, plan, implement and evaluate broad functions within varied specialised technical and/or creative contexts

• With responsibility and accountability for personal outputs and all aspects of the work or function of others within broad parameters


Appendix 13 – Masters Degree (Coursework)

AQF Qualification Type Masters (Coursework) AQF Qualification Level Level 9



Master of [Field of Study]

M[Field of Study Abbreviation] Course Code Issued by Institutional Research and Government Reporting Unit (3 or 4 digits)

Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning The volume of learning for Masters Degree (Coursework) is typically 1-2 years


• Graduate Certificate courses may be offered as nested qualifications within Masters Degree courses to allow students to meet appropriate entry requirements for postgraduate study and to proceed into a Level 9 course and to satisfy volume of learning requirements for Level 9 qualifications. Graduate Certificate courses may also be offered as nested qualifications within Graduate Diploma courses.

• Credit (up to 24 credit points) may be awarded for students articulating into a Masters Degree course upon successful completion of a nested Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma. Credit (up to 24 credit points) may also be awarded for students articulating into a Graduate Diploma course upon successful completion of a nested Graduate Certificate course.

• Exit points for Graduate Certificates and Graduate Diplomas must be designed so that students who leave at the exit point have undertaken a coherent body of study and have achieved the learning outcomes for the course.

Total Credit Points

At least 48 credit points of a Masters by Coursework degree must be at 900 Level (e.g. 24 cp of 800 Level subjects such as 4 x 6 cp 800 Level subjects may be included in a 72 cp Level 9 Masters by Coursework course and up to 48 cp of 800 Level subjects may be included in a 96 cp Masters by Coursework course);

At least 48 credit points of a Masters by Coursework degree must be at 900 Level (e.g. 24 cp of 800 Level subjects such as 4 x 6 cp 800 Level subjects may be included in a 72 cp Level 9 Masters by Coursework course and up to 48 cp of 800 Level subjects may be included in a 96 cp Masters by Coursework course);

Typical volume of learning for a Masters by Coursework is 72 credit points equivalent to 1 ½ years or 96 credit points equivalent to 2 years. A Masters by Coursework degree of 48 credit points equivalent to 1 year would only be appropriate where there is an academically defensible basis for the shorter duration, such that students would have a sufficient basis of prior knowledge and skills to achieve the learning outcomes in the time specified. This may apply where entry is


restricted to students holding a Level 8 qualification.


AQF requirements are that to graduate with a Level 9 Masters by Coursework degree, the student must demonstrate a body of knowledge that includes the understanding of recent developments in a discipline and/or area of professional practice and application of knowledge and skills “...to plan and execute a substantial research-based project, capstone experience and/or piece of scholarship.”

In order to comply with this requirement, all Masters by Coursework courses must contain:

• subjects and/or subject content that assure the following:

o understanding of recent developments in a discipline and/or area of professional practice;

o development of knowledge of research principles and methods,

o some independent research; and

• either:

o a capstone experience subject of 6 credit points’ value or more; or

o a research project subject of 6 credit points’ value or more (through which students may develop knowledge of research principles and methods and conduct some independent research).

Specialisation A specialisation or a Masters Coursework Degree is an approved combination of subjects which have a minimum value of one third of the total credit points for the course offered by one or more academic units, of which 18 credit points should be at 900 level. Cross counting restrictions apply.

AQF Qualification Summary Graduates at this level will have specialised knowledge and skills for research, and/or professional practice and/or further learning


Knowledge:

Graduates at this level will have advanced and integrated understanding of a complex body of knowledge in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

The content and learning activities of each course of study engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry consistent with the level of study and the expected learning outcomes, including:

a. current knowledge and scholarship in relevant academic disciplines b. study of the underlying theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the academic disciplines or fields of

education or research represented in the course, and c. emerging concepts that are informed by recent scholarship, current research findings and, where


applicable, advances in practice.

Graduates of a Masters Degree (Coursework) will have:

• A body of knowledge that includes the understanding of recent developments in a discipline and/or area of professional practice

• Knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to a field of work and or learning

Skills:

Graduates at this level will have expert, specialised cognitive and technical skills in a body of knowledge or practice to independently:

• Analyse critically, reflect on and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories

• Research and apply established theories to a body of knowledge or practice

• Interpret and transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to specialist and non-specialist audiences

Graduates of a Masters Degree (Coursework) will have:

• Cognitive skills to demonstrate mastery of theoretical knowledge and to reflect critically on theory and professionally practice or scholarship

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to investigate, analyse and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories and to apply established theories to different bodies of knowledge or practice

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to generate and evaluate complex ideas and concepts at an abstract level

• Communication and technical research skills to justify and interpret theoretical propositions, methodologies, conclusions and professional decisions to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• Technical and communication skills to design, evaluate, implement, analyse and theorise about developments that contribute to professional practice or scholarship


Graduates at this level apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, expert judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Graduates of a Masters Degree (Coursework) will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills:

• With creativity and initiative to new situations in professional practice and/or further learning

• With high level personal autonomy and accountability

• To plan and execute a substantial research-based project, capstone experience and/or piece of scholarship


Appendix 14 – Masters Degree (Research)

AQF Qualification Type Masters (Research) AQF Qualification Level Level 9



Master of [Field of Study] - Research

M[Field of Study Abbreviation]-Res Course Code Issued by Institutional Research and Government Reporting Unit (3 or 4 digits)

Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning

The volume of learning for Masters Degree (Research) is typically 1-2 years


• Graduate Certificate courses may be offered as nested qualifications within Masters Degree courses to allow students to meet appropriate entry requirements for postgraduate study and to proceed into a Level 9 course and to satisfy volume of learning requirements for Level 9 qualifications. Graduate Certificate courses may also be offered as nested qualifications within Graduate Diploma courses.

• Credit (up to 24 credit points) may be awarded for students articulating into a Masters Degree course upon successful completion of a nested Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma. Credit (up to 24 credit points) may also be awarded for students articulating into a Graduate Diploma course upon successful completion of a nested Graduate Certificate course.

• Exit points for Graduate Certificates and Graduate Diplomas must be designed so that students who leave at the exit point have undertaken a coherent body of study and have achieved the learning outcomes for the course.

Total Credit Points The minimum volume of learning requirements of the AQF for Masters Research Degree courses is 72 credit points, equivalent to 1 ½ years.

AQF Qualification Summary Graduates at this level will have specialised knowledge and skills for research, and/or professional practice and/or further learning

Course Learning Outcomes AQF requirements are that to graduate with a Level 9 Masters by Research degree, the student must demonstrate application of knowledge and skills “...to plan and execute a substantial piece of research” and ‘advanced knowledge of research principles and methods.”. In order to comply with this requirement, all Masters by Research courses must contain:


• subjects and/or subject content that introduce and develop advanced knowledge of research principles and methods; and

• a research task subject of 48 credit points’ value or more.


Knowledge:

Graduates at this level will have advanced and integrated understanding of a complex body of knowledge in one or more disciplines or areas of practice. Graduates of a Masters Degree (Research) will have:

• A body of knowledge that includes the understanding of recent developments in one or more disciplines

• Advanced knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to the field of work or learning

• Knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to a field of work and or learning

Skills:

Graduates at this level will have expert, specialised cognitive and technical skills in a body of knowledge or practice to independently:

• Analyse critically, reflect on and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories

• Research and apply established theories to a body of knowledge or practice

• Interpret and transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to specialist and non-specialist audiences

Graduates of a Masters Degree (Research) will have:

• Cognitive skills to demonstrate mastery of theoretical knowledge and to reflect critically on theory and its application

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to investigate, analyse and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories and to apply established theories to different bodies of knowledge or practice

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to generate and evaluate complex ideas and concepts at an abstract level

• Cognitive, technical and creative skills to design, use and evaluate research and research methods

• Communication and technical skills to present a coherent and sustained argument and to disseminate research results to specialist and non-specialist audiences

• Technical and communication skills to design, evaluate, implement, analyse and theorise and disseminate research that makes a contribution to knowledge

Application of Knowledge

Graduates at this level apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, expert judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner. Graduates of a Masters Degree (Research) will demonstrate the application of


and Skills:

knowledge and skills:

• With creativity and initiative to new situations and/or further learning

• With high level personal autonomy and accountability

• To plan and execute a substantial piece of research


Appendix 15 – Doctoral Degree

AQF Qualification Type Doctor of Philosophy

Doctor of [Field of Study] AQF Qualification Level Level 10



Doctor of [Field of Study]

PhD for a Doctor of Philosophy

D[Field of Study Abbreviation] Course Code Issued by Institutional Research and

Government Reporting Unit (3 or 4 digits)

Course Duration and AQF Volume of Learning The volume of learning of a Doctoral Degree is typically 3 – 4 years


[Details of qualification pathways, articulation and credit arrangements]

Total Credit Points A Doctoral Degree requirement is based on a substantial piece of thesis on a research topic and hence is not dictated by credit points. However, credit points are nominated for providing an indication on duration, fees and study load which is a maximum of 144 credit points based on 3 years full-time study load.

AQF Qualification Summary Graduates at this level will have systematic and critical understanding of a complex field of learning and specialised research skills for the advancement of learning and/or for professional practice.


AQF requirements are that to graduate with a Level 10 Doctoral degree, the student must have:

• a substantial body of knowledge “...at the frontier of a field of work or learning”;

• “substantial knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to the field of work or learning.”

In order to comply with these requirements, all Doctoral courses must contain:

• subjects and/or subject content that introduce, develop and assure substantial knowledge of research principles and methods; and

• a thesis based subject of 48 credit points’ value or more.

AQF Knowledge: Graduates at this level will have systemic and critical understanding of a substantial and complex body of knowledge at


Learning Outcomes Criteria and qualification type descriptors:

the frontier of a discipline or area of professional practice. Graduates of a Doctoral Degree will have:

• A substantial body of knowledge at the frontier of a field of work or learning including knowledge that constitutes an original contribution

• Substantial knowledge of research principles and methods applicable to the field of work or learning

Skills:

Graduates at this level will have expert, specialised cognitive, technical and research skills in a discipline area to independently and systematically:

• Engage in critical reflection, synthesis and evaluation

• Develop, adapt and implement research methodologies to extend and redefine existing knowledge or professional practice

• Disseminate and promote new insights to peers and the community

• Generate original knowledge and understanding to make a substantial contribution to a discipline or area of professional practice.

Graduates of a Doctoral Degree will have:

• Cognitive skills to demonstrate theoretical knowledge and to reflect critically on that theory and practice

• Cognitive skills and use of intellectual independence to think critically, evaluate existing knowledge and ideas, undertake systematic investigation and reflect on theory and practice to generate original knowledge

• Expert technical and creative skills applicable to the field of work or learning

• Communication skills to explain and critique theoretical propositions , methodologies and conclusions

• Communication skills to present cogently a complex investigation of originality or original research for external examination against international standards and to communicate results to peers and the community

• Expert skills to design, implement, analyse, theorise and communicate research that makes a significant and original contribution to knowledge and/or professional practice

AQF Learning Outcomes Criteria and qualification type


Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, authoritative judgement, adaptability and responsibility as an expert and leading practitioner or scholar. Graduates of a Doctoral Degree will demonstrate the application of knowledge and skills:

• With intellectual independence

• With initiative and creativity in new situations and/or further learning


descriptors: • Will full responsibility and accountability for personal outputs

• To plan and execute original research

• With the ongoing capacity to generate new knowledge including in the context of professional practice


Appendix 16 – Table: Guide on the Use of Double Badged Subjects

Subject Level Graduate Certificate Graduate Diploma Masters Coursework Degree

400 Level Subject • Yes, as 800 Level subject • No modification required

provided SLOs are consistent with qualification type

• Yes, as 800 Level subject • No modification required


• Yes, as 800 Level subject • No modification required


• Subject to at least 48 cp of Masters degree must comprise 900 level subjects

200 and 300 Level Subjects • Yes, as 800 Level subject • No modification required to

assessment or SLOs • Limit of 1 per degree

• Yes, as 800 Level subject • No modification required to

assessment or SLOs • Limit of 2 per degree

• Yes, as 800 Level subject • Must be at foundation level • No modification required to

assessment or SLOs • Limit of 3 per degree for 72 cp

or 4 per degree for 96 cp • At least 48 cp of Masters degree

must comprise 900 level subjects

100 Level Subject • Not permitted • Not permitted • Not permitted


Appendix 17 – Principles of Equivalence

Equivalence Elements 1. Equivalence Elements include Course Structure, Course Learning Outcomes, Subject

Content, Subject Delivery, Assessment, and Learning Support.

Course Structure

2. To be equivalent:

a. Courses must contain all UOW core subjects but may also contain additional core subjects if required due to local accreditation requirements.

b. In exceptional circumstances, equivalence may be defined across a group of subjects.

c. In most courses, Course Learning Outcomes will be assured in core subjects. If Course Learning Outcomes are assured in elective subjects, typically through the application of properly designed course rules, pre-requisites and/or co-requisites, care must be taken to ensure that these Course Learning Outcomes are assured for all students, regardless of which electives they take.

d. Fewer majors may be offered, provided that students can still achieve the overall Course Learning Outcomes.

e. If UOWD or other delivery location wishes to offer a major not offered at UOW, approval for the major must be obtained from UOW through the normal course approval processes, including discussion with the relevant faculty at UOW.

f. Fewer, more, or other electives may be offered.

g. Study sequences may vary locally, taking account of prerequisites and local constraints, e.g. more limited subject offerings.

h. Each course and the delivery of the course must meet relevant UOW teaching and learning policies and procedures applicable to the delivery location.


3. The Course Learning Outcomes for all courses must meet the AQF level descriptors.

4. The intent of the Course Learning Outcomes must be the same. However by agreement, the actual wording might vary to meet local accreditation requirements, e.g. CAA requirements in the UAE may include the use of different verbs from Bloom’s Taxonomy.

5. Higher Research Degrees with coursework are considered equivalent if the Course Learning Outcomes are the same, and any related coursework plus thesis assure the Course Learning Outcomes.

Review Process

Courses with external accreditation (professional or national) 6. The Annual Review must include confirmation that the Course Structure and the Course

Learning Outcomes continue to be equivalent.

7. There must be an in-depth joint curriculum review prior to accreditation/re-accreditation, or at least once in the course review cycle (usually 5 years).

8. There may be an additional review if required in line with the Quality Assurance of Transnational Education (Offshore) and UOWD Teaching and Learning Procedure.

Courses not externally accredited




9. The Annual Review must include confirmation that the Course Structure and the Course Learning Outcomes continue to be equivalent.

10. There must be an in depth review periodically in line with the UOW course review cycle. Such reviews will incorporate the input of UOWD or the partner institution and take into consideration their legislative requirements and the limitations these requirements place on the ability to make changes within a given timeframe.

11. There may be an additional review if required in line with the Quality Assurance of Transnational Education (Offshore) and UOWD Teaching and Learning Procedure.

12. Changes to the Course Structure or Course Learning Outcomes may be made other than at review time. Such changes should be discussed between UOW and the offshore location early in the process and be approved by the appropriate body, depending on the nature of the changes made.

Subject Content


a. The Subject Learning Outcomes must be consistent with the AQF level descriptors for the level at which the subject is delivered.

b. The intent of the Subject Learning Outcomes must be the same. However by agreement, the actual wording might vary to meet local accreditation requirements in the offshore location, e.g. CAA requirements may include the use of different verbs from Bloom’s Taxonomy. Additional Subject Learning Outcomes may be included where relevant to the local context, provided all learning outcomes are appropriately assessed.

c. Subject content in core subjects should be the same in terms of the development and application of knowledge and skills but may be contextualised to provide locally relevant examples, and as noted under 1a, Course Structure, ensure that these Course Learning Outcomes are assured for all students.

d. Subject content in elective subjects should be the same in terms of knowledge and skills developed, but may be contextualised to provide locally relevant examples.

e. Subject to the above, emphasis given to or time spent on different topics may vary.

f. Contextualisation of readings, examples and cases is encouraged where appropriate. For example, a textbook with more local or international examples which covers the same content may be useful in a business subject. While technical subjects may be less likely to contextualise, it was noted that a small number of local examples are already used in Engineering subjects.

g. A course design principle to support contextualisation is to incorporate international perspectives so that they enrich the offerings at UOW and vice versa, e.g. comparing ethics in UAE and Australia.

h. Each subject and the delivery of the subject must meet relevant UOW teaching and learning policies and procedures applicable to the delivery location.

Subject Delivery


a. The overriding consideration for equivalence is whether students are supported in achieving the Course Learning Outcomes.

b. Subject to pedagogical considerations being taken into account, delivery models may vary according to local requirements such as face to face teaching hours, day/evening time delivery, intensive models, duration of sessions, as agreed between UOW and the offshore location. Agreed variations should be documented.

15. Contextualisation of learning activities in all subjects (core and elective) is encouraged where appropriate. For example, a local case study, an exploration of the local impact of a global




issue, or a comparative analysis of Australian and local issues can help students apply their knowledge.

Review Process

16. Subject outlines are reviewed according to the relevant quality assurance process.

Assurance of Course Learning Outcomes


a. The intent of the Course Learning Outcomes should be the same, and as noted under 1a, assessments that assure Course Learning Outcomes must be taken by all students.

b. Assessment tasks which assure Course Learning Outcomes should provide appropriate assessment of the Course Learning Outcomes, typically by using the same assessment type. The precise wording of the assessment may vary, while keeping the meaning, e.g. incorporating local scenarios, appropriate wording for the local context, or to meet the relevant local accreditation authority’s expectations relating to use of verbs from Bloom’s Taxonomy.

c. Marking criteria and rubrics may vary, provided they are appropriate for the assessment task and the Course Learning Outcome(s) being assured.

d. The weighting of tasks which demonstrate assurance of Course Learning Outcomes should be similar (+/- 10%).

Review Process

18. The Annual Review process must include confirmation that the Course Learning Outcomes continue to be equivalent.

19. In-depth joint review must be undertaken prior to accreditation/re-accreditation review.

20. Additional review will be undertaken if required in line with the Quality Assurance of Transnational Education (Offshore) and UOWD Teaching and Learning Procedure.

Assurance of Subject Learning Outcomes


a. Assessment Tasks which assure both Subject Learning Outcomes and Course Learning Outcomes should be equivalent.

b. Assessment Tasks which assure Subject Learning Outcomes but not Course Learning Outcomes may vary by agreement, for valid reasons such as the following:

c. Some assessment types may only be possible with small cohorts. If such assessment types provide a better way of assuring the learning outcomes, then they may be used. The size of the cohort at each location should therefore be considered when reviewing equivalence.

d. Similarly, teaching and learning activities and assessments for laboratory classes may vary due to differences in equipment and infrastructure available. This should also be taken into account, i.e. as long as the learning outcomes from the laboratory component are achieved, there may be some variation in lab resources and assessment.

e. Marking criteria may vary provided they are appropriate for the assessment task and the Course and/or Subject Learning Outcomes being assured.

Review Process

22. Subject outlines are reviewed according to the relevant quality assurance process.




Learning Support


a. Equivalence of learning support is not course or subject specific.

b. The nature of such support may be customised to suit student needs and the support agreed between UOW and the offshore location.

c. Requirements for Course Progression need to be taken into account.

Review Process

24. The Annual Review will include confirmation that the learning support provided continues to meet agreed requirements.

Timing of Changes

25. The time needed for an offshore location to implement changes to course and/or subjects should be reflected in the course approval process, similarly to defining transition arrangements.

26. This could result in a period where an offshore location is still working to a previous course structure, until they receive approval from local accreditation bodies. Such periods should be minimised. Agreement on the timing of changes should be documented.

27. It is expected that all parties will work together in a collegiate fashion, in line with the above principles.

Implementation of the Principles of Equivalence

28. As these principles were developed by UOW and UOWD, they are to be trialled initially with UOWD before review and adaption for all other locations.

29. The principles should be communicated, stressing a collegiate partnership approach.

30. These principles will be adapted for other locations, before incorporating in the following policies and procedures:

a. UOW Standards & Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching

b. Course Policy

c. Course Design Procedures

d. Course and Subject Approval Procedures – New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses

e. Course and Subject Approval Procedures – Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses

f. Course Review Procedures

g. Collaborative Delivery Policy and Procedures (under development)

h. Quality Assurance of Transnational Education (Offshore) and UOWD Teaching and Learning Procedure

i. Code of Practice - Teaching and Assessment




Academic Quality and Standards Unit, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Portfolio

COURSE REVIEW PROCEDURES Date first approved: Date of effect:

On approval Date last amended: (refer Version Control Table) Not applicable




Course Management Coordinator [email protected]

Author: Director, Academic Quality and Standards Unit


Academic Quality and Standards Unit [email protected]


Course Review Schedule Notice of Intended Course Review Approval of Faculty Course Review Panel Membership and Terms of Reference Form Course Review Report Template (Appendix 3) Course Review Action Plan UOW Strategic Plan 2013 – 2018 UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching General Course Rules UOW Academic Review Policy UOW Curriculum Model Course Policy Course Design Procedures Course and Subject Approval Procedures – New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses Course and Subject Approval Procedures – Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses


External Documents:

Higher Education Standards Framework

Audience: Public

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

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2

2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 2

3 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................ 3

4 Course and Subject Monitoring and Review Framework ........................................................................ 4

5 Subject Reviews ...................................................................................................................................... 6

6 Initiation and Conduct of a Course Review ............................................................................................. 7

7 Course Review Report and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 9



https://intranet.uow.edu.au/coursemgmt/cr/index.html







http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/alphalisting/UOW175398.html




http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/feedback/index.html

8 Implementing the Outcomes of the Course Review .............................................................................. 10

9 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................................... 11

10 Version Control Table ............................................................................................................................ 11

Appendix 1 – Subject Review Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................... 13

Appendix 2 – Course Review Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................ 14

Appendix 3 – Course Review Report Template .............................................................................................. 29

1 Introduction 1. These Procedures apply to all courses approved by the University of Wollongong under its self-

accrediting authority as a higher education provider.

2. These Procedures do not apply to:

a. courses offered by UOW College other than those UOW College award courses that are approved by the University of Wollongong; or

b. non-award courses offered by the University of Wollongong in Dubai in respect of which students may not exchange testamurs.

3. Non award courses offered by UOW must be kept under regular review, in line with the procedures for review of subjects outlined in these Procedures.

4. These Procedures support the operation of the course and subject review process outlined in the UOW Academic Review Policy.

5. These Procedures replace the Curriculum Review Procedures approved on 5 November 2008.

6. These Procedures are based on and update of the Curriculum Review Guidelines approved on 5 November 2008.

7. This course review process in turn supports the University’s strategic goals to:

7.1. Evaluate our academic portfolio to ensure innovative and intellectually challenging programs are a core and continuing feature of our academic identity;

7.2. Continuously assure the quality and standards of the curriculum, teaching and outcomes of our programs at all UOW locations.

2 Purpose 1. The purpose of these Procedures is to provide detailed information and set out course and subject

review requirements to assist Faculties in conducting course reviews in order to foster quality enhancement activities into the University’s course portfolio and to ensure that the University meets its obligations as a higher education provider under the Higher Education Standards Framework.

2. The Higher Education Standards Framework states that providers must ensure that “...all accredited courses of study are subject to periodic (at least every seven years) comprehensive reviews that are overseen by peak academic governance processes and include external referencing or other benchmarking activities.” The scope of the review should include:

a. “the design and content of each course of study,

b. the expected learning outcomes,

c. the methods for assessment of those outcomes,

d. the extent of students’ achievement of learning outcomes

e. emerging developments in the field of education, modes of delivery, the changing needs of students and identified risks to the quality of the course of study.”


3. The course and subject review process is a fundamental element of academic quality and standards, and is conducted in order to ensure that core attributes of each course offered by the University are its:

3.1. Quality – judged by reference to relevant sector and disciplinary standards and through benchmarking and other comparators;

3.2. Viability – judged by reference to financial and academic sustainability measures, and

3.3. Strategic Alignment – judged by reference to the strategic priorities of the University and of the faculty.

4. These Procedures are aligned to and support the implementation of the following reference points:

a. The Higher Education Standards Framework;

b. The UOW Quality and Standards Framework for Learning and Teaching;

c. The UOW Curriculum Model; and

d. The Course Policy and the Course Design Procedures.

3 Definitions


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

Course As defined in the General Course Rules

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

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

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

DVC(A) Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

ECAC External Course Appraisal Committee

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

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

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

Major study As defined in the General Course Rules

SCDC Strategic Course Development Committee

Subject As defined in the General Course Rules


UOW University of Wollongong

UOW Curriculum Model

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

Curriculum Themes:

• Research/Inquiry Based (CT 1)

• Real World Focussed (CT 2)

• Technology Enriched (CT 3)

• Intellectually Challenging (CT 4)

Design Principles:

• Transition (DP 1)

• Synthesis (DP 2)

• Broadening (DP 3)

Transformational Practices:

• First Year Experience (TP 1)

• My Portfolio (TP 2)

• Hybrid Learning (TP 3)

• Connections (TP 4)

• Capstones (TP 5)

4 Course and Subject Monitoring and Review Framework

Course and Subject Review Principles 5. UOW is committed to upholding academic standards and to providing high quality learning and teaching

programs and services.

6. The Academic Senate is responsible for overseeing academic governance at UOW. This includes ensuring that courses are suitable for delivery.

7. AQSS is responsible for monitoring the progress and results of quality audits and reviews, including course reviews, and ensures the University meets the regulatory requirements which apply to higher education.

Course Approval and Re-approval 8. In accordance with the status of the University as a self-accrediting higher education provider, and

consistent with the Higher Education Standards Framework, each UOW course is deemed to be approved by the University, through Academic Senate, on initial approval, so that it may be offered for a specified period as provided in the Course Review Schedule.

9. By the end of that period, in accordance with the Course Review Schedule and subject only to section 4(10) below, each course is to be the subject of a completed course review in accordance with these procedures as well as implementation action, so as to be:

a. re-approved by the Delegated Authority for a further period of up to five (5) years in order that students may continue to enrol in the course; or

b. suspended; or

c. discontinued.

10. If a course review is not completed within the period specified in the Course Review Schedule such that the requirements of section 4(9) cannot be satisfied for reasons beyond the control of the Faculty (such


as delays in the finalisation of an external accreditation process), the Delegated Authority may grant an interim re-approval for up to 1 year.

Course Review Stages 11. The University’s approach to course review comprises of the following stages:

Annual Review 11.1. Annually, the University will review each Course Analytics Report. Each Faculty will assess the

performance of each course it owns as measured by the Course Analytics data set.

11.2. Where a Course Analytics Report indicates that there are significant issues with the performance of a course, the Faculty or the DVC(A) may instigate the following actions:

a. a Course Review in advance of the next scheduled course review, or

b. preparation of a proposal to suspension or discontinue a course.

Periodic Comprehensive Review 11.3. The Course Review occurs at least once every five (5) years, and provides for the course owning

Faculty to conduct a comprehensive review. The review must be documented in a report that makes recommendations on the course and, if appropriate, to secure re-approval of the course by Academic Senate, either conditionally or unconditionally.

11.4. The Faculty must act on the outcomes of the Course Review, including making changes to the course and submitting them for approval.

Course and Subject Review Schedules

Course Review Schedule

12. Course Reviews are conducted in accordance with the Course Review Schedule determined by the DVC(A) in consultation with Faculty Executive Deans and Associate Deans. The schedule provide for the review of every course by the relevant course owning Faculty (and where a course includes major studies or specialisations, the review of these major studies or specialisations).

13. The Course Review Schedule must provide for each course to be reviewed at least every five (5) years. Courses must be reviewed in the time frames specified in the Course Review Schedule.

14. The Course Review Schedule must, as far as practicable, align with the schedule for External Accreditation of courses that are externally accredited.

15. The Course Review Schedule will provide for courses to be reviewed in conjunction with or taking account of related courses, for example:

a. Related double degree courses owned by the Faculty,

b. Nested courses,

c. Courses in the same or related disciplines,

d. Areas of major study in the same or related disciplines, and

e. Cognate courses (for example, related Dean’s Scholar, Scholar, Advanced and/or Honours course).

16. The Course Management Coordinator in the Academic Quality and Standards Unit maintains the central Course Review Schedule for each Faculty. Any changes to this schedule must be approved by the DVC(A) and advised to the Course Management Coordinator.

17. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit must report on progress of course reviews against the Course Review Schedule and on the outcome of course reviews, to AQSS and, through AQSS, to each Faculty, at least annually.


Subject Review Schedule

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

5 Subject Reviews 1. Subjects must be reviewed either individually, as a related group of subjects or as part of and in

conjunction with a course review of a course as part of which the subjects are offered.

2. As a guide:

a. core subjects within a course or major or minor study should be reviewed in conjunction with the review of the course or major or minor study, and taking account of any other schools or faculties that use those subjects as core subjects in their courses or major or minor study areas;

b. elective subjects must be reviewed using the stand alone process described below;

c. subjects that are core in more than one course or major or minor study need only be reviewed once in the subject review period;

d. faculties must work cooperatively in reviewing and making consequential changes to subjects that are taught into more than one course or major or minor study.

3. A subject review must address the subject review evaluation criteria set out in Appendix 1.

4. For each stand-alone subject review the Associate Dean (Education) or nominee must appoint:

a. a Subject Reviewer who is a member of staff who has not taught the subject for at least two years; and, if considered necessary by the Associate Dean (Education),

b. a small (3 members) Subject Review Group whose membership must be determined by the Associate Dean (Education), and that may include the current subject coordinator.

5. The Subject Reviewer or Subject Review Group must consider feedback from:

a. students – through the Subject Evaluation Survey and other appropriate means (e.g. open feedback sessions)

b. academic peers – through peer evaluation of subject documentation, materials and performances

c. staff from other units, faculties or institutions as appropriate

6. When a stand-alone subject review is completed, the Subject Reviewer or Subject Review Group must prepare a summary report addressing the evaluation criteria listed in Appendix 1, including any recommendations for improvement and submit it to the FEC.

7. The FEC must consider the stand alone subject review report and may:

a. endorse as is;

b. endorse as modified; or

c. substitute,

the recommendations in the summary report.

8. The Associate Dean (Education) will refer the outcome of the FEC’s consideration to the responsible Head of School, who will initiate and monitor implementation of the recommended subject improvements.

9. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit will monitor Faculty based stand-alone subject reviews and must report on any such monitoring to AQSS.


6 Initiation and Conduct of a Course Review

Initiation of a Course Review 1. A course review must be initiated by the Faculty if the course is to continue to be offered and, if

appropriate, re-approved for delivery in accordance with the Course Review Schedule.

2. A course review may also be initiated by:

a. the DVC(A) or the Faculty in response to the results of a Course Analytics report, or

b. the DVC(A) or the Faculty Executive Dean outside of the schedule in response to significant concerns about the performance of a course ; or

c. the Associate Dean (Education) as a result of a recommendation from another course review or other quality assurance process.

Notice of Intended Course Review

3. The Faculty must notify the following of the commencement of a course review:

a. all Schools that own subjects that are core subjects in the course and any major study within the course

b. where the course review includes:

i. double degrees where a strand is owned by another faculty,

ii. a major study or minor study comprised entirely of subjects owned by another faculty,

that other faculty;

c. where the course is delivered offshore, the Associate Dean (International);

d. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic); and

e. the Academic Quality and Standards Unit.

4. The Faculty is responsible for notifying relevant schools and staff within the Faculty and other faculties that own double degree strands, major or minor study areas.

5. Notification of other parties is done by submitting a Notice of Intended Course Review to the Course Management Coordinator, who will inform other parties as required.

6. Where the course review is being conducted in conjunction with an External Accreditation process, the Faculty must provide details in its notification of the nature and scope of the external accreditation process

Faculty Course Review Panel – Membership and Terms of Reference

7. The role of the Faculty Course Review Panel is to oversee the conduct of the course review and to ensure that the course review meets the requirements of this Procedure.

8. The membership of a Faculty Course Review Panel must comprise, at a minimum:

a. The Associate Dean (Education);

b. Where a course under review is delivered offshore, the Associate Dean (International);

c. Where a course under review is a higher degree research course, the Associate Dean (Research);

d. An Associate Dean or Head of School from another faculty;

e. At least two prominent persons held in high esteem in their field of relevant expertise, including relevant professional bodies, or relevant expertise in government or industry, who are external to the University;

f. A student representative nominated by the Faculty.

9. The Faculty may nominate additional members of the Faculty Course Review Panel.

10. The terms of reference for the Faculty Course Review Panel must include the following:


a. To assess the quality, viability, and strategic relevance of the course(s) under review;

b. To review and finalise a report on the course review that includes recommendations regarding the continuation of the course(s) and, if so, on improvements required to the course(s), together with plan for further action required to realise those improvements;

c. Where proposed changes arising from the course review comprise significant amendments to a course, to constitute and to fulfil the role of an External Course Advisory Committee to oversee and approve, in principle, any consequential amendments to the course(s) arising from the course review (at the time of considering the relying on course review report or subsequently).

11. The Faculty may include other issues for consideration as part of the review.

12. The Faculty Executive Dean must approve the membership and terms of reference for the Faculty Course Review Panel.

13. The DVC(A) must approve any proposal not to meet the minimum membership requirements.

14. The chair of the Committee must be drawn from among the group members and must be appointed by the Faculty Executive Dean.

15. The Faculty is responsible for providing professional services support to the Committee.

Day to Day Management and Conduct of the Course Review

16. The Faculty must establish a Course Review Team to manage the day to day conduct of the course review by examining the course(s) against the course evaluation criteria and assessing the course against the UOW Curriculum Model, under the management of the Associate Dean (Education).

17. A Course Review Team should include representation from:

a. All affected academic units within the Faculty;

b. Any other faculty that owns subjects comprising core subjects within the course(s) or major or minor study area(s) under review;

c. The LTC Faculty Team for the relevant faculty;

d. A UOW Librarian;

e. Faculty based or centrally based marketing and/or recruitment staff;

f. The Faculty International Unit (where applicable); and

g. Relevant offshore delivery locations, including UOWD (where applicable).

18. A course review should be carried out in accordance with an overarching plan prepared by the Course Review Team.

Consultation and Communication Strategy

19. At the beginning of the course review, the Faculty must develop a Consultation Plan to ensure there is consultation with key stakeholders during the review process.

20. The Faculty must consult as widely as it considers necessary and, specifically, seek feedback from:

a. students;

b. graduates (if appropriate);

c. the Course Director/Associate Course Director;

d. representatives from any other Faculty that owns:

i. a core subject,

ii. an area of major study or minor study under review, or

iii. a strand of a double degree of which the course forms another strand;

e. where the course is offered onshore outside of Wollongong, staff involved in the delivery of the course at that or those locations;


f. where the course is offered offshore, staff at UOWD and/or TNE partners involved in the delivery of the course offshore; and

g. professional and/or industry representatives (if appropriate), including independent members of the Faculty Course Review Panel.

21. The Consultation Plan must include:

a. who is going to be consulted;

b. how will the consultation be conducted,

c. what information is being sought from each stakeholder group;

d. how will balanced representation from key stakeholder groups be achieved; and

e. timeframes for conducting consultation, obtaining reports and collating results.

22. A variety of consultation methods and tools may be employed as appropriate. Options include:

a. surveys/questionnaires;

b. focus groups;

c. forums; and

d. interviews.

23. Consultation is of particular value for obtaining more qualitative information about the course that cannot be obtained from other data sources.

Reviewing the Course against the Evaluation Criteria 24. The Course Review Team must evaluate the course against the criteria set out at Appendix 2 and

against the UOW Curriculum Model, together with any additional criteria specified in the terms of reference, and by reference to relevant data as detailed in the evaluation criteria and from other relevant sources.

25. A Faculty may determine to evaluate a course or courses first against the viability criteria to determine if the course(s) remains viable. If it or they are not assessed as viable, the Faculty may determine to discontinue the review of that course or those courses and to recommend that the course(s) be discontinued without further review in accordance with the processes set out in section 7.

26. Each coursework course must be evaluated so that, as reviewed and re-approved, it conforms to the UOW Curriculum Model.

27. Where an External Accreditation process includes an evaluation of the course against the criterion or criteria set out at Appendix 2, that process and the outcome of that evaluation may be relied upon in satisfaction of that or those criterion/criteria.

7 Course Review Report and Recommendations

Development and Submission of the Course Review Report

1. Upon completion of the review, the Course Review Team must prepare a report for the Faculty Course Review Panel using the template at Appendix 3.

2. This template sets out minimum requirements for a course review report. Additional information may be included where necessary. Where an External Accreditation process is relied upon as part of the review, the accreditation report should be provided, together with additional information with respect to those criteria not addressed in the accreditation report.

3. The report and supporting evidence will be made available to the Faculty Course Review Panel..

4. The Report will include:

a. an Executive Summary comprising a brief overview of the review, the key findings, and the recommendations;

b. details of the Faculty Course Review Panel and the Course Review Team;


c. a summary of the course review process and relevant commentary on the course(s) against the evaluation criteria including, where relevant, references to data and issues identified in the Data Collection and to issues arising from the consultation process;

d. commentary on the course(s) assessed against the UOW Curriculum Model;

e. Faculty Course Review Findings (taking into account the evaluation criteria, the UOW Curriculum Model and any other requirements set out in the terms of reference); and

f. recommendations.

5. Review recommendations may include:

a. re-approval of the course under review without amendment;

b. discontinuation or suspension of the course under review;

c. re-approval of the course under review subject to amendments to the course;

d. development of a new course or major study;

e. review of another related course;

f. changes to University rules or policies;

g. a review of a school;

h. the timing of the next scheduled review (if earlier than in five (5) years’ time).

6. The Faculty Course Review Panel must review, if necessary, make changes, and formally approve the report for submission to the Faculty Education Committee (FEC). The FEC must consider the report and forward it to the Executive Dean with comments.

7. The FEC and the Executive Dean must develop the Faculty’s response to the report, including the proposed response to each recommendation, the timing of that response and any other comments.

Circulation and Notification of the Faculty Course Review Report

8. A copy of the full Faculty Course Review Report and the Faculty’s response to the report must be provided to:

a. the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic);

b. the Course Management Coordinator (for central records management).

9. The Faculty may also provide a copy of the Executive Summary to relevant participants in the review.

Implementation of Recommendations

10. The DVC(A) will assess the Faculty Course Review Report, along with the Faculty’s response to the Report. The DVC(A) may seek advice prior to responding to the report.

11. The DVC(A) may discuss implementation of the review recommendations with the Executive Dean, and relevant members of the Faculty Executive.

12. The DVC(A) will respond to the report by:

a. approving the recommendations, in full or in part, which represents finalisation of the course review; or

b. referring the Report and the Faculty’s response back to the Executive Dean of the Faculty with a request to consider new matters or to reconsider matters identified in the referral.

13. The Executive Dean of the Faculty will respond to any referral by the DVC(A) by addressing the matters raised and resubmitting the Faculty Course Review Report and the Faculty’s response, at which point the DVC(A) will respond as provided in clause 7.13.

8 Implementing the Outcomes of the Course Review 1. On finalisation of a course review, the approved recommendations of the review will be implemented as

follows:


a. each course that has been the subject of a finalised course review and that is to remain on offer will be submitted to the Delegated Authority for re-approval, and where approved subject to amendments, conditional on those amendments being made;

b. approved amendments to a course (including amendment or suspension) or discontinuation of a course will be implemented by the Faculty and the University as required using the relevant course management process;

c. the Academic Quality and Standards Unit will act on any approved recommendation to amend University policy arising from a course review; and

d. the University will act on any approved recommendation to carry out a School Review as provided in the relevant University policy documents.

2. The Course Management Coordinator must update the Course Review Schedule once the course review has been finalised, by recording the outcomes of the course review on the Course Review Schedule.

3. On re-approval of a course, the Course Management Coordinator will advise the Faculty of the next scheduled review date for the course.

4. The Faculty will implement and report to the Course Management Coordinator on the progress towards finalisation of all approved amendments to the course within 9 months of the approval of the recommendations made in the Course Review Report and thereafter every 6 months until all approved recommendations made in the Course Review Report have been implemented. The Course Mangement Coordinator will update the Course Review Schedule with details of this implementation action.

5. Where the course is delivered by a third party provider or by UOW offshore, then having regard to local accreditation requirements at the relevant delivery location, the Faculty will implement and report as provided above within 18 months of the approval of the recommendations made in the Course Review Report and thereafter every 6 months until all approved recommendations made in the Course Review Report have been implemented.

9 Roles and Responsibilities 1. Faculty staff named in these procedures are responsible for the timely and effective review of its

courses in accordance with the Course Review Schedule and otherwise provided in these Procedures.

2. Academic Quality and Standards Unit is responsible for:

a. the overall implementation of the Course Review Schedule;

b. ensuring that courses are reviewed in accordance with University policy;

c. ensuring that courses are reviewed and monitored in fulfilment of the University’s obligations under the Higher Education Standards Framework;

d. managing records from course review activities as provided in the Records Management Policy; and

e. reporting on its implementation and monitoring activities under these Procedures as required to AQSS.

3. Learning, Teaching and Curriculum is responsible for supporting the implementation of the UOW Curriculum Model through the course review process.

4. AQSS is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Course Review Schedule, and for monitoring the effectiveness of these Procedures in quality assurance and quality enhancement of UOW courses.

10 Version Control Table

Version Control

Date Effective Approved By Amendment


1 16 July 2009 Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic)

First version

2 21 August 2009 Senior Manager, Policy and Governance

Updating

3 19 February 2010 Senior Manager, Policy and Governance

Updating the DASH Reports section and updating procedural provisions,

Setting new review date.

4 18 January 2013 Vice-Principal (Administration)

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

5 University Council Full review of guidelines, renamed Course Review Procedures.


Appendix 1 – Subject Review Evaluation Criteria 1. A subject review must address the following subject review evaluation criteria:

1.1. Design

a. Appropriateness of the subject learning outcomes;

b. In the case of core subjects, alignment to or inclusion of the learning outcomes of any course and/or major study/specialisation into which the subject is taught;

c. Suitability of subject content having regard to:

i. the relevant discipline,

ii. contemporary developments, including contemporary research,

iii. accreditation requirements (if any),

d. Suitability of assessment tasks having regard to:

i. the learning outcomes (including assuring all learning outcomes are assessed),

ii. assessment policy, and

iii. assessment and feedback principles;

e. Suitability of subject name;

f. Where the subject is at 100 level how it contributes to first year transition;

g. Viability of the subject having regard to enrolments and attrition; and

h. What relevant elements of the UOW Curriculum Model should be incorporated into the design of the subject.

1.2. Delivery

a. Appropriateness of delivery methods,

b. Subject resources (including the Subject Outline, the Moodle site and other resources) and teaching materials are contemporary and relevant;

c. Where relevant, arrangements for delivery at other delivery locations including by third parties.

1.3. Support

a. Range of student support available to students (including via the Library, through Learning Analytics and/or other technology enhanced learning channels),

b. How effectively academic integrity is supported in the subject,

c. Academic and English language support.

1.4. Performance

a. Comparative student performance data,

b. Subject evaluation survey data,

c. Data on the assurance of subject learning outcomes,

d. Other feedback from students and staff.


Appendix 2 – Course Review Evaluation Criteria

Course Data, Evidence and Evaluation Criteria 1. The Course Review Evaluation Criteria are the matters to be considered reviewing a course or courses for re-accreditation.

2. The criteria are based on relevant considerations identified in the Higher Education Standards Framework and in the UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching. Relevant standards and key references are listed below.

3. Appropriate course data and relevant qualitative input should be used to support the findings of a course review. Recommended data and qualitative input is listed below.

Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources

Performance Data and Prior Reviews

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

HE Course Accreditation Standard 5.6

UOW Performance Standard 2.1

Course Analytics Report (DASH)

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

Course MRP Reports (SAI)

Heads of Students

Have issues been identified arising from key data on the student experience including Student Experience Questionnaire, Course Experience Questionnaire and International Student Barometer Reports? What are they? Have they been resolved?

UOW Performance Standards 1.1 and 1.2

Student Experience Questionnaire

Course Experience Questionnaire

International Student Barometer Survey

What was the impact of the last course review conducted on the course? Were changes made effective to deal with any identified issues?


UOW Design Standard 8.2

Last Course Review Report

What changes have been made to the course since its last review in light of student learning experience data?

UOW Course Performance Standard 1.3

Course Director/Associate Course Director

Do Graduate Destination Survey results compare favourably with benchmarking group and UOW Performance Standard 5.1 Graduate Destinations Survey


Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources national average for sector? Careers Central

Course Quality

Course Structure (including the AQF)

Are the course learning outcomes

i. expressed clearly?

ii. systematically embedded through the course and aligned to assessment in core and capstone subjects?

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.3, 1.6,2.1 and 5.1

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

AQF

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

Course Design Procedures (Assurance of Learning)

LTC Staff

AQF Validation Tool

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

UOW Performance Standard 4.1


AQF Validation Tool



LTC Staff

Does the course conform to the requirements for the qualification level of the Australian Qualifications Framework of :

i. course learning outcomes that require the outlined knowledge, skills and application of knowledge and skills,

i. course name; and

ii. volume of learning?



AQF


AQF Validation Tool

LTC Staff

AQS Staff

Is there a clear and coherent course of study that: HE Provider Registration Standards 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3

Course Handbook Entry

Course Director/Associate Course


Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources i. assists students to select the appropriate sequence of subjects?

ii. supports effective transition?

iii. ensures student meet pre/co-requisites?


UOW Design Standards 6.1 and 7.3

UOW Curriculum Model DPs 1, 2 and 3.

Director

UniAdvice

LTC Staff

Heads of Students

Do students have opportunities to provide evidence of performance in meeting course learning outcomes in their e-Portfolio through appropriate assessment tasks?

UOW Curriculum Model TP 2 Course Director/Associate Course Director

LTC Staff

Is each major study and each minor study a coherent and distinct program of study within the course?



General Course Rules



Subject Coordinators – Core and Capstone Subjects

LTC Staff

Is the balance of core/capstone and elective subjects appropriate to support a broad focus to student learning beyond the primary area of study (e.g. interdisciplinary and cross cultural learning)?



UOW Curriculum Model DP 3 and TP 4

Course Handbook

AQF Validation Tool

LTC Staff

Are there existing capstone subjects in the course? If so, are they effective in assuring some of the course learning outcomes or major study learning outcomes?


UOW Design Standards 6.2, 7.1 and 7.2

AQF

UOW Curriculum Model DP 2,

Course Handbook

AQF Validation Tool

LTC Staff


Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources and TPs 2 and 5


Course Content

Does the course reflect contemporary developments and a real world focus within the affected discipline areas and in respect of the industries or professions to which it is aligned?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.2 and 1.3


UOW Curriculum Model CT 1 and CT 2


Discipline Leaders

Independent Academic Member of Course Review Group

Alumni

Employer, Industry and Profession Feedback

Accreditation Body Feedback

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


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

UOW Curriculum Model CT 4

Accreditation Reports

Independent Academic Member of Course Review Committee

LTC STAFF

Academic and Discipline Standards

Does the course meet professional and/or discipline standards relevant for this course? HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2


OLT Discipline Standards

Accreditation Standards

Independent Academic Member of Course Review Committee




Benchmarking

Compared to similar courses at other Universities, is this course consistent in terms of content and outcomes?




Discipline Leaders

Independent Members of the Faculty Course Review Panel

Benchmarking Outcomes (e.g. external moderation)


Student Professional Experience (if applicable)

Is there a quality assurance process for each student professional experience subject to ensure the quality of the student professional experience, including

i. supporting the delivery of the subject?

ii. involving Host Organisation staff in assessment activities, where applicable?

iii. providing students and Host Organisations with all necessary information prior to the placement?

iv. seeking, evaluating and acting on feedback from students and Hosts Organisations?

HE Provider Registration Standard 4.5


UOW Support Standard 7.2

Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience


Subject Coordinators – Placement Subjects

Faculty Professional Placement Unit

Admissions, Pathways and Credit

Are the course selection requirements:

i. comparable to equivalent courses at other comparable providers and

ii. appropriate to ensure that students can succeed in the course?


UOW Design Standard 9.1 and 9.2

Admissions Rules

Course Handbook

Course Finder

Course Analytics Dashboard Admissions Data (DASH)

UniAdvice



Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources Learning Analytics data

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



Course Analytics Dashboard Admissions Data (DASH)

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

Does the course have appropriate exit points? Course Design Procedures Course Director/Associate Course Director

What is the performance of students who receive credit under existing credit transfer arrangements?

HE Course Accreditation Standards 3.1 – 3.5

AQF Qualifications Pathways Policy


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


Head of Students

Faculty International Unit

UniAdvice

Are existing formal credit arrangements up to date? HE Course Accreditation Standards 3.1 -3.5

AQF Qualifications Pathways Policy


UOW Credit Webpages

Faculty Credit Webpages

Course Handbook Entry Course Director/Associate Course Director

Head of Students


UniAdvice

Course Information



Is course marketing material accurate and relevant to prospective students? HE Course Accreditation Standard 2.4 and Provider Registration Standards 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3


ESOS National Code

ESOS Framework

Course Marketing Material


Faculty Marketing Unit

UniAdvice

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

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


Course Handbook Entry


Assessment Design

Is assessment design consistent with the Assessment and Feedback Principles? HE Course Accreditation Standards 5.1 and 5.2


Assessment and Design Principles


Subject Coordinators

LTC Staff

Academic and English Language

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




English Language Policy

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

Comparative Student Outcomes AQF Validation Tool



Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources Director

LTC Staff

First Year Transition

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

HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2 and Provider Registration Standard 6.5

UOW Support Standards 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4


Curriculum Review Student Success Data (DASH)


LTC Staff

Subject Coordinators – First Year Subjects

Learning Analytics data

Learning Support and Resources

Are there sufficient academic and other information resources available to academic staff to present the course and individual subjects effectively?

HE Provider Registration Standards 7.1


UOW Curriculum Model CT 3 and TP 3



Faculty Librarian

UOW Library

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




TEL Strategy

Learning Analytics Reports


LTC Staff

IMTS Staff

Other Resources, Facilities and Support



Are other resources (e.g.: laboratory and equipment requirements and resources) adequate to present the course and each individual subject?

HE Provider Registration Standards 5.2 and 7.1


UOW Curriculum Model CT 1 and CT 2



Teaching Quality

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

HE Provider Registration Standard 5.1 and Course Accreditation Standard 4.2

UOW Delivery Standard 1.3


Human Resources Division

Are there any identified areas of concern with teaching quality based on student feedback data? HE Provider Registration Standard 6.4

UOW Delivery Standards 4.1 and 9.2

UOW Support Standards 5.1 and 5.2


Student Experience Questionnaire

Subject Evaluation Surveys

Student Complaints


Heads of Students

Is there evidence of effective collaboration within teaching teams for core and capstone subjects within the course?


UOW Delivery Standards 3.2, 6.1 and 6.2



Delivery Methods

Are subject delivery methods suitable for both the course structure and the types of students in the course?



Student Analytics Reports



Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources and TP 3

TEL Strategy

Director

LTC Staff

IMTS Staff

Innovation

Across all the subjects that form the course, how are teaching and assessment methods used to provide students with a broad, engaging and challenging learning experience?

UOW Delivery Standards 5.1 – 5.3

UOW Curriculum Model (all elements)


LTC Staff

Is there evidence of innovation in the delivery of the course? UOW Delivery Standards 5.1 – 5.3



LTC Staff

Moderation of Assessment

Is moderation of assessment conducted internally as part of subject delivery for core and capstone subjects?






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

HE Provider Registration Standard 5.6 and Course Accreditation Standard 5.5





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



Is there appropriate contextualisation of the course content (for offshore delivery)? HE Course Accreditation Standards 1.9 and 7.5


UOW Curriculum Model TP 4

Student Feedback Data from non-UOW locations

UOWD and TNE Partner feedback

How is comparability and equivalence of course delivery and of course outcomes assured? HE Provider Registration Standard 4.5 and 5.4


Principles of Equivalence

Course Handbook

Offshore Course Handbook

AQF Validation Tool

Annual Review Reports


Head of School


TNE&A Unit

UOWD and TNE Partners

What level of collaboration occurs among:

i. teaching staff delivering the course at different delivery locations?

ii. students studying across delivery locations


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

UOW Curriculum Model TP 4




TNE&A Unit


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

HE Provider Registration Standards 4.5 and 5.4






Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources TNE&A Unit

UOWD and TNE Partners Comparative Student Outcomes Reports and Faculty Response

Course Viability

Fees and Costs

Is the income generated by this course sufficient to justify its continuation? HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2


Course Proposal Financial Estimation Tool (Course Management Intranet)

Faculty Management Accountant

Are there any issues with the way the fees are currently administered? HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2



UniAdvice

Are there any significant costs that are unique to this course, and have they been factored in to the course financial viability?




Academic Viability

Is the course at risk from dependence on a small number of academic staff? HE Provider Registration Standard 3.4


Head of School

If so, how are academic staff retention risks being managed? HE Provider Registration Standard 3.4


Head of School

Sufficient and Sustainable Demand



Looking at the enrolment trends over the past 3 years, is course demand decreasing, stable or increasing?




Consolidated Course Analytics Dashboard (DASH)

Has there been any significant shift in the source of applicants? (e.g. any notable demographic shifts across the dimensions of full time/part time; male/female; domestic/international)




Consolidated Course Analytics Dashboard (DASH)

Curriculum Review Reports – Course Demographic Data (DASH)

Strategic Marketing and Communications

UniAdvice

Is there overlap in demand with other or evidence of possible cannibalisation of other courses? HE Provider Registration Standard 2.1




Associate Dean (Education)


UniAdvice

Strategic Alignment

Alignment with UOW Strategic Priorities

How does this course align with the priorities listed in the UOW Strategic Plan? (Goal 2 – Learning and The Student Experience)

UOW Design Standard 4.

UOW Strategic Plan

UOW Education Strategy

Faculty Executive

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


UOW Strategic Plan

Faculty Executive



Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources Faculty Strategic Plan UniAdvice

Alignment with Faculty Strategic Priorities

How does this course align with the Faculty’s strategic priorities? UOW Design Standard 4.1

Faculty Strategic Plan

Faculty Executive

Meeting the Needs of External Stakeholders

Has there been any feedback from employers or industry about the quality of the graduates in this course (such as professional or industry reports)?



Accreditation Standards

Careers Central


Alumni

Independent Member of Faculty Course Review Panel

Accreditation Bodies

Industry Groups

Do employers report satisfaction with UOW graduates? UOW Performance Standard 5.2 Careers Central

Alumni

Independent Member of Faculty Course Review Panel

Does the course provide suitable opportunities for industry or professional experience? HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2



Course Handbook


Discipline Leaders

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

UOW Strategic Plan Course Director/Associate Course Director


Evaluation Criteria Standards References Data/Input Sources Study Abroad and Exchange

Meeting the Needs of the Community

Is this a course that is in demand from the local region or meet local or regional shortages? HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2


Graduation Destinations Survey

IRIS Reports

Does the course involve engagement with the local community in meeting real world problems? HE Course Accreditation Standard 1.2


UOW Strategic Plan Goal 3




Appendix 3 – Course Review Report Template <FACULTY>

Course Review Report

<Faculty> <Course(s)>

<DATE>


Contents Details of Course under Review ....................................................................................................... 31

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 31

Including ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Course Review Governance ............................................................................................................. 32

Faculty Course Review Group Membership and Terms of Reference ......................................... 32

Course Review Team Membership ............................................................................................... 32

Consultation and Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 32

Course Review Commentary ............................................................................................................ 33

Performance Data and Prior Reviews ........................................................................................... 33

Course Quality............................................................................................................................... 33

Course Viability ............................................................................................................................. 34

Strategic Alignment ....................................................................................................................... 35

Curriculum Transformation ................................................................................................................ 35

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 36

Sign Off ............................................................................................................................................. 37

Response of the Faculty Education Committee ................................................................................ 37

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 38

Data ............................................................................................................................................... 38

Consultation information ............................................................................................................... 38


Details of Course under Review Name of Course(s) Under Review

List Subjects Reviewed as part of this Review

School/s

Name of Course Director/Associate Course Director

Date of last Course (or Curriculum) Review

Date of last external accreditation review (if applicable)

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

� Yes � No

Executive Summary

Including � Overview and Scope � Key Findings � Recommendations

[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an interesting point. You can position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Drawing Tools tab to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]


Course Review Governance

Faculty Course Review Panel Membership and Terms of Reference

Course Review Team Membership

Consultation and Data Collection

[ ]

[ ]


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

Performance Data and Prior Reviews

Course Quality � Course Structure (including the AQF)

� Course Content

� Academic and Discipline Standards

� Benchmarking

� Student Professional Experience (if applicable)

� Admissions, Pathways and Credit

� Course Information

� Assessment Design

� Academic and English Language

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]


� First Year Transition

� Learning Support and Resources

� Other Resources, Facilities and Support

� Teaching Quality

� Delivery Methods

� Innovation

� Moderation of Assessment

� Multiple Delivery Locations (Only for courses delivered at multiple campuses)

Course Viability � Fees and Costs

� Academic Viability

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]


� Sufficient and Sustainable Demand

Strategic Alignment � Alignment with UOW Strategic Priorities

� Alignment with Faculty Strategic Priorities

� Meeting the Needs of External Stakeholders

� Meeting the Needs of the Community

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

� FYE@UOW - to further enhance the first year curriculum and help students learn how to learn in the discipline?

� MyPortfolio@UOW - to further enhance the opportunities for students to develop and reflect on a digital portfolio of professional work?

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]


� Hybrid learning@UOW - to further integrate “hybrid” learning in ways that will enrich students’ learning experiences and build their skills and confidence in using digital tools relevant to their discipline or profession?

� Connections@UOW - to further embed activities which encourage students to deepen their Indigenous, cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary understandings?

�

� Capstones@UOW - to further enhance the capstone experience?

�

� Whole of course - has the course has been designed in a scaffolded manner to identify progression for students as they move through the degree

�

Recommendations

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]


Sign Off Associate Dean (Education): (Signature & Date) Chair, Faculty Course Review Panel: (Signature & Date) Executive Dean: (Signature & Date)

Response of the Faculty Education Committee

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic): Approved for submission to Academic Senate (Signature & Date) Chair, Academic Senate: Approved for continued offer (at meeting held on: ) (Signature & Date)

[ ]


Appendices

Data

Consultation information

Results of interviews, surveys, questionnaires, etc. as obtained by the Faculty Curriculum Review Group during their review. These may be summarised or tabulated where appropriate for ease of presentation



ESOS COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK POLICY Date first approved: Date of effect:

On approval Date last amended: (refer Version Control Table) Not applicable




Director, Academic Quality and Standards and Principal Executive Officer Academic Quality and Standards Unit [email protected]

Author: ESOS and Course Administration Officer, Course Management Group, Academic Quality and Standards Unit


Course Management Group, Academic Quality and Standards Unit, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Portfolio


ESOS National Code Audit Procedure CRICOS Registration and Amendments Procedure Annual Fee Update Procedure ESOS Payments Procedures (TPS & ARC) Renewal of Registration for CRICOS Procedure


External Documents:

Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007

Audience: Internal



https://intranet.uow.edu.au/content/groups/internal/@web/@spq/documents/doc/uow040177.pdf

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A00757

https://aei.gov.au/Regulatory-Information/Education-Services-for-Overseas-Students-ESOS-Legislative-Framework/National-Code/Pages/default.aspx

https://aei.gov.au/Regulatory-Information/Education-Services-for-Overseas-Students-ESOS-Legislative-Framework/National-Code/Pages/default.aspx

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3

2 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

3 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................ 3

4 The ESOS Act ......................................................................................................................................... 4

5 National Code .......................................................................................................................................... 5

6 Legislative Compliance ........................................................................................................................... 5

7 Penalties for Non-Compliance ................................................................................................................. 6

8 Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................................................................................... 6

9 Version Control Table .............................................................................................................................. 7

Attachment 1: National Code Standards .......................................................................................................... 8

Attachment 2: CRICOS Actions ....................................................................................................................... 28

Attachment 3: Key Dates for Institutional Compliance Activities .................................................................... 31


1 Introduction 1. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency regulates the education and training

sector's involvement with international students studying in Australia on student visas.

2. This document provides a framework which comprehensively outlines the University’s approach to compliance with the requirements stipulated in the ESOS Act and the National Code. This document also identifies unit specific roles and responsibilities in relation to National Code and the corresponding UOW policies and procedures.

2 Scope 1. The ESOS Act and this Framework apply to:

a. The University as a registered provider,

b. Staff members responsible for administration or delivery of courses and student support services to international students,

c. Prospective and current international students,

d. Agents who recruit students for the University and/or UOW College courses accredited by UOW,

e. Any person purporting to represent or recruit students for the University and/or UOW College courses accredited by UOW and

f. Associates of the University.

2. The ESOS Act and this Framework do not apply to:

a. University programs and courses delivered offshore,

b. International students holding a visa other than a student visa, or

c. Students enrolled offshore or studying entirely online or in distance education mode.

3 Definitions


Agent A person, either within or outside Australia, who represents or acts on behalf of UOW in dealing with international students or prospective international students.

Annual Registration Charge

A fee payable by CRICOS-registered providers, comprising a base fee plus components based on:

(i) number of overseas students in each course and (ii) course locations

Associates As defined in the ESOS Act

CoE Confirmation of Enrolment; the document providing evidence of a student’s enrolment with the University; it contains information about the University, the course and duration of study the student is enrolled in, and is required before international students can be issued a student visa

CRICOS Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students; the official Australian Government database of all courses offered to people studying in Australia on student visas and the education providers offering those courses

Department of Education

The Commonwealth Department of Education, which is responsible for administering the PRISMS and CRICOS databases


http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00173

http://cricos.deewr.gov.au/default.aspx

http://education.gov.au/

http://education.gov.au/


Designated Authority As defined in the ESOS Act. For UOW, the designated authority is TEQSA

ESOS Act Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and associated legislation; sets out the legal framework governing delivery of education to international students studying in Australia on a student visa

International student A person who holds a student visa

Material change TEQSA ACT, it is a condition of registration that TEQSA is notified of events that happen, or are likely to happen, that will either:

i) significantly affect the provider’s ability to meet the Threshold Standards; or

ii) require updating the provider's entry on the National Register of higher education providers.

National Code National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students; a set of nationally consistent standards that governs the protection of international students and delivery of courses to those students by providers registered on CRICOS

PRISMS Provider Registration and International Students Management System; the Australian Government database that provides Australian education providers with Confirmation of Enrolment facilities required for compliance with the ESOS legislation

Registered provider An education provider entered on the National Register of Higher Education Providers, established and maintained by TEQSA

Self-accrediting provider

An education provider which has been authorised by TEQSA to self-accredit one or more of its courses of study

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency; the independent national regulator of Australia’s higher education sector

Tuition Protection Service

The Tuition Protection Service (TPS) is an initiative of the Australian Government to assist international students whose education providers are unable to fully deliver their course of study.

Tuition Protection Service Levy

A levy paid to the Australian Government by higher education providers to ensure that international students receive the tuition they have paid for or, as a last resort, a refund

4 The ESOS Act 1. The ESOS Act and its associated legislative instruments set out the legal framework governing

delivery of education to international students studying in Australia on a student a student visa. It protects Australia's reputation for delivering quality education services, and the interests of international students by setting minimum standards and providing tuition and financial assurance.

2. The ESOS legislative framework mandates a nationally consistent approach to registering education providers so that the quality of the tuition and care of international students remains high. It sets out the legal framework for the delivery of education to international students.

3. The ESOS legislative framework protects International students coming to Australia on student visas and education institutions aspiring to teach international students by governing:

a. Which providers may be registered,




http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2007L00646

https://prisms.deewr.gov.au/Logon/Logon.aspx

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/

b. The CRICOS registration process,

c. The obligations of providers,

d. Tuition assurance and consumer protection mechanisms,

e. Enforcement and compliance powers, and

f. Charges providers pay to enrol international students.

4. The interface between the ESOS Act and immigration law imposes visa related reporting requirements on both students and providers.

5 National Code 1. The National Code was established under the ESOS Act and consists of four parts:

a. Part A: Includes a description of its purpose, objectives and role in the ESOS legislative framework.

b. Part B: Outlines the roles and responsibilities of the State and Territory governments which share responsibility for implementing the National Code.

c. Part C: Explains the CRICOS registration process including registered providers’ requirements and obligations.

d. Part D: Provides 15 Standards that registered providers must meet in their interactions with overseas students on a student visa.

6 Legislative Compliance 1. As a self-accrediting provider of educational services to international students, the University must

comply with the 15 standards outlined in the National Code in order to maintain its accreditation.

CRICOS Annual Registration Charge

2. The University is required to pay a CRICOS Annual Registration Charge (ARC) in February each year. All ARC amounts payable are determined based on enrolment data plus course by location stored in PRISMS. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in automatic suspension of the University’s CRICOS registration.

3. The Senior Manager, Admissions, Fees and Scholarships in the Student Services Division is responsible for the payment of the fee to TEQSA. The Principal Executive Officer is responsible for ensuring the University’s Annual Registration Charge is paid.

Tuition Protection Service

4. The Tuition Protection Service (TPS) is an initiative of the Australian Government to assist international students whose education providers are unable to fully deliver their course of study. The TPS ensures that international students are able to either:

a. complete their studies in another course or with another education provider; or

b. receive a refund of their unspent tuition fees.

5. All CRICOS providers are subject to the TPS Levy, a fee similar to an insurance premium, paid annually. Each Faculty is responsible for paying the levy calculated by their respective proportion of international students studying onshore. Financial Services Division is responsible for payment of the levy to TEQSA. The Principal Executive Officer is responsible for ensuring the TPS Levy is paid.

Declaration of Conformity

6. The University is required to provide TEQSA with an annual Declaration of Conformity, which confirms that the University complies with the requirements of the ESOS Act and National Code.

7. The Declaration of Conformity is prepared by Academic Quality and Standards, and is based upon evidence of compliance with ESOS requirements, including, where undertaken, audit reports from


the University’s annual ESOS National Code Audit Procedure. The Principal Executive Officer is responsible for ensuring the Declaration of Conformity is accurate and is lodged annually.

7 Penalties for Non-Compliance 1. The ESOS Act sets out various penalties should UOW be found to be non-compliant with the

ESOS Act and National Code. The penalties range from a fine to imprisonment.

2. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the University or an Associate of the University is breaching or has breached the ESOS Act, sanctions may be imposed. Sanctions include suspension and cancellation of, and the imposition of conditions on, the University's ability to enrol international students. Heavy fines can also be imposed on providers. The Criminal Code applies to all offences against the ESOS Act.

3. This Policy is designed to ensure that the University minimises the risk of non-compliance with the ESOS Act.

8 Roles and Responsibilities 1. ESOS compliance is a University-wide responsibility, requiring commitment and effort on the part

of each staff member. Specific responsibilities are outlined below.

Principal Executive Officer

2. The PEO has specific responsibilities under the ESOS Act and the National Code. They are to:

a. Register the name of the University on CRICOS,

b. Ensure information is provided to the Department of Education about international students accepted for study by the Student Compliance Officer,

c. Ensure the Student Compliance Officer sends “notice of visa breaches” to students,

d. Ensure the Student Compliance Officer maintains appropriate records for students accepted for study,

e. Register or ensure the registration of course details on CRICOS,

f. Maintain user access for staff members using PRISMS,

g. Provide TEQSA with an Annual Declaration of Conformity,

h. Ensure the University’s Annual Registration Charge is paid,

i. Ensure the University’s TPS Levy is paid,

j. Sign off on the University’s compliance with the ESOS legislative framework and the National Code, and

k. Reports on ESOS compliance to the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education) and the University Council.

3. The PEO is ultimately responsible for compliance with the ESOS legislative framework and National Code.

ESOS and Course Administration Officer

4. The ESOS and Course Administration Officer is the PEO’s delegate for completing day-to-day ESOS compliance activities.

Student Compliance Officer

5. The Student Compliance Officer has the following responsibilities:

a. Provide information to the Commonwealth Department of Education about international students accepted for study,

b. Send “notice of visa breaches” to students,

c. Maintain appropriate records for students accepted for study.


Divisions/ Units and Faculties

6. All Divisions/ Units and Faculties have responsibilities under the National Code when dealing with international students. These specific responsibilities are detailed Attachment 1: The National Code Standards.

9 Version Control Table Version Control Release Date Author/Reviewer Approved By Amendment

1 TBA ESOS and Course Administration Officer, Academic Quality Standards Unit

University Council New framework policy.


Attachment 1: National Code Standards These tables set out the 15 Standards of the National Code with which the University must comply. It also describes the way in which compliance is ensured, the Unit or Department responsible for compliance, and the instruments which govern compliance. Further details for each of the Standards can be found in the National Code.

Standard 1: Marketing Information and Practices

Marketing information and practices Registered providers ensure that marketing of their education and training services is professional, accurate and maintains the integrity and reputation of the industry.

How UOW ensures Compliance Person(s) or Unit(s) Responsible UOW Policy Framework

• Ensuring that CRICOS applications for courses that meet National Code requirements are made at the time a new course concept is approved

• Ensuring that CRICOS numbers are included on all marketing material including printed publications and online tools such as Course Finder

• Ensuring that courses are not actively marketed before CRICOS registration


Admissions, Student Services Division

Planning, Marketing and Communication Division

Faculties

Course and Subject Approval Procedures

CRICOS Registration and Amendments Procedures

Web Management Policy

Production of Marketing Material and Use of UOW Brand Policy


http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2007L00646

https://aei.gov.au/Regulatory-Information/Education-Services-for-Overseas-Students-ESOS-Legislative-Framework/National-Code/nationalcodepartd/Pages/ExplanatoryguideD1.aspx

Standard 2: Student Engagement before Enrolment

Student engagement before enrolment Registered providers recruit students in an ethical and responsible manner and provide information that enables students to make informed decisions about studying with the registered provider in Australia. Registered providers ensure students’ qualifications, experience and English language proficiency are appropriate for the course for which enrolment is sought

How UOW ensures Compliance Person(s) or Unit(s) Responsible UOW Policy Framework

• Ensuring that agents represent UOW in an ethical and responsible manner, providing accurate information

• Course approval processes set appropriate entry requirements

• Curriculum including English Language Proficiency (ELP)

• Letter of Offer contains all required information as outlined in Standard 2.1 of the National Code


Course Management Coordinator


Faculties

Admissions Rules and Admissions Procedures

Course and Subject Approval Procedures

Undergraduate Student Scholarships and Grants Policy

Higher Degree by Research Scholarship Selection Policy

Guidelines for Off-Shore Higher Degree Research (HDR) Applications

Fees Policy

English Language Policy ()



Standard 3: Formalisation of Enrolment

Formalisation of enrolment Written agreements between registered providers and students set out the services to be provided, fees payable and information in relation to refunds of course money.

How UOW ensures Compliance Person(s) Responsible UOW Policy Framework

• Offer Acceptance issued with each offer letter in accordance with the UOW Offer Acceptance Checklist which ensures the requirements as specified in Standard 3.

• Offer Acceptance signed by commencing students

• Offer Acceptance meets all the requirements of UOW Offer acceptance Checklist including course details, Overseas Health Cover, payment and refund information, terms and conditions etc. (Offer Acceptance Checklist details full requirements in Standard 3 Audit Checklist)

• Procedure for processing offer acceptances concurrently with or prior to accepting course money

Client Services Unit, Student Services Division


Fees Policy

Offer Acceptance Checklist



Standard 4: Education Agents

Education agents Registered providers take all reasonable measures to use education agents that have an appropriate knowledge and understanding of the Australian international education industry and do not use education agents who are dishonest or lack integrity

How UOW ensures Compliance Person(s) and Unit(s) Responsible UOW Policy Framework

• Contacts between the University of Wollongong and all agents

• Procedure for monitoring agents

• Procedure for terminating agent contracts

• Procedure for updating agents • Agent Website

• Multiple agent updates sent out • Agent selection criteria/standard

• Monitoring of agent activities on PRISMS • Procedures for investigating allegations and

complaints made against agents • Documentation of previous investigations

Admissions, Student Services Division Standard Admissions, Student Services Division Agent’s Agreement



Standard 5: Younger Overseas Students

Younger overseas students Where students under the age of 18 are not being cared for in Australia by a parent or suitable nominated relative, registered providers ensure the arrangements made to protect the personal safety and social well-being of those students are appropriate


There are a limited number of courses such as Foundation Programs and Diploma which are accessible to students under the age of 18, registered under UOW and delivered by UOW College.

In accordance to the Quality Assurance Agreement between UOW and UOW College, the UOW College is responsible for the management of younger students.

UOW does not enrol younger international students into its programs.

UOW College Quality Assurance Agreement for UOW Courses delivered by UOW College

Framework Policy for UOW Students Studying at UOW College



Standard 6: Student Support Services

Student support services Registered providers support students to adjust to study and life in Australia, to achieve their learning goals and to achieve satisfactory progress towards meeting the learning outcomes of the course.


• Orientation program, including Orientation website, that includes information on student support services, legal services, emergency and health services, facilities and resources, complaints and appeals processes and student visa conditions

• Orientation procedures for maintaining orientation information regularly to ensure currency of information

• Procedures for orientating late arriving students

• Learning Development, Library and PASS offer a range of free resources and teaching services to all enrolled students who wish to improve their academic performance.

• Student Support Advisers assist with a wide range of issues from homesickness, study difficulties and academic concerns, to family emergencies and personal problems. Their service is free and confidential.

• UOW Counselling Services provides free and confidential service to assist with personal, study or work related difficulties.

• UOW’s Disability Services provides reasonable adjustment advice and support for students with a disability or health condition to ensure they realise their full academic potential.


Student Services Division

Research Student Centre

Learning Development

PASS

UOW Library

Student Support Advisors (SSA)

UOW Wellbeing

UOW Counselling Services

UOW Disability Services

Carter and Ferguson, Solicitors

Student Advocacy Officer

BUPA


Student Ombudsman

Faculties

Facilities Management Division

Professional and Organisational Development Services

Information Literacy Integration Policy

University Learning and Teaching Course Policy

Academic Advice to Students Policy

Disability Policy – Students

Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy

Grievance Policy

Higher Degree Research Student Academic Complaints Policy

StartSmart online academic information skills course

Critical Incident Guidelines

Privacy Policy

Privacy Information Sheet

FMD Security Emergency Response Guidelines

FMD Security Emergency Checklist Manual

WHS Emergency Management Procedures

Student Critical Incident Management Guidelines

UOW ESOS Framework




• The Student Legal Services Clinic provides free and confidential legal advice to current students on a wide range of legal issues.

• UOW has a range of financial support information available online, including financial tools and calculators.

• The Student Advocacy Service provides free and confidential support for students seeking guidance on grievances, appeals, disputes, mismanagement or misconduct by staff or students during their studies at UOW.

• UOW has chosen BUPA as its Overseas Student Health Cover provider. Students have the option to allow the University to organise OHSC through our preferred provider.

• The Grievance Policy framework clearly outlines the policies and accompanying procedures that apply when grievances are raised by students.

• StartSmart is a compulsory online essential academic information skills course for all new UOW undergraduate students and helps students learn how to recognise, assess and use the academic resources available to them at UOW.

• Faculties provide academic advice and support to students on a range of matters related to their studies.

• Critical Incident Policy and procedures that cover the action to be taken in the event of a critical incident. Records of incidents, outcomes and any follow up requirements.

• Procedure for training staff who interact directly with international students

• Staff induction policy and procedure



• Staff induction handbook • Information in the UOW ESOS Compliance

Framework, in conjunction with the UOW website with links to external information ensures pertinent information is available to staff


Standard 7: Transfers between Registered Providers

Transfers between registered providers Registered providers assess requests from students for a transfer between registered providers prior to the student completing six months of the principal course of study in accordance with their documented procedures


• International Student Release Procedure to consider requests fairly, with transparency and provide direction on:

o the circumstances in which a transfer will be granted

o reasonable grounds for refusing a transfer request

o reasonable timeframe for assessing and replying to a transfer request having regards to the restricted period

• Letter of Release is issued at no cost to the student and advised the student of need to contact Department of Boarder Protection (DIBP) to seek advice on whether a new student visa is required.

• Refusal for Release Letter details reason/s for refusal of release and informs the student of his or her right to appeal the registered provider’s decision in accordance with Standard 8 (Complaints and appeals).

• Full and detailed records of Release Requests


Academic Administration, Student Services Division

Client Service, Student Services Division

Student Compliance Officer


International Student Release Procedure

Complaints and Appeals Policies



Standard 8: Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and appeals Registered providers’ complaints and appeals processes are independent, easily and immediately accessible and inexpensive for the parties involved

How UOW ensures Compliance Person(s) and Unit(s)Responsible UOW Policy Framework

• Complaints and Appeals internet site detailing policies and processes

• Academic complaints and appeals policy/ procedures that include:

o Ability to lodge a formal complaint o Able to formally present case at minimal

or no cost o Able to be accompanied and assisted by a

support person at relevant meetings o Given reasons for the outcome o Process commences within 10 working

days of formal lodgement

• Non-Academic complaints and appeals procedures that include:

o Ability to lodge a formal complaint o Able to formally present case at minimal

or no cost o Able to be accompanied and assisted by a

support person at relevant meetings o Given reasons for the outcome o Process commences within 10 working

days of formal lodgement


Student Ombudsman

Faculties


Human Resources Division

Academic Administration

Employment Equity and Diversity Unit

Accommodation Services

Office of the Student Ombudsman Course Progress Exclusion Appeals

Student Conduct Rules and Procedures

Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy

Conflict of Interest Policy

Course Progress Policy

Grievance Policy and Procedures

Higher Degree Research (HDR) Student Academic Complaints Policy

Respect for Diversity Policy

Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy

Student Conduct in Residences Policy

Student Health Assessment and Leave Policy and Guidelines

Code of Practice – Honours

Code of Practice – Research



• Students referred to an external body if they are unsatisfied with the result of an appeal. Standard wording: “A student who is dissatisfied with the outcome or conduct of an appeal within the University may appeal to an external agency. Students have the right to make a complaint to the NSW Ombudsman when there is evidence of maladministration or misconduct by the University of Wollongong.”

• Work procedures includes the requirement to maintain students COE until appeal process complete

• Examples of maintaining a student’s COE whilst appeal is ongoing


Standard 9: Completion within the Expected Duration of Study

Completion within the expected duration of study Registered providers monitor the enrolment load of students to ensure they complete the course within the duration specified in their CoE and do not exceed the allowable portion of online or distance learning. Registered providers only enable students to extend the expected duration of study for the course through the issuing of a new CoE in limited circumstances


• Students are provided a brochure outlining course progress and visa responsibilities at Orientation

• Information on UOW website informs international students of course progress requirements and the implications of failing to maintain course progress

• International student enrolments are monitored by UOW. Students are sent SOL messages if identified as exceeding their CoE advising the student to amend their enrolment in order to complete within the time frame of the CoE. If a student continues to under enrol without approval the University may cancel their enrolment under section 9 of the National Code. This cancellation would be reported to DIBP.

• Performance Indicator Unit generates reports to the Client Services Unit to monitor students studying via distance. Client Services Unit then assess one report at the first week of session and a second report at census date, ensuring that all students are captured in the possible enrolment period, Any students incorrectly enrolled will be notified and removed from unsuitable subjects.

• Initial ESOS compliance of a course is assessed by the ESOS and Course Administration Officer prior to the course submission for approval and endorsement by Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC) and/or Academic Senate. The ESOS and CRICOS form is completed and signed


Academic Quality and Standards

Client Services Unit

Performance Indicator Unit



Student Academic Consideration Policy and Guidelines


Distance Student Report Procedure

CoE Exceeded Report Procedure

International Student Reduced Study Load Procedure

Course and Subject Approval Procedures - New Courses and Significant Amendments to Existing Courses

Course and Subject Approval Procedures - Less Significant Amendments to Existing Courses



by relevant faculty representatives and submitted to the ESOS and Course Administration Officer for approval and subsequent signing.

• UOW completes an internal audit to assess the compliance of responsible unit/s to this standard once over a five year period. This internal audit ensures the standard is adequately addressed and all obligations under ESOS Act 2007 are met.


Standard 10: Monitoring Course Progress

Monitoring course progress Registered providers systematically monitor students’ course progress. Registered providers are proactive in notifying and counselling students who are at risk of failing to meet course progress requirements. Registered providers report students, under section 19 of the ESOS Act, who have breached the course progress requirements


• The Course Progress Policy clearly documents the requirements for achieving satisfactory course progress.

• An intervention strategy designed to address and reduce the causes of academic failure during the student’s time at the UOW.

• All HDR students are required to complete an Annual Progress Report with their supervisor. The Annual Progress Report is the means by which the University assesses whether the student candidature will continue into the following year. Written reports from students and their supervisors are an important and formal means to monitor research student progress.

• Outcomes of the Annual Progress Review are recorded on the UOW Student System

• UOW policies and procedures regarding Annual Progress Reviews for research students are detailed in the HDR Student Handbook

• The International Student Compliance Officer regularly produces reports to monitor international student course progress

Academic Administration, Student Services Division (Enrolment Management Team)


Student Services, Academic Services Division

Faculties

Student Ombudsman’s Office


Student Academic Consideration Policy and Guidelines


Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment

Intervention Strategy Procedure

CoE Exceeded Report Procedure

International Student Early Completion Procedure



Standard 11: Monitoring Attendance

Monitoring attendance Registered providers systematically monitor students’ compliance with student visa conditions relating to attendance. Registered providers are proactive in notifying and counselling students who are at risk of failing to meet attendance requirements. Registered providers report students, under section 19 of the ESOS Act, who have breached the attendance requirements


For higher education courses, providers are not required to monitor attendance but they must monitor course progress according to their policies and procedures (see Standard 10 Monitoring course progress).

Standard 11, however, is applicable to the UOW Foundation Studies and the monitoring of attendance is completed by UOW College. Clause 12.4 of the Quality Assurance Agreement for UOW Courses Delivered by UOW College reads as follows:

“For overseas Students UOWC must implement appropriate attendance policies and procedures for each UOW Course that comply with Standard 11 of the National Code, and must keep appropriate attendance records in accordance with the National Code.”

UOW College Quality Assurance Agreement between UOW and UOW College

Framework Policy for UOW Students Studying at UOW College



Standard 12: Course Credits

Course credits Registered providers appropriately recognise course credit within the ESOS framework


• UOW has arrangements for credit under the General Course Rules and the Credit Arrangements Policy, which together govern credit assessment and approval.

• UOW has formal articulation and credit transfer arrangements with many overseas institutions, allowing students to reduce the normal full-time course duration by one or two years of study.

• Applicants can apply for credit pre-enrolment, by providing evidence of their prior learning with their application for admission to UOW.

• Establishment of credit arrangements between UOW and offshore providers (twinning, articulation and related) is outlined in the Credit Arrangements Policy

Student Services Division

Faculties


Transnational Education & Alliances (TNE&A)



Credit Arrangements Policy

Credit Arrangements Procedure

Admissions Rules and Admissions Procedure



Standard 13: Deferring, Suspending or Cancelling the Student’s Enrolment

Deferring, suspending or cancelling the student’s enrolment

Registered providers may only enable students to defer or temporarily suspend their studies, including granting a leave of absence, during the course through formal agreement in certain limited circumstances


Deferment

UOW permit students to defer commencement of study by up to one year by completing an online deferral request. Requests are processed by Admissions, Student Services Division.

Suspending / Cancelling

Information detailing impact of deferring, suspending or cancelling a student’s enrolment included in student publications such as the applicable websites, forms and other student communications.

Client Services Unit, Student Services




Student Health Assessment and Leave Policy

Student Conduct Rules and Procedures

International Student Leave of Absence Procedure

Deferment Procedure

Fees Policy



Standard 14: Staff Capability, Educational Resources and Premises

Staff capability, educational resources and premises

The staff of registered providers are suitably qualified or experienced in relation to the functions they perform for students. The educational resources of registered providers support the delivery of courses to students. The premises of registered providers, including the floor space available for each student, support students to achieve their course outcomes


• UOW Recruitment and Selection Policy, in conjunction with the related policies and guidelines ensure that the University optimises its capability to recruit and select the best possible staff to support the University’s ongoing mission and goals. As such, the University’s recruitment strategies are focused on attracting the highest quality candidates from the region, across Australia and internationally. Similarly, UOW selection approaches are rigorous and based on international best practice. All selection decisions made are based on merit consistent with the University’s employment equity and diversity policies and governance principles and procedures.

• UOW CareerNet is the University’s performance planning system. Currently the system delivers online: • Career Development Record - Academic

Staff • Performance Plans - Professional

Services Staff Levels 1 to 7 • Performance Agreements - Professional

Services Staff Levels 8/9 and above • The performance planning system emphasises an

annual review of performance, setting expectations and goals for the following 12 months and identifying skill development and personal career development needs. In addition development

Facilities Management Division Human Resources Division Academic Quality and Standards Information Technology Services University Library Student Services Information Management and Technology Services Learning and Teaching, ASD Research Student Centre Information Technology Services Employment Equity and Diversity Unit Human Resources Division Learning, Teaching and Curriculum

Workplace Health & Safety Unit, Human Resources Division

Academic Staff Position Classification Standards Graduate Qualities Policy Higher Degree Research (HDR) Supervision And Resources Policy Inclusive Language Guidelines Recruitment and Selection Policy Reference Check Policy University Learning and Teaching Course Policy Overcrowding in Teaching Spaces Guidelines Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment Code of Practice – Honours Code of Practice – Research



needs of staff are catered for through the Professional & Organisational Development Services Unit.

• Staff development options include, but are not limited to; staff induction, University Learning Teaching Course for teaching staff, WHS training, Leadership and Management programs, Career development and Progression, Organisational knowledge, research development and ITS specific programs.

• The International Student Compliance Officer and ESOS and Course Administration Officer facilitate an ESOS Awareness Workshop as required.

• UOW offers a wide range of resources to support students to achieve their Course Learning Outcomes, these include, Library, Academic Support, IT support and access, Lecture streaming, E-learning platform, counselling services, disability services, student legal clinic, financial advice, student support advisors, accommodation services and Physical facilities i.e. University Recreation and Aquatic Centre.

• The University of Wollongong has in just over sixty years grown from a small college serving local industry to an international university in the world's top two percent, renowned for the quality of its research and teaching. Over 30,000 students are studying UOW degrees across nine campuses throughout Australia and Dubai, with education partnerships in Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore.


Standard 15: Changes to Registered Providers’ Ownership or Management

Changes to registered providers’ ownership or management

Registered providers proactively inform the designated authority of prospective ownership and/or management changes


If the Principal Executive Officer changes, the ESOS and Course Administration Officer advises the Designated Authority and PRISMS of this change in writing, prior to the change taking effect or within 10 working days. With the ‘Change of PEO Signature Form’ from PRISMS Help Desk which shows a sample signature of the new PEO. The ESOS and Course Administration Officer will also communicate this change to the International Student Compliance Unit.

ESOS and Course Administration Officer International Student Compliance Procedure



Attachment 2: CRICOS Actions

National Code reference How UOW ensures Compliance Person(s) Responsible

C3

Registration on CRICOS

Providers can only be registered on CRICOS where they have been approved by the designated authority as per Section 9 of the ESOS Act.

Any change to the PEO is advised via PRISMS and TEQSA


C6.1

Application for Registration

In addition to meeting the general requirements for registration set out in this part, providers must submit applications for registration and re-registration in a form to be determined by each designated authority that contains at least the information set out in Part C6.1a-f.

UOW submits an annual Declaration of Conformity to TEQSA, based on the findings of the internal audits and other relevant material

ESOS and Course Administration Officer and PEO

C7.1

C7.3

C7.4

Course Duration

Only full-time courses can be registered on CRICOS and registration details must include the duration of the course based on the amount of normal full-time study.

The registered duration of a course on CRICOS must include holiday periods and any approved periods of work-based training.

Proposed changes to the registered duration of a course must be approved by the designated authority prior to the changes being made.

This information is included in all course proposal documentation submitted by Faculties and approved via UOW’s course approval process and provided to TEQSA when new courses are registered, or when course content, duration or other details change

Course Management Coordinator and ESOS and Course Administration Officer

C8.1

Work-based training

Work-based training must only be approved by a designated authority as part of a CRICOS registered course where it must be undertaken to gain the qualification and appropriate arrangements have been made for the supervision and assessment of international students.

Course Approval Process




C9

Mode and place of study

Courses delivered entirely by online or distance learning cannot be registered on CRICOS. Courses with a distance or online component can only be registered if they meet the minimum requirements specified in Standard 9; that is, not more than 25%.

This information is included in all course proposal documentation submitted by Faculties and approved via UOW’s course approval process and provided to TEQSA when new courses are registered, or when course content, duration or other details change


C10.1

Arrangements with other providers

Only one provider can be registered per course.

Quality Assurance Agreement between UOW and UOW College covers registration of courses accredited by UOW and offered by UOW College

PEO and ESOS and Course Administration Officer, in conjunction with UOW College General Manager

C10.2 Designated provider must be notified in writing of all providers involved in providing a registered course.

UOW College is responsible for this with regard to courses under the arrangement outlined above

PEO

C10.3 The registered provider is responsible under the ESOS Act for breaches of the Act or National Code whatever the nature of its contractual or other arrangements with another provider for that course.


PEO

C10.4 Proposed changes to arrangements with other providers must be approved by the designated authority prior to the changes being made.


PEO

C11.2

Inspection of Premises

The designated authority may choose to accept from a registered provider a statement that it satisfies all of the requirements of the National Code without an inspection so long as the course is offered entirely by the registered provider. The designated authority may also accept clear evidence that the facilities meet Standard 14 based on reports from persons authorised by the designated authority to do so.

Five yearly external audits of ESOS compliance PEO and ESOS and Course Administration Officer

Business Assurance Manager



C11.3 Further inspections, including unscheduled visits, as deemed appropriate by the designated authority during the period of registration.

Not applicable

C11.4 An inspection will include interviews with management and staff and may include interviews with students and other clients of the provider and observations of teaching.

Five yearly external audits of ESOS compliance PEO and ESOS and Course Administration Officer

Business Assurance Manager

C12.1

Maximum number of students

As part of the registration approval process, the designated authority will decide whether to approve the maximum number of students that a provider can enrol. In making this decision, the designated authority will consider the capacity of the provider in terms of premises, approved arrangements with other providers, facilities, resources, equipment, materials and staff/student ratios.

This information was provided at the time UOW was registered as a provider and will be reviewed during at five-yearly intervals as part of UOW’s re-registration process

ESOS and Course Administration Officer and PEO in consultation with the Director Planning, Marketing and Communications, the Director, Regional Campuses and Student Diversity and the Senior Manager, Admissions, Fees and Scholarships, Student Services Division


Attachment 3: Key Dates for Institutional Compliance Activities

Date Action required

By 28 February each year Payment of Annual Registration Charge

April each year Payment of Tuition Protection Service levy

August each year Submission of Annual Declaration of Conformity

Each quarter Rolling internal audits of compliance with National Code Standards (refer ESOS National Code Audit Schedule)

Every five years Major external audit of compliance with National Code Standards

Every five years Reregistration of the University as an ESOS provider


Course Policy Framework – Feedback Summary Policy Reference Concerns Raised/Rationale/Action Required Action/Outcome

Course Policy A user panel should be convened to review the language and layout of the policy to make it as user-friendly as possible.

Approach to development has been highly consultative. Prefer to focus on user friendliness in developing supporting tools.

Honours provisions in GCR

Course Review - The Faculty Education Committee is aware that course review is often not adequately considered in workload allocations and in part this is because it is difficult for participants to know in advance and/ or articulate the scope and scale of work required. The Policy and Procedures provide an opportunity to have a reference document to help inform this by clearly articulating the issue to be dealt with, the breadth of issues to be considered and the gravity of risks to be anticipated and managed. In this way individuals and teams will have a better idea of the impost involved. The way in which course review policies and procedures relate to institutional obligations in the Higher Education Standards need to be explained, particularly in light of the new standards that are less compliance driven and more related to demonstration of quality through internal and external evidence. The Procedure is too wordy. The Committee recommends that an instructional approach to design of the procedures is adopted with use of “advance organisers” to split the “oversight” from the “doing” of the task. Advance organisers are abstract and conceptual and task organisers are concrete. The Faculty recommends there is a clear conceptual and operational definition of “viability” in the document – at present it is inferred. There is concern a great deal of time and energy will be expended in second-guessing what this might mean at an institutional level. .

Workload - document is designed to flag issues to be dealt with. Higher Education Standards - agreed and made more explicit in preamble to Course Review Procedures. Wordiness - will take into account in final review but evaluation criteria have been reduced significantly. Comment on instructional approach needs clarification. Viability - some clarification has been provided but this is a necessarily changeable concept given meaning in context. E.g. cost drivers are subjects not courses per se. Some courses have a rationale that is exclusive of cost.


Policy Reference Concerns Raised/Rationale/Action Required Action/Outcome

Course review - Professional accreditation

Explain the way in which professional/ society accreditation processes and outcomes can be leveraged for institutional course review purposes. For example, accreditation of the psychology programs has a direct cost in excess of $60,000 to the Faculty and indirect costs that are equivalent in relation to staff time and associated project costs. The process and standards required for that accreditation are rigorous in the extreme. Replication of many processes for UOW course review is redundant and the purpose that this would serve is not clear. It is suggested that a section of the policy is devoted to reviews that are conducted as adjunct to professional course accreditation processes. Further it is recommended procedures that map the way professional course accreditation and UOW institutional requirements can be met in parallel is included. This will create a more realistic and streamlined approach.

Accreditation can and will be used as a partial proxy. This requires some better understanding of scope of accreditation, but AQS is committed to this process where possible.

Implementation of Policy and Procedure

The Faculty recommends the development of tools to assist in implementation of the Policy and Procedures. An example is the “widget” developed by [a named academic] for course and subject quality assurance (this has been shared with AQS). Tools should reflect the two approaches of a full and streamlined course review.

Some tools are currently under development and considered for the course tool box project that is designed by LTC

Feedback on Policy and Procedures

The Committee was disappointed that the policy and procedure had been developed and sent out for feedback, rather than a diagnostic, prospective and collaborative approach to ‘how could we do this better’. The current Policy and Procedure has an underlying assumption of adherence and compliance in the way it has been framed. This is at odds with the teaching and learning principles being adopted by the University for the experience of students. Academic staff are professionals, actively engaged in course development and design in a way that is both scholarly, responsible and reflective. The policy and procedures do not appear to approach participants as respected collaborators. The intersection of the Policy and Procedures with other Teaching and Learning Policies should be identified to help develop a whole-of-institution approach to course quality.

The approach taken was to use existing processes and adapt them to new circumstances, taking account of the need to simplify and streamline. Very much in mind has been how we can do it better. Consultation is occurring. Comments are noted but respectfully disagree that academic staff are not being treated as respected collaborators.




‘Core Subjects’ need to be defined – does this refer to within a major or a course? Core and elective subjects now defined in Design Procedures and Course Review Procedures


1 The current Subject Coordinator needs to be included in the subject review, as they possess the most comprehensive knowledge of the subject. They do not necessarily need to have voting rights. 2 Amend 6.2(c) to include reference that the review may be instigated as a result of the assurance of learning process. 3 Ensure that the AD(I) is given notice of the intent to complete a course review where the course is taught offshore. 4 Update membership requirements such that it requires AD(E) or nominee, as well as AD(I) or nominee when the course is taught offshore and AD(R) or nominee when the course is a research degree. 5 Remove reference to a course triggering a school review (7.6.g) 6 Change the name of either the Course Review Team or Course Review Committee.Members believed these names were too similar and confusion would emerge. 7 Addition of a marketing/recruitment representative in the membership of review groups. 8 Alignment with Academic Governance requirements, including reviews progressing through the Faculty Executive Committee.

1. Agreed where panel formed, but not appropriate as lone reviewer. 2. Clause amended to widen circumstances where review instigated 3 Agreed 4. Agreed 5. Further discussion needed on this point. Unclear why this is considered problematic. 6. Faculty Course Review Panel suggested 7. Agreed. 8. Faculties have discretion to manage review reports that way. Not proposed to mandate it. Will see any significant amendments and new proposals arising.


Clarity be provided regarding: (i) What does course re-accreditation at UOW mean? (ii) What level of oversight will Senate have and what level of detail will be required? (iii) How will professional accreditations affect internal review requirements?

Course reaccreditation stems from requirements of revised HE Standards Framework. No additional requirements involved, just a change to the nature of course review.




Clause 3. Definitions - Major or Major Study - I believe there needs to be some kind of provision put on the 48 credit points that constitute a major in a bachelor degree. At present, the definition could be interpreted that 48cp at 100 level will constitute a major. The definition goes on to say that for postgraduates, 18cp must be at 900 level, and the Minor or Minor Study definition states that a minor is 24cp including 12cp at 200 level. These both stipulate a minimum at a high level. I believe the Major or Major Study should say 48cp "with a minimum of 24cp at 300 level" (as it does in the appendices).

Agreed to the inconsistency in how it has been drafted, and AQS will make sure to add the rule within the procedure. Standard on Courses will be replaced so the inconsistency issues will be resolved upon implementation. Cross references to existing definitions in General Course Rules.


600 level subject - "A subject at graduate entry undergraduate level" I have no idea what this means.

Refers to courses that have graduate entry. Even though these subjects do not mention Medicine, may be used widely for graduate entry courses.


Clause 9. Duration of Course and Volume of Learning - Point 7 - What is meant by "timetabling issues have been addressed"? At first glance, I thought about the scheduling of classes, but that is redone every year, and would be difficult to "address" at the designing phase. Is it referring to issues of pressure on infrastructure and physical resources (i.e. rooms)?

Intended to address the problem that small demand double degrees create timetabling issues. Agreed it is difficult to address timetabling issues. Provision reworded


Clause 10. Course Structure - Point 3.4 - At present, mapping of SLOs to assessment tasks exists solely on the subject amendment or subject proposal forms. There are no requirements on subject handouts to reflect this information and it certainly is not part of the subject database entries. I guess this comment is more about following through with the implementation of this point--or remove it. Point 19 - This doesn't make any sense. I believe there is at least one word missing, but I'm not sure what the point is trying to say anyway. Point 48 - This says "Subject to clause 11.48..." but I can't find such a clause. Should it be 10.49, maybe? Point 49 - This says "Clause 11.47 does not apply..." and as before, I suspect it should be Clause 10.48.

Work is underway in a number of systems including subject DB - watch this space for change Sections and references to clause and appendices provided in the feedback have been updated.




Clause 12. Jointly Badged Courses Point 4 - A minor thing, but it refers to "Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education)" which I now believe is "Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic)". Point 5 - There is a minimum amount of study required at partner institution(s), but not a minimum at UOW. Should there be some minimum for UOW as well as the others? Clause 15. Version Control and Change HistoryDitto about DVC(Education)

All references to DVC (Education) updated to reflect (Academic)


Appendix 7. Bachelor Pass Degree - In the line Total Credit points for a 4 year Bachelor degree" it says "Bachelor Pass Degrees must have a minimum of 144 credit points". Is that correct? Appendix 8. Double Bachelor Degree - What is the purpose of the line entitled Course Duration and AQF volume of learning? It refers to a single bachelor. The line Course Learning Outcomes suggests that CLOs for both degrees must align in some way to allow for reduction in credit points. However, in many cases, the reduction in credit points comes from allowing General Schedule electives in one degree to be "filled" by the second degree. For this, there is no reason for the CLOs to align. Appendix 9. Bachelor Honours Degree - The content of the line Total Credit points doesn't make sense. There is one line that says 4 year Honours must have 32cp of 300 or 400 level and then immediately below says it must have 60cp of 300 or 400 level. Further, is there a difference between "built-in" honours and "embedded" honours? Appendix 10. Graduate Certificate - In the line Qualification Pathways, Articulation and Credit Arrangements, it claims that a maximum of 24cp can be credited towards a Masters from a nested GCert or a GDip. Should this not be 24cp from a GCert and 48cp from a GDip? There is nothing about this under the Graduate Diploma nor the Masters by Coursework. Appendix 12. Masters Degree (Coursework) - Course Learning Outcomes: Is it true that Masters by Coursework only require 6cp of research methods/project? I was under the impression it was 12cp.

7 - Added additional provision for 4 year Level 7 - AQF Reference and requirements added 8 - True, the CLOs are only reflective for the part of the degree that assures the learning through core or capstone subjects. Further work is done on Assurance of Learning and CLOs. Work on CLOs is in progress and watch this space. 9 - This section is revised post AQF to take in to account the revised AQF structure and also the change to system set up that end on is no longer available from 2015. 10 - This section is revised to include the credit provisions for a nested qualification 12 - Yes as per previous requirement based on AQF, the new provisions from TEQSA is yet to be looked at.



Post nominal and award abbreviations

Currently there is no transparent procedure for how UOW monitors and manages post nominals

Consultation in progress with Student Services and Governance. Appendices are added to the procedure and toolbox pages to include the post-nominal information

Equivalence principles Additions of equivalence in Design Procedures Added as a guiding principle as an appendix.

Governance Not all faculties may operate under the governance structure and thus may not have a Faculty Executive Committee

Consultation in progress with Governance to confirm this. Refer to Academic Governance Policy. Issues relating to the current practice are outside the scope of the procedure.

Honours provisions in GCR

Honours methods in GCR Now clear that honours methods are specified for each Honours course. No further need to amend honours provisions as an award of honours can be made with no Division or class

Higher Education Standards Framework

This section of the new Higher Ed Standards Framework is something we should reference in relation to all degree types under the AQF where “advanced” knowledge is required. Something for the Course Design Procedures, I think:The content and learning activities of each course of study engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry consistent with the level of study and the expected learning outcomes, including: a. current knowledge and scholarship in relevant academic disciplines b. study of the underlying theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the academic disciplines or fields of education or research represented in the course, and c. emerging concepts that are informed by recent scholarship, current research findings and, where applicable, advances in practice.(Under knowledge for the Grad Diplomas and Masters degrees pls)

References made in Course Design Procedures under Graduate Diploma and Masters table in the appendix



Delegation of authority and approval procedure for non-award courses

Clarity in approval procedures about credit bearing non-award courses Matter for course approval procedures, but some cross referencing included in Course Design Procedures.


1. Is the overall shape and style of the document appropriate? It is a very dauntingly long document that could really phase some course coordinators but the guidance in terms of the core components of a course review is appropriate 2. Is the process one that you can follow? Yes, I do think that in some areas there should be designated assessors who are the parties charged with the responsibility of making the judgement call due to their expertise or core area of business and to ensure consistency and transparency in the overall process 3. Is the evaluation criteria document useful? If not why not? Would be more beneficial if it was clear what criteria aligned to viability, quality and strategic alignment as this could in fact influence the information and assessment of the evidence provided in regard to the criteria 4. Are the questions asked helpful (and are any big issues missing)? Some need revising in terms of wording because it is not clear what is being asked or in some cases the questions don't seem to be leading to fruitful information that could progress course revision 5. Does it provide an appropriate means of embedding the UOW Curriculum Model into a Course Review? Mostly, there were some elements that didn't seem to fit logically or meaningfully - made notes on this in situ 6. Overall, are we on the right track? Yes, suggest supplementing with an online tool that can be completed and saved then printed when the entire report is compiled, would also make the assessment by external assessors easier.

1. Noted re length and effort has been made to shorten and focus the evaluation criteria. 2. This is a difficult issue to mandate. 3. Has been realigned as requested. 4. Suggested revisions have been noted and incorporated where possible. Appreciate suggestions for greater role by AQS and LTC 5. This has been made somewhat clearer as a forward looking or prospective activity, and the Review Template works on these lines. 6. Capacity to go online is a shared ambition.




1. Clarification of when subjects will be reviewed - as part of a course or subject review process 2. Include other faculty notification where a major or minor owned by another faculty is included in the review 3. Notice of Intended Review - who to and when. 4. Contextualisation should include opportunities for staff and student collaboration 5. Include question about assurance of learning in multi-location delivery contexts 6. Rewording the assurance of learning criterion to not refer to "all students"

1. Further clarified and suggested changes agreed to - widened reference to core to include majors and minors, and included definition of core subjects 2. Agreed 3. Have tried to clarify this process further as requested. 4. Agreed 5. Existing evaluation criteria cover this. 6. Agreed, reworded in line with capacity to say to what extent this is being met.

Generic feedback Avoid the use of passive voice To be addressed in final versions

Conferral matter Double degrees and conferral issues with regards to exit-points Currently being reviewed in EPRS for GCR review

Course Design With reference to paragraph 20 - Subjects and Credit Points - of the draft Course Design Procedures, the School of Law will consider the feasibility of transitioning to 6 or 12 credit points per subject in the course of its review of the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) taking place this autumn semester 2015. Meanwhile, we urge the maintenance of the availability of 8 credit points for LLB subjects. Currently, all subjects in the are 8 credit points (other than a few 2 credit point skills-building subjects and one 6 credit point subject paired with a 2 credit point skills building subject).

Propose to develop and provide additional information and guidance on pedagogical and student transition issues. A guiding principle is developed to address some of the issues.



Course Design It should be noted that LLB subjects are available only to students enrolled in the LLB course. Therefore, non-LLB students are not affected by the 8 credit point regime in the LLB. The law subjects offered to students undertaking other courses are coded as LAW subjects and are designated as 6 credit points. They generally have different learning outcome objectives and less onerous assessment regimes. Therefore, the 6 credit point LAW subjects articulate well with the usual 6 credit point offerings in other courses and students undertaking other courses are unaffected by the 8 credit point regime in the LLB. Given the current structure of the LLB, the School of Law could lose 25% of its income by reducing its current offerings to 6 credit points or else would have to offer additional electives and incur additional consequent expenses for the Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts. Another implication is that significant changes to our course structure must be notified and explained to the Legal Profession Admission Board, which is responsible for accrediting law courses as suitable for qualifying graduates for enrolment in New South Wales as legal practitioners. The LLB will be subject to comprehensive review in 2015 in accordance with the UOW curriculum review guidelines that are currently being adopted and will be applicable at the time. Some changes to the number of credit points designated for LLB subjects will be considered in the context of that review. It is premature to pre-empt the outcomes of that review at this time. Accordingly, the School of Law urges the Academic Quality and Standards Unit maintain the availability of 8 credit point subjects within the Course Design Procedures until the LLB review has been completed and implemented.

Noted Note sure about this - As information received from Finance confirms that UOW receives CSP funding only for 1EFTS. With the fee there has been discussions that fee per credit point can always be varied to maintain the same fees subject to variation every year. Maintenance of the subject Credit point during the transition period is implied. Not sure if this needs to be explicit in the Design Procedures

Cosmetic Changes Lack of clarity on what cosmetic changes are and how that changes the approval process

Matter for course approval procedures. To be included under that process



Course Review Procedure

Annual Course Review template from Deakin University for consideration Draft course review template developed. Deakin template is 22 pages long in its blank form so is considered overly complex. Deakin's model has excellent elements that would be picked up in other processes.

Credit Transfer and Articulation

Use of terminology and definitions in procedures in CA forms need to conform to the new Credit for Prior Learning Policy

There is now more consistency in references to credit in the Course Design Procedures

Governance of MOOCS courses

Lack of QA and governance approval for MOOCS Being designed as a separate process and procedure




1. Is the overall shape and style of the document appropriate? 2. Is the process one that you can follow?Generally able to follow however require further detail on the components of the proposed annual Course Analytics ReportWill external accreditation substitute for internal accreditation as has been the practice in the past procedure?Is the Course Management Coordinator at faculty or UOW level and how is this role related to the Academic Quality and Standards Unit 3. Is the evaluation criteria document useful? If not why not? 4. Are the questions asked helpful (and are any big issues missing)?“If so, how is retention risk being managed?” should include staff retention Academic Viability section should include input from Head of SchoolContextualisation and Customisation should also have input form Head of School and Course DirectorMeeting the Needs of the Community requires Industry Groups input 5. Does it provide an appropriate means of embedding the UOW Curriculum Model into a Course Review?The mapping to the UOW Curriculum Model is useful 6. Overall, are we on the right track?Seems to be congruent however aspects need to be reviewed and include a definition of a course director and faculty executive to make more evident the input from Head of School

1. Noted with thanks 2. The report will evolve over time so it is not desirable to define it at this point as its use and scope is settled. 3 Yes, external accreditation can be a partial substitute. Clarification on CMC role provided. 4. Noted and agreed re retention. Other comments on clearer reference to the HOS are also welcome and have been included. 5. Noted 6. Noted and see above - HOS has been included in further areas.

General Course Rules - definitions, admission and conferral matters

Double degree admissions and conferrals process Currently reviewed at EPRS as part of GCR review




Minor wording change in page 18 - “What is the performance of students relying on credit under existing arrangements?” I suggest the word relying be replaced. “What is the performance of students who receive credit under existing arrangements?”

Noted and agreed.


1. ELP - how can this be done? 2. Clarification on built in and end on honours 3. Clarification of online restrictions under CRICOS 4. Assurance of learning clarification on group work 5. Zero Credit Point Subjects

1. Consulted with LTC on this matter and wording reworked. 2. Resolved 3. Further details provided in procedures 4. To be discussed with LTC 5. Confirming this is not exclusive but permissive - subjects may be for credit or not for credit.


Various issues raised in regards to frequency of reviews, funding and ELP implementation

Noted. Several comments go beyond the scope of the procedures. E.g. ELP is a separate policy implementation challenge. Annual reviews will be via Course Analytics to identify issues needing short term action. Comments on subject reviews - agreed this would be the exception.




English Language Proficiency 17. In order to meet the needs of students in the development of English language proficiency, faculties must offer subjects and/or embed strategies, methods and practices to assist students in the ongoing improvement of English language proficiency within their courses, and throughout the course of study. (P11/12; 1I am particularly concerned about the ELP aspects and the implications for domestic and international students, as well as for academics. In already busy degrees, I had hoped that further support for ELP would be available to Faculties, rather than relying on what appears to be academics to assess and provide these components. Clearly we need to ensure that English language skills are encouraged, role modelled and included within our subjects, but I am concerned about the role of the academic in diagnosing, referring and incorporating additional materials into subjects when students are allowed to enter the programs when we know from their IELTS score that they will only grasp about 80% of the language. Ideally they would take part in pathway programs as part of their offer to UOW so as to provide further skills to enhance their success and student experience at UOW. As an example, it would be difficult for students with an IELTS of 6.5 overall (and approx. 6 in each category) to take on the medical terminology within first year anatomy and physiology. This topic has been discussed at length for some time, so by way of summary and reflection I have attached my summary on this matter from when I was the SMAH FEC Chair on 2011.

Further consultation with Alisa Percy and LTC has been undertaken. More clarity to the procedure via Curriculum transformation but main focus will be through provision of resources to support implementation via the LTC Unit.




In a four year bachelor degree with built in honours, a minimum of 32 credit points at 300 or 400 level, excluding the honours thesis component. For four year prescribed courses, honours may be awarded only for those courses which contain 300 and 400 level subjects having a total value of at least 60 credit points, including: • at least 24 credit points at 400 level and at least 36 credit points at 300 level taken by the candidate at this University and • a 400 level thesis or project subject with value of at least 12 credit points. Can definitions for ‘built in’ and ‘prescribed’ please be included in the glossary/definitions at the front as not totally clear here. For example, the BND HONS, which has 16cp at 300 level and then 32cp at 400 level, then the 48 cp 400-level thesis. How would it be defined? – I assume it is a built in HONS

This section has been amended to reflect the post AQF changes on Honours set up and terminologies.


Delivery Mode(s), Delivery Location(s) and Delivery Session(s) 9.2. All courses offered to international students on student visa must meet ESOS requirements: a. Maximum of 25% of subjects by credit point value delivered using online delivery; and b. Maximum of 75% of subjects by credit point value delivered using online delivery in any single study period. I may be missing something?, but (b) is not clear to me, as (a) says that only 25% can be online for international students

This section has been amended to address the issues raised.




Principles for Zero Credit Point Subjects 16.1. To maximise student’s potential and learning experience in a specific area that may not be directly related to the discipline specific course content (example: English Language Proficiency, Mentoring programs, Academic Information Skills) - I have commented on this with regard to ELP in the attached document. 16.3. To provide students with work experience and placement opportunities. – could these opportunities be included for credit points also – e.g. The recently introduced careers central subject, or other project based, placement and capstone subjects. Students are not usually keen to take things on for no credit points. Cross Counting of Subjects c. a major study and a minor study; or d. a major study or specialisation or a minor study and core degree requirements. – could (c ) and (d) be spelt out a bit further for clarity?

Yes it is fine to use these principles against credit bearing subjects. It is just stated for purposes of 0 credit points. The cross counting requirements are long established and operate to allow a maximum of one subject to be cross counted against requirements for, inclusive, the core, a major or specialisation and/or a minor.

CTP Themes Tool / checklist used in BCom review provided as a sample that can be used to embed within procedures to provide examples to faculties.

Taken into account in development of Course Review Procedures

Testamur issuance and conferral matters

Conferral policy to include provisions removed from SoC To be included in Conferrals Policy being prepared by the Student Services Division.


ECAC waiversDelegations and committee roles - suggestion for more efficient approach. Detailed comments

ECAC - have provided that the ECAC role might be discharged if a fully formed proposal was included in a course reviewDelegations and roles - clarified as requested. Edits to process made as requested.

Addition of CTP questions to Course Review Procedures

Questions used for CTP web tool Remove the CTP Web Tool questions proposed from appendix to Course Design Procedures and to be included once they questions are finalised.




Rationale for credit point changes to subjects from 8 to 6 Rationale provided on cover page and supporting resources now available.


Assurance of Learning and Minimum Design Requirements 5. Each course learning outcome should be assured by: 5.1. Content within at least two subjects, 5.2. In the case of award courses at Bachelor Pass, Bachelor Honours and Masters level, content in subjects located at different levels, 5.3. At least two items of assessment, one formative and one summative, 5.4. At least one group based assessment. 5.4 will be difficult for research components where independent writing and presentation is usual

This section is revised as per advise from LTC


EPRS Cover page - where are the new controls for subject content and subject assessment to ensure learning against CLO can be assured

embedded in the course design procedures


Definitions 1. Is this definition of curriculum adequate for the purpose of this document? 2. We need to work on our definition of credit points. Is it appropriate to indicate what 'credit points' are taken to mean in terms of 'workload' for students? 3. Major study definition - Do we want to say something here about the major being a cohesive area of study? 4. Specialisation - this should be carefully reviewed

Will work with LTC to address the terms and meanings. Waiting for further advice from LTC


5.1 Course Design Model - Consider removing the words, 'in order to support student-centred learning'. - A bit uncomfortable with saying that ' . . . course design that ensures all students achieve the course learning outcomes'. It sounds as though one merely has to enrol. Can we alter this to say something like, 'form the basis of course architecture so that students who successfully complete the course meet the course learning outcomes'. - Can we alter this to, 'All UOW courses must be developed or revised to adhere to the course design procedures'?

This section has been updated to align with the UOW curriculum model.




6.2.2 - What is the rationale for point 2.2? Is it not sufficient that the course has distinct course learning outcomes? 6.4 - Should this say 'New courses are allocated '?

The difference in the curriculum and need to differentiate is discussed more in the new version for cognate courses Section 6.3 has been updated


9.4 - We need to fix the noun-verb agreement here. (delivery location) 10.7 - Credit points - for double degrees resolve timetabling issues - but how? 11 - Course structure - minor changes

Done


Dean's Scholar - Can we find a way to distinguish this from other degrees, particularly given that our aim (in the Curriculum Transformation Project) is to have all students have a learning experience which is research based. Perhaps we say 'early exposure'? General Elective - undergraduate student, often to make up the total number of credit points required for the course - This phrase does not really make sense here. Shall we just remove it?

At this point, there is further work required to realise what research based means. Unwilling to mandate an approach. General elective operation has been clarified.


Nursing / Nurse - Abbreviation (post-nominal for UG and PG) In other settings the term BN for Bachelor of Nursing would be appropriate and MN for Master of Nursing. Holding a Bachelor of Nursing does not enable a person to hold themselves out as a registered nurse. That designation is granted only by the professional registering authority AHPRA or the NMBA.

Cannot have BN as this field just denotes discipline not a degree / Cannot have N as it is not enough to understand what it means. Open to other alternatives.

Course Policy 3.2 - Course Design and Curriculum design - what is the difference and do we need to explain this 3.5 - Assessment is effective and expected student learning outcomes are achieved Is at odds with the Provider Standards 5.1.f - Engaging learning experiences which include integrated workplace experiences, international focus and research focus - Would it be better if these more clearly reflected the UOW Curriculum Themes?

Revised as per advice from LTC



Course Policy 11.3.1 - Should we describe core or compulsory subjects? 11.3.4 - Do we need to rewrite this so that it is clear that it is understood that not every course level learning outcome is supported by every single required subject? What about, 'Assessment at the subject level permits students to demonstrate achievement of subject level learning outcomes and contributes to the achievement of one or more course level learning outcomes'. I am not sure how this is different in meaning from 3.4 and the rationale is not clear to me. I can understand the rationale for capstone subjects, but not for core subjects.


Course Policy 5.1.3.b - profile of the overall faculty curriculum - what does this mean? 5.3.b - health checks - should this be course analytics 5.3.d.ii - course - should this be courses 5.3.d.iv - performance data sets - are these different to course analytics

All comments now addressed. Overall faculty curriculum references have been removed.

Course Policy Can we change this to Learning, Teaching & Curriculum is responsible for providing information, advice and consultation to faculties and individual academics to facilitate the design of subject and course curricula which are constructively aligned and reflective of research-based educational practice.

Updated

Cross counting subjects Inconsistency with GCR and Standard on Courses on cross counting subjects This inconsistency has been rectified.

Course Policy I think that this should read ‘…may gain for learning already demonstrated’ because having completed a unit elsewhere (but failed) is not reason to give them credit for it here – they should be able to demonstrate some competency of the unit or activity completed elsewhere. I also think that this item is misplaced – I don’t think it should be included in course design. I agree about the nature of the principle, just not that it should be taken into consideration at course design – there are far too many opportunities for recognising prior learning for them to all be considered as part of course design – they should be general university policy.

Amended via minor revisions. Opportunities to recognise existing pathways and credit opportunities are a course design issue and should be incorporated in course design.



Course Review Procedures - Appendix 2

1. It would be good to separate the evaluation criteria in appendix 2 into those that are evaluated by the Review Committee, and those that are evaluated by the Review Team. For example, under Course Design, points a and b, both are primarily reviewed by a member of the Review Committee, but that committee doesn’t look at the report until the Review Team has finalised the report. 2. Many of the criteria are subjective, and are mainly evaluated by the Course Director (e.g. ‘Is there overlap in demand with other or evidence of possible cannibalisation of other courses?’). Although this is a common accusation, getting good objective data to evaluate such a claim is very difficult – this criterion will end up being evaluated as a series of opinions. Similar examples of subjectivity are under ‘Contemporary Content’, Consistency with other courses (somewhat consistent, partially consistent, very consistent??), ‘Is the course entry handbook clear?’, ‘Is course marketing material accurate?’ 3. Course Coordinator and Course Director seem to be used to refer to the same person/role. 4. Some criteria were difficult to appreciate – ‘What is the performance of students relying on credit under existing arrangements?’

1. This is a difficult issue. We see the Course Review Team as the key operational group, and the Faculty Course Review Panel providing oversight. Not feasible to involve panel in operational discharge of the review. 2. This is difficult to avoid. There are matters of judgement drawn from the context of the courses under review that will necessarily involve expressions of opinion. 3. Reference is made to role of Course Director and inconsistencies have been changed. This role statement is yet to be approved by Academic Senate and would need to be embedded in the Code of Practice Teaching and Assessment4. This has been amended to clarify the intent.



Course Design Procedures - At 11.5 (Assurance of Learning and Minimum Design Requirements)

5.1 may be invalid for some CLOs, such as ‘… completion of a substantial research project…’ as students will only do a single substantial project in an honours year, for example. It’s unclear why ‘two subjects’ is the measure of achieving a particular CLO – it should be the extent to which a particular CLO is met by an assessment item. I can understand that achievement of CLOs might be scaffolded, with introductory skills introduced during 1st year, built on during 2nd year, then achieved in 3rd year, but in that case, the CLO is only met by the 3rd year assessment. The desire to scaffold the development of skills can’t really be achieved through mapping the CLOs. An assessment item either meets the CLO, or it does not. 5.3 suffers from the same problem. For some CLOs, formative assessments aren’t practical (research-training based CLOs for example, but also ‘comprehensive knowledge in xxx’, particularly where large classes are involved). 5.4 is also problematic for the research-training based CLOs, and the ‘comprehensive knowledge’ based CLOs. Any writing skills based CLO is similarly difficult to assess within a group.


Course Design Procedures - At 11.17 (English Language Proficiency)

I continue to be concerned that no central resources are made available to facilitate this. Without resourcing, units will continue to offer their rudimentary grammar and writing workshops/tutorials/written work feedback that gives some guidance to English-speaking students, but the international students that really struggle can’t be given the support they need by English-speaking academics with no English language qualifications. International students will simply get the rudimentary feedback/direction, but struggle whenever they have to submit written or spoken work.

Forwarded to LTC for further consultation and feedback. (Alisa Percy, Catriona Taylor) This is outside the scope of the policy and procedures, and implementation of the policy on English language is underway.



Course Review Procedures6.1 (Annual Review), each course will carry out a high level review on performance based on the ‘Course Analytics data set’. Part of this Health Check relies on the ‘Course Proposal Financial Impact Estimate Tool’.

Have some concerns about this tool. As the instructions page points out, the tool is imprecise. Of most concern is that the number of subjects taught by the owning faculty is required input. For many subjects, students from multiple courses sit in the same subject. This is because the courses have been put together from existing subjects, as a means of mentoring students interested in working in ‘conservation biology’ or ‘marine science’ or ‘medical biotechnology’, so there are many more students sitting in those subjects than just the ones enrolled in a particular degree. The imprecision of the tool may be ‘…the start of a conversation…’ but we will waste much time in conversation if the tool does not give an accurate measure of the viability of a particular course. This is amplified at 6.2 – if major reviews are precipitated by a calculated negative financial impact that is inaccurate. I am surprised that ‘course enrolments’ are the measure that is of concern. To a HOS, ‘subject enrolments’ are of much greater concern, because it is the subject that we invest all of our organizational cost (academic staff to teach, part-time teaching costs, consumables for lab classes). I can see that ‘non-faculty cost’ is also part of the Financial Impact Tool, but it is unclear how this is calculated. I can concede that non-faculty student administration is an institutional cost, but I’m not sure how the cost is different for a student enrolled in a boutique course compared with one enrolled in a generic course. I can see that there is a slight increase in faculty administration (need for different course coordinators, for example), but I’m not sure what the difference is at the university level.

Forwarded to Fred Reich (Finance Team) to provide a response or address the feedback. Note consultation with Management Accounting and Systems Manager.

Course Review Procedures - Appendix 2, at ‘Sufficient and Sustainable Demand’

This question is not a concern for those courses that are put together from collections of subjects that service multiple courses

Agreed and it should be noted that the University identifies subjects and subject instances as the main cost driver for courses.

Specialisations Clarity in the use of terminology in Student Systems, testamurs and communication

Work in progress and should be resolved through the Curriculum Management System project



Double, dual and joint qualifications

Lack of definition and procedure around different types of qualifications in the design procedures

Defined in Course Design Procedures. Joint and Dual Awards will be regulated separately. Not all joint and dual awards involve a new course.

Inconsistency in minimum credit point requirements

No consistency in policy provisions for minimum requirements in a major study for 300 level subjects in GCR and Course Design Procedures

Procedures now include guidance on this issue

Assurance of Learning 5 Page information on AoL. Margaret, Simon & Marcus have been consulted and information revised as per their advice

Fee approval issue An approval process for variable fees for discontinued or suspended courses Need to review Course Approval Procedures and Forms – outside scope of this package

Course Cost Calculator Not applicable for Open / MOOCS type online courses Not relevant to existing procedures Admissions Recommendations on changes to entry requirements from Admission Rules and

Procedures Addressed - using slight variation on suggested language.


Various concerns raised with regards to definitions, entry requirements and course structure

Addressed in latest version

Course Policy & Design Procedures

Where do research courses fit in the overall scheme for course design Course design includes all courses including research courses. A qualification table is established to show this.

Course Approval Design and Delivery

Details will be TEQSA's benchmarking guide to be referred to across the policy document

Including references

Procedure for changing credit points for subjects

Developing principles for implementation Completed and available for use.

Subject Reviews and Membership of Subject

Clarity in subject reviews for core and elective subjects and membership issues on panels undertaking subject reviews.

Requested clarification has been provided.



Review Groups

Offshore campuses Regular review and maintenance of offshore campuses in Students Systems Provision made in Course Design Procedures Course Design Procedures

Addition of policy provisions / design requirements for Associate degrees Proposed to be included in a future version


Need to clarify operation in relation to UOW College courses Clarified – will only apply to AQF awards offered by UOW College.


Inconsistency between approval of a Faculty Course Review Panel and an ECAC. ED can approve one but DVCA the other

Clarified – for consistency, DVCA should approve both.


Request by EPRS to change “re-accredit” to “re-approve” Agreed – language changed in all documents


More clarity on the timelines for implementing course reviews (implies 9 months) and on the process for getting an extension of 1 year on re-approval

Agreed – clear that there is a rolling 6 month report required until the recommendations are finalised


Various changes requested by the Director, LTC to align procedures to Assessment and Feedback Principles and the UOW Curriculum Model

Agreed


Some minor changes sought by Director LTC to align procedures to the Assessment and Feedback Principles, and to clarify assurance of learning processes

Agreed


ACADEMIC CONSIDERATION POLICY AGENDA ITEM C2

1 Background The Academic Consideration Policy exists to enable students to request consideration for their academic performance when they have been affected by extenuating circumstances, and to ensure the process for students is transparent, fair, and consistent. Given the volume of applications received and processed (21,088 in 2013 and 23,188 in 2014), academic consideration represents a significant amount of both the student and staff administrative time. The Client Service Unit of the Student Services Division inherited the Academic Consideration Policy in late 2013 from the (then) Policy and Governance Unit. The policy was due for review in December 2013. During 2014, the Client Service Unit collated feedback on the policy and its application from students, frontline admin staff, and academic approvers. The policy is now overdue for review.

• The need for effectiveness in this area is particularly prudent given recent discoveries of students at other universities purchasing false medical certificates, as advised by the UOW Student Ombudsman Sam Hardy - more information also here:

o http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/61306/ballarat-university-students-in-scam-probe/ o http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/the-great-aussie-degree-scam-forgers-raking-in-

thousands-selling-bogus-qualifications/story-fnkgbb3b-1227284475119 o http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4216163.htm o http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/international-students-in-fake-

certificate-scam

The aim of this review is to review and make any necessary adjustments for: • Compliance with privacy and record keeping legislations • Compatibility with related UOW Policies • Effectiveness, in terms of supporting students in need of consideration • Effectiveness, in terms of protecting the integrity of UOW’s academic assessment and

consideration processes • Compatibility of the policy with existing processes (how the policy is being implemented and used)

2 Legislative Conformance • The Senior Manager, Records Management Ellenie Petrou has advised that the current process

does not comply with the State Records Act NSW, 1998. Under this act, we are required to retain copies of the documentation provided by students for a minimum of 3 years. Due to the volumes involved, this would require a system solution and should be included as part of the next review cycle, along with a proposal for system support.

• The UOW Privacy Officer Carmel Perre has advised that the policy conforms with privacy legislation.


http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/61306/ballarat-university-students-in-scam-probe/

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/the-great-aussie-degree-scam-forgers-raking-in-thousands-selling-bogus-qualifications/story-fnkgbb3b-1227284475119

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/the-great-aussie-degree-scam-forgers-raking-in-thousands-selling-bogus-qualifications/story-fnkgbb3b-1227284475119

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4216163.htm

http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/international-students-in-fake-certificate-scam

http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/international-students-in-fake-certificate-scam

3 Academic Consideration Overview

The steps highlighted in orange are those which do not always occur in practice, depending on the situation. Many students submit applications without first consulting with their subject coordinator, and during peak times frontline staff are not always able to spot check 1 in 10 documents, although this is the ideal.

4 Related Documents Document Action Student Academic Consideration Guidelines Update once policy is finalised Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration Update once policy is finalised Student Academic Consideration Online Application

Update once policy is finalised

Flowchart of Process for Applying for Academic Consideration


Flowchart of Process for Responding to Academic Consideration Application


Coursework Students Academic Complaints Policy Consistent. No changes required Supplementary Assessment Guidelines Consistent. No changes required Records Management Policy Ellenie Petrou has advised that the current process

does not comply with the State Records Act NSW, 1998. Under this act, we are required to retain copies of the documentation provided by students for a minimum of 3 years. Due to the volumes involved, this would require a system solution and should be included as part of the next review cycle, along with a proposal for system support.



Privacy Policy Carmel Perre has advised that the policy conforms with privacy legislation.

Code of Conduct – Staff Consistent. No changes required


5 Review Plan

Milestone Task Start Date Completion Date Status Policy Draft Analyse historical AC data Access and analyse data for AC applications in 2014 01 Feb 02 Mar Done Draft 1 – 1 Feb to

29 May Draft Policy Write first draft of policy with stakeholder feedback 01 Feb 29 May Done Discussion Paper

Discussion paper & cover paper 02 Mar 27 Mar Done

Stakeholder Engagement Meetings Meet with key stakeholders to get feedback on policy • Support staff – 4 March • Student Central Staff – 6 March • Heads of Students & Subject coordinators – 23 March • Disability Services • Other Campuses – emailed • Student Reps • Subject Coordinators – emailed

09 Mar 27 Mar Done

Education Policy Review Subcommittee

Discussion Paper with stakeholder feedback 27 Mar (agenda) 15 Apr (meeting) Done

Compliance with Supplementary Assessment Guidelines

Consult with Jim Davies 27 Mar 29 May Done

Compliance with Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy

Consult with Tori Funnell 27 Mar 29 May Done

Compliance with HDR Student Academic Complaints Policy

Consult with Tori Funnell 27 Mar 29 May Done

Compliance with Records Management Policy

Consult with ECM 27 Mar 29 May Done

Other unis survey Survey other unis to address key questions from EPRS 22 Apr 1 May Done Compliance with privacy legislation Consult with Legal Services Unit 27 Mar 29 May Done Steering Committee Meet with Ian Porter, Sam Hardy, and John Littrich from EPRS to

discuss aspects of discussion paper 4 May 4 May Done

Education Policy Review Subcommittee

Draft 1 - Endorsement 29 May (agenda) 17 Jun (meeting) Done

Draft Policy Revised draft with EPRS feedback 18 Jun 4 Sep Done Draft 2 – 1 July – 28 July Wide Consultation Send out for wide consultation via web 1 Jul 17 Jul

Consult with ADEs Consult with Associate Deans Education 1 Jul 17 Jul Emailed 30 June

Senior Manager, Governance Unit Consult with Nancy Huggett 1 Jul 17 Jul Done Director SSD Consult with Megan Huisman 20 Jul 28 Jul Final version Write final version of policy 29 Jul 31 Jul Final Version – 29

July – 31 July University Education Committee Endorsement 7 Jul (agenda) 15 July (meeting)


Academic Senate Endorsement 2 Sep (agenda) 23 Sep (meeting) Guideline Update guideline Practioner Cert Finalise Practioner Certificate & communicate with regional centres

for their local providers. Communicate with Wollongong campus local providers.

University Council Endorsement 13 Nov (agenda) 4 Dec (meeting)


6 2013 and 2014 Application Data 21,088 applications received in 2013 and 23,188 in 2014

AC Affected Item 2013 % 2014 % Attendance/Participation 7823 37.10% 8989 38.77% Blanks (reports do not recognise) 6290 29.83% 6670 28.76% End-of -session exam 2217 10.51% 2091 9.02% In-session test 1323 6.27% 1537 6.63% Essay 1103 5.23% 1387 5.98% Other 1140 5.41% 1288 5.55% Report 580 2.75% 572 2.47% Oral Presentation 236 1.12% 220 0.95% Project 182 0.86% 181 0.78% Performance 125 0.59% 167 0.72% Journal 43 0.20% 57 0.25% Honours thesis 26 0.12% 29 0.13% Grand Total 21088 23188

AC Type 2013 % 2014 % Consideration for non-attendance/participation 8328 39.49% 9481 40.89% Extension of time to submit an assessment task 4721 22.39% 5112 22.05% Permission to undertake a supplementary end-of-session exam 2468 11.70% 2478 10.69% Permission to undertake a supplementary in-session test 1493 7.08% 1651 7.12% Consideration in determining a final mark 1394 6.61% 1493 6.44% Consideration in giving a mark to a particular assessment task/component 1196 5.67% 1268 5.47% Permission to undertake a supplementary assessment task 760 3.60% 941 4.06% Other 729 3.46% 763 3.29% Grand Total 21089 23187

AC Supporting Documentation 2013 % 2014 % Medical Certificate 14104 66.88% 15769 68.01% Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration 5556 26.35% 5907 25.48% Notification or letter from registered psychologist 383 1.82% 455 1.96% Letter from an employer on company letterhead 281 1.33% 309 1.33% Selection confirmation on the letterhead of the state, national or international sporting body 252 1.19% 299 1.29% UOW Subject Outline 61 0.29% 97 0.42% Death certificate (plus Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration) 107 0.51% 89 0.38% Death notice (plus Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration) 100 0.47% 65 0.28% Letter from minister of religion (or the like) on relevant letterhead 34 0.16% 59 0.25% Letter from a relevant cultural authority 78 0.37% 52 0.22% Jury Notice or letter from relevant authority on relevant letterhead 56 0.27% 43 0.19% Satisfactory written evidence from the armed forces on relevant letterhead 39 0.18% 23 0.10% Police report 26 0.12% 12 0.05% Police event number plus Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration 12 0.06% 8 0.03% Grand Total 21089 23187


AC Result 2013 % 2014 % Approved 18626 88.32% 20626 88.96% Application Requires further information 1253 5.94% 1311 5.65% Denied 583 2.76% 583 2.51% Application will be referred to the Unit/Faculty Assessment Committee 568 2.69% 547 2.36% (Blanks) 59 0.28% 120 0.52% Grand Total 21089 23187

AC Outcome (Reason) 2013 % 2014 %

Consideration granted for non attendance/participation 6641 31.49% 8252 35.59% Granted extension of time until 4764 22.59% 4932 21.27% Permission to undertake a supplementary end-of-session exam. Check your personalised timetable in SOLS or contact the Faculty. 2030 9.63% 2078 8.96% Permission to undertake a supplementary assessment task. 1930 9.15% 1960 8.45% With the agreement of the Head of Academic Unit, consideration will be given for a mark in a particular assessment task/component. 1392 6.60% 1313 5.66% None 1253 5.94% 1311 5.65% Permission to undertake an in-session supplementary test. Now scheduled for 936 4.44% 1083 4.67% With the agreement of the Head of Academic Unit, consideration will be given in determining a final mark. 933 4.42% 1008 4.35% You will be advised of the outcome of your application by SOLS. If you do not receive notification of the outcome within two working days of release of results, you should contact the Faculty. 569 2.70% 546 2.35% Application does not warrant academic consideration. 280 1.33% 265 1.14% Application submitted beyond deadlines specified for academic consideration. 112 0.53% 135 0.58% Blanks (reports do not recognise) 59 0.28% 120 0.52% Dates in application do not relate to the due date of the assessment task. 108 0.51% 109 0.47% Supporting documentation does not confirm details in application. 56 0.27% 37 0.16% Assessment task has been returned to students. 17 0.08% 26 0.11% Application submitted beyond deadlines specified for end-of-session exam. 10 0.05% 11 0.05% Grand Total 21090 23186


7 Stakeholder Consultation n addition to collating ad-hoc feedback during 2013 and 2014 and benchmarking the practices of other Australian Universities, the Manager Client Service met with the following stakeholder groups in order to develop policy revision recommendations: Stakeholder Group Consult date Student Support Advisors

• Anne-Marie Smith • Danial Morgan

4th March

Robbie Collins – Shoalhaven Campus 4th March (phone)

Client Service Representatives (Student Central) • Michelle Brennan • Franca Ferraro • Christina Constantinou • Hannah Robson • Nataasha Lewis

6th March

Counselling & Disability Unit Staff • Pauline Cook • Petria McGoldrick • Jocelyn Harper

19th March

WUPA President - Shaheena Muniruzzaman 19th March Academic Approvers

• Caz Sandison – EIS • Rodney Vickers – EIS • Trish Mundy – LHA • Ann Rogerson – BUS

23rd March

EPRS Meeting 1 15th April EPRS Working Group

• At the request of EPRS, a group of select representatives from this subcommittee (Ian Porter, Sam Hardy, and John Littrich), met with Xanthe Knox (Manager, Client Service), Ian Wilson (Dean of Medicine, School of Medicine) and Samantha Domagala (Senior Manager, Client Service) to finalise revisions which would be incorporated into the new policy.

4thMay

EPRS Meeting 2 • The policy has been endorsed by the EPRS at their 17th June 2015 meeting.

17th June

Associate Deans Education • Policy documents sent to ADEs for feedback by 17th July

30th June

Emails were also sent to student representatives via Nancy Hugget, and subject coordinators via Faculty Centrals inviting feedback prior to 27 March. The Policy will also be available for wide student and staff feedback via the policy website during late July.


8 Recommendations for Future Policy Review The 2015 review of the Academic Consideration Policy has revealed the need for wider changes. Many Australian Universities have made clear distinctions between less-serious consideration for non-attendance, and significant disruptions to studies which last more than 3 days. Most stakeholders acknowledged the need for these issues to be treated separately at UOW also, especially in light of the high application volumes. In addition, the process as it stands is non-compliant with records keeping legislation and the system which supports it would benefit from a number of changes. However, any such changes will require significant system development. It is therefore recommended that a second policy review commence in late 2016 or early 2017 to consider a system support argument for the next iteration of the policy in 2021.

8.1 Experience of UWS A discussion with Deirdre Lee (Executive Officer, Education Committee and Academic Policy) from UWS on 1 May 2015 revealed some interesting outcomes in terms of their experiences during their current policy review, summarised as follows:

• UWS processes a similar number of applications annually (around 22,000) • They identified that there is a problem with the process (called Special Consideration) being

used far too broadly for issues such as common colds, migraines, and everyday occurrences; however they wanted consideration to be reserved only for severe disruption to study

• Determined that it was appropriate to separate consideration into ‘request for extension’ which will be handled via a separate form directly between the student and the coordinator; and a ‘Disruption to studies’ policy which is intended to request alternative assessment arrangement for students who have experienced severe disruptions to their studies for 3 days or more

• Created a detailed schedule to link circumstances to appropriate evidence, and situations to appropriate outcomes

• This model is similar to that used at Newcastle and Macquarie Universities • Review still in process and expected to be finalised within the next 6 to 12 months

Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee endorse the revisions made to the academic consideration policy as set out in the agenda paper and attachments, and note the recommendation for a future policy review.

ATTACHMENT

i. Academic Consideration Revision Summary ii. Academic Consideration Policy (revised draft)

iii. Example UOW Professional Authority Form Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Xanthe Knox, Manager Client Service




of 7 Summary of Significant Changes to Academic Consideration Policy

SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE TO ACADEMIC CONSIDERATION POLICY

Current (original) Policy available at http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058721.html

Snapshot – Major Changes

Any applications made on medical grounds (physical and/or psychological illness) must be supported by a new defined document, a UOW Professional Practitioner Certificate. Medical ground applications will not be processed without this certificate

Statutory declarations must be accompanied by secondary evidence (now defined in policy). Statutory declarations without secondary evidence will not be accepted

Statutory declarations cannot be used to support medical grounds, with or without secondary evidence (explicitly stated in policy)

Added provision for known critical incidents to be approved by the Director, Student Services Division and for a memo to be the appropriate evidence in these cases

Policy principles changed to more correctly reflect the underlying principles which inform the policy Greater clarity around less‐serious circumstances which are not eligible for academic consideration, and

therefore will not be considered, including naming explicit circumstances Added eligibility criteria to address a student’s role in acting to foresee or protect themselves from

circumstances Where possible, made the possibility of an application being declined more obvious

It is hoped that these changes will:

Create a more robust framework which better enforces the integrity and intent of the academic consideration process

Reduce the number of applications for circumstances which are not covered by the policy (eg. Unable to find carpark or students sleeping through an alarm).

Reduce the number of medical certificates provided with insufficient detail for assessors to make an informed decision

Reduce the number of standalone statutory declarations used where students should be reasonably expected to provide some form of evidence

Intercept clearly non‐compliant applications at administration, reducing the burden on assessors Provide assessors with greater clarity and confidence in regards to their ability to decline applications if they

do not meet eligibility criteria



Summary of Changes – Detailed

Overall Changes

Changed all reference to Academic Registrar’s Division to Student Services Division Changed all reference to Sub Dean to Head of Students Changed all references to the Grievance Policy to the new ‘Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy

and Higher Degree Research Student Academic Complaints Policy’

Purpose of Policy

Replaced: ‘specific assessment tasks, examinations, academic progress or attendance requirements in a subject’

With: ‘Assessable components of a subject’ Removed: ‘Relevant to their course’ Removed entire clause as not adding value: ‘This Policy sets out clear and defined requirements allowing for

transparency, ease of interpretation and implementation. Consistency in criteria, procedures, and outcomes in the processing of applications for academic consideration for all forms of assessment are requirements of this Policy.’

Definitions

Academic Unit: Replaced definition to be consistent with General Course Rules Assessment: Replaced definition to be consistent with General Course Rules Course: Replaced definition to be consistent with General Course Rules Deferred Assessment: Added ‘Head of Students’ as a possible approver and clarified that a deferred

assessment is held after the normal assessment period. Removed: ‘Full‐time, sessional or fractional’ from definition of academic staff Added ‘academic consideration’ definition, and subsequently removed this duplicate text from ‘Academic

Consideration’ section Updated definitions of medical practitioner for clarity Added definition for registered psychologist Changed definition of Head of Students to be consistent with language used to define Subject Coordinator.

Application and Scope

Moved point 3 from this section ‘Academic consideration is only granted in serious or extenuating circumstances, which are beyond a student’s control and which significantly impair a student’s ability to complete an assessment task on or by the due date as stipulated in the Subject Outline or to progress academically in a subject relevant to their course of study.’ To Academic consideration section to help define the process.

Moved point 4 from this section ‘Academic consideration is not intended to accommodate those common occurrences which interfere with daily life. Students who need assistance with study skills, essay writing or time management should contact Learning Development.’ To Academic consideration section to help define the process.

Moved point 5 from this section ‘Students who make five or more applications for academic consideration within six calendar months will be requested to contact the Sub Dean/Associate Dean of the Faculty for academic advice.’ To the support section as this is more appropriate.

Moved point 6 from this section ‘Students cannot apply for academic consideration after completing and submitting an assessment task, including an examination, or once grades have been declared for that



subject. In these circumstances, students can consult with the Sub Dean/Associate Dean of the Faculty which offered the subject or lodge a grievance following the Faculty’s grievance procedures.’ Into the timeframes section where it is more appropriate

Policy Principles

Removed point 1 ‘All undergraduate students, Honours students, postgraduate coursework students, distance education students, Higher Degree Research students enrolled in coursework subjects, non‐award students and UOW staff shall follow the requirements stipulated in this Policy’ as it is already covered in Application and Scope section’

Added statements as suggested by AQS to cover underlying principles of the policy

Moved point 2 from under the Academic Consideration Section ‘It is not possible for academic consideration to compensate for every consequence of illness, injury, other serious cause, or extenuating circumstance affecting a student’s academic progress. However, academic consideration, where appropriate, may help to minimise the impact of such circumstances by providing a mechanism to vary assessment requirements of a subject or to avoid some of the usual consequences of failure in a subject’ into this section as it is more appropriate as an underlying principle

Academic Consideration

Removed point 1 from Application section ‘Students will apply for academic consideration for all forms of assessment through SOLS.’ To this section.

Moved point 3 from Application and Scope section ‘Academic consideration is only granted in serious or extenuating circumstances, which are beyond a student’s control and which significantly impair a student’s ability to complete an assessment task on or by the due date as stipulated in the Subject Outline or to progress academically in a subject relevant to their course of study.’ To this section to help define the process.

Moved point 3 from Application and Scope section ‘Academic consideration is not intended to accommodate those common occurrences which interfere with daily life. Students who need assistance with study skills, essay writing or time management should contact Learning Development.’ To this section to help define the process.

Added ‘Students should discuss less serious issues which may be affecting their studies with their subject coordinator or an academic advisor in their faculty.’

o Replaced point 3, which was specifically defining outcomes, with a broader statement ‘Applications may be declined or approved after assessment by the relevant Subject Coordinator and/or Head of Students. The outcome of an application is determined by whether it meets criteria for eligibility set out in this policy.’

Responsibilities

Moved to end of policy (now section 15)

Under point 2, changed wording of ‘illness, injury, other serious cause, or extenuating circumstance as outlined in Section 8 of this Policy’ to ‘because of circumstances compliant with Section 8 of this Policy’

Changed point 2.a ‘provide for verification supporting documentation within the relevant timeframe as outlined in clauses 10.9 and 10.10’ to ‘lodge an application for academic consideration via SOLS, and provide documentary evidence within the timeframes outlined in section 7 of this policy’

Added point 2.b ‘Ensure that documentary evidence meets the criteria outlined in section 8 of this policy’ and subsequently removed point 2.d ‘ensure that the date/s specified in the documentary evidence is/are relevant to the date of the assessment task’

Added point 2.d ‘contact the relevant Head of Students via the Faculty if they have not received a response from their subject coordinator within ten working days’ – and subsequently removed point 7 which was separated and not sitting under the student responsibility section.



Added point 7.b to Head of Student’s Responsibility ‘Act as assessor for applications which are escalated automatically if not responded to by the Subject Coordinator within 5 working days, following the same assessment guidelines relevant to a Subject Coordinator as outlined in this Policy.’

Privacy and Confidentially

Moved to end of policy (now section 16)

Eligibility

Changed name of section to ‘Circumstances Eligible for Academic Consideration’

In point 1, changed ‘significantly affected by illness, injury, other serious cause, or extenuating circumstance’ to ‘significantly affected by medical, compassionate, or extenuating circumstances’ to comply with policy wording

Subsequently removed point 2 as this was duplicating information ‘Applications for academic consideration will be considered on the basis of medical grounds, compassionate grounds and/or extenuating circumstances.’

Added point 2 ‘Were beyond the student’s control, not due to their action or inaction, and which could not have been reasonably foreseen or avoided’

Added point 3 ‘These circumstances are supported by documentary evidence as outlined in section 8.’

Gave each classification of circumstance its own sub heading number – medical grounds, compassionate grounds, extenuating circumstances, and non‐eligible circumstances

Removed ‘short‐term’ duration from definition of medical as it is vague and not all long‐term conditions are eligible for an RA

Changed point 6 ‘Students who have a disability, or students who are associates of persons with a disability, and require reasonable adjustment are eligible to and should apply for academic consideration in circumstances where their ability to complete an assessment task on or by the due date or to progress academically in a subject relevant to their course of study is significantly affected on medical grounds unrelated to their or their associate’s disability such as for short‐term illness, injury, other serious cause or extenuating circumstance as defined in section 8.’ To ‘Students who have a disability, or students who are associates of persons with a disability, for which they have been approved a reasonable adjustment should apply for academic consideration if they are affected by circumstances such as those outlined in section 6 unrelated to the existing disability.’

Moved compassionate grounds information above extenuating circumstances

Removed ‘of reasonable significance that interfere with the student’s ability to meet a subject’s requirements’ from definition of extenuating circumstances as this has already been well established in other parts of the policy

Removed point 7.j ‘unavailability of student professional experience opportunity’ as this clause is not used and is actually handled outside AC by faculties

Added ‘with an official sporting body’ to definition of sporting commitments

Moved religious reasons and cultural events together

Replaced ‘Academic consideration will not be granted on grounds such as usual or routine work or family commitments, or clashes with recreational activities or holiday arrangements.’ With wording to address the student’s role in acting to foresee or protect themselves from the circumstance, and explicitly naming circumstances which are not eligible. New wording is:

Academic consideration will not be granted on grounds of common occurrences which interfere with daily life, situations which are caused by a student’s action or inaction, or situations which could have reasonably been foreseen and avoided by the student. Non‐eligible circumstances include, but are not limited to:



i. Usual or routine work

ii. Computer failures where a student has failed to back up their work

iii. Multiple exams within a time period which do not clash with each other

iv. Multiple assessment tasks due in a period

v. Usual or routine family commitments such as birthdays

vi. Clashes with recreational activities or holiday arrangements

Timeframes for Applying and Providing Documentary Evidence

Changed name of section from ‘Applications’ to ‘Timeframes for applying and providing documentary evidence

Removed point 1 ‘Students will apply for academic consideration for all forms of assessment through SOLS.’ And moved it under the ‘Academic Consideration Heading’ as this section is dedicated to timeframes.

Completely changed wording of timeframes as per consultation with EPRS. New wording provides greater clarity and definition for timeframes.

OLD:

Applications shall normally be made:

in advance of the due date of an assessment task, including the scheduled date for an in‐session test or end‐of‐session examination

on the due date of an assessment task, including the scheduled date for an in‐session test or end‐of‐session examination,

or, on rare occasions

no later than three working days after the scheduled date for an assessment task, including the scheduled date for an in‐session test or end‐of‐session examination, in the event of an illness, injury, other serious cause, or extenuating circumstance coinciding with the scheduled assessment date.

In exceptional circumstances, the above timing requirements may be exempted by the Subject Coordinator. Late applications will be denied for non‐compliance unless an exemption is granted. Examples of exceptional circumstances justifying an exemption may include, but are not limited to, an accidental injury or sudden illness requiring the student’s immediate hospitalisation, or a student being homebound without access to a computer.

All applications for academic consideration must be supported by appropriate documentation in accordance with Section 10.

NEW:

Where a circumstance is known in advance, students should apply and provide documentary evidence for academic consideration in advance of the due date of an assessment task or scheduled date of an examination. This will allow subject coordinators appropriate time to assist students in managing their studies, as well as providing a greater opportunity for students to receive an outcome before a due date.

Where an application cannot be made in advance of the due date, because the circumstance was unexpected and occurred on this date, students must apply and provide documentary evidence within 3 working days of the assessment task or scheduled date of the examination.

The above timing requirements may be exempted by the Subject Coordinator if exceptional circumstances prevented the student from applying and providing documentary evidence within the specified timeframe. Late applications will be denied unless an exemption is granted. Examples of exceptional circumstances justifying an exemption may include, but are not limited to, an accidental injury or sudden illness requiring the student’s immediate hospitalisation, or a student being homebound without access to a computer.



Where a student has applied close to or after the due date for an extension of time or deferred examination, they must understand that they will receive an outcome after the due date, and that the outcome of their application may not be successful.

All applications for academic consideration must be supported by appropriate documentary evidence in accordance with Section 8.

Students cannot apply for academic consideration after completing and submitting an assessment task, including an examination, or once grades have been declared for that subject. In these circumstances, students can consult with the Head of Students of the Faculty which offered the subject or lodge an Academic Complaint following the ‘Coursework Students Academic Complaints Policy’ or the ‘Higher Degree Research Academic Complaints Policy’.

Supporting Documentation

Added option to email documentation, removed requirement for hardcopy original

Added dot points for information which must be included in supporting documentation

Specified that medical circumstances (both physical and mental health) can only be supported by a UOW professional authority form.

Added clause to state the statutory declarations are not accepted to support medical grounds

Removed ‘For applications for academic consideration made in advance or on the due date of an assessment task, including the scheduled date for an in‐session test or end‐of‐session examination, supporting documentation must be submitted within three working days of the SOLS application.’ and ‘For applications for academic consideration made after the due date of an assessment task or the scheduled date for an in‐session test or end‐of‐session examination, supporting documentation must be submitted on the same or next working day of the SOLS application.’ ‐ As this is covered in the timing section

Removed ‘Where it is not possible to obtain supporting documentation, students must seek advice from the Subject Coordinator before or at the same time as lodging the application. In some cases, the Subject Coordinator may refer the student to the Sub Dean/Associate Dean for further consultation. Following consultation with the Subject Coordinator (and Sub Dean/Associate Dean where necessary) the student must complete a Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration to support the application. The declaration should state in detail the facts upon which academic consideration is based, attaching any relevant information or documentation to support statements made in the declaration’ after consultation with EPRS working group. These details are now covered in other clauses of this section which refer to statutory declarations and secondary evidence.

Moved ‘Subject Coordinators are formally notified of applications for academic consideration by email only after supporting documentation is verified.’ To top to be with general information about documentation.

Added provision for known critical incidents to be approved by the Director, Student Services Division and for a memo to be the appropriate evidence in these cases

Made eligibility of different types of documentation more explicit, and linked them to the different circumstance categories with sub‐headings.

Response Times to Applications

No significant changes

Outcomes of Academic Considerations

Moved denied to top of list as first possibility so it is more obvious to students, as feedback suggests that many students are surprised by declined outcomes



Added ‘Students should be aware that a denied application is not an indication that UOW staff do not believe their circumstances are genuine, but that their application and/or documentary evidence do not meet the criteria outlined in this Policy.’

Added request for additional evidence and/or information as possible outcome

Included a clause which states that students may be offered an alternative outcome to what they have requested in their application.

Moved criteria for granting academic consideration under the outcomes section. This was previously a standalone section (11).

Moved the clause which states that a student’s eligibility to graduate may be impacted to the top so that it applies to all situations.

Support Available for Students

Moved point 5 from application and scope ‘Students who make five or more applications for academic consideration within six calendar months will be requested to contact the Sub Dean/Associate Dean of the Faculty for academic advice.’ To the support section as this is more appropriate.

Appeal against a Decision on Academic Consideration

Removed clause relating to ad hoc arrangements made by academics

Broke up clause 2 into 2 separate clauses for clarity

Schedule 1 – Application of Policy at Offshore Partner Institutions Added this section to provide clarity for offshore partner institutions on how to use and apply this policy


ARD-P&G-POL-002 Student Academic Consideration Policy 2013 Dec Page 1 of 14

Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled, please refer to internet for latest version


STUDENT ACADEMIC CONSIDERATION POLICY Date approved 12 October

2007 Date Policy will take effect

25 July 2016 Date of Next Review

December 2021

Approved by University Council

Custodian title & e-mail address

Senior Manager Client Service, Student Services Division [email protected]

Responsible Faculty/Division & Unit


Supporting documents, procedures & forms of this policy

Schedule 1: Application of Policy at offshore partner institutions Student Academic Consideration Guidelines Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration Student Academic Consideration Online Application UOW Professional Authority Form Flowchart of Process for Applying for Academic Consideration Flowchart of Process for Responding to Academic Consideration Application Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy Records Management Policy

References & Legislation

Disability Policy – Students Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment

Standards for the Finalisation of Academic Results

Audience Public – accessible to anyone

Expiry date of Policy

Not Applicable

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




Contents

1 Purpose of Policy ........................................................................................................................ 2

2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 2

3 Application & Scope .................................................................................................................... 3

4 Policy Principles .......................................................................................................................... 3

5 Academic Consideration ............................................................................................................. 3

6 Circumstances Eligible for Academic Consideration ................................................................... 4

7 Timeframes for Applying and Providing Documentary Evidence ................................................. 5

8 Documentary Evidence ............................................................................................................... 5

9 Response Times to Applications ................................................................................................. 7

10 Outcomes of Academic Consideration ........................................................................................ 8

11 Support Available for Students ................................................................................................... 9

12 Appeal against a Decision on Academic Consideration .............................................................. 9

13 Responsibilities ......................................................................................................................... 10

14 Privacy and Confidentiality........................................................................................................ 11

15 Review and Change History ..................................................................................................... 12

16 Schedule 1 – Application of Policy at Offshore Partner Institutions ........................................... 12

1 Purpose of Policy 1. The purpose of the Student Academic Consideration Policy is to enable student requests for

academic consideration for assessable components of a subject to be evaluated in a fair, reasonable, timely and consistent manner throughout the University.

2 Definitions

Word/Term Definition

Academic Complaint A complaint about a decision, act or omission by a member of the University staff that affects a student’s academic experience. Students can refer to the Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy for further details.

Academic Consideration Academic consideration is intended to help minimise the impact of serious or extenuating circumstances beyond a student’s control which significantly impair a student’s ability to complete an assessment task on or by the due date as stipulated in the Subject Outline; or to progress academically in a subject relevant to their course of study. Academic consideration may be granted on the basis of medical grounds, compassionate grounds and/or extenuating circumstances.

Academic Progress Successful completion of subjects towards a degree within established time limits.

Academic Staff Staff of the University who carry out teaching responsibilities under the authority of the Head of an Academic Unit.




Word/Term Definition

Academic Unit Faculty, School, Unit, Program or Discipline.

Assessment work which a student is required to complete to provide a basis for an official record of achievement or certification of competence in a subject. This may include summative and/or formative forms of assessment. Examples of assessments include, but are not limited to: examination, test, take-home examination, quiz, assignment, essay, laboratory report, thesis, demonstration, performance, tutorial presentation, class participation, practicum, clinical placement, and work experience

Faculty Assessment Committee

The Faculty Assessment Committee is as described in the Faculty Assessment Committee Terms of Reference, Schedule 2 of the Standards for the Finalisation of Academic Results.

Associate A UOW student who provides support to a person with a disability who may or may not be a student at UOW. An associate may include but is not limited to:

1. spouse of the person;

2. another person who is living with the person on a genuine domestic basis;

3. a relative of the person;

4. a carer of the person, and

5. other groups listed within the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (C’wlth).

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

Deferred assessment

An assessment taken after the normal assessment period or due date by an eligible student as a result of a Student Academic Consideration application, as approved by the relevant Subject Coordinator or Head of Students. Deferred assessment includes in-session or end-of-session assignments and examinations and can be administered by the faculty or centrally.

Disability Disability, in relation to a person, includes:

a. total or partial loss of a person’s bodily or mental functions;

b. total or partial loss of a part of the body;

c. the presence of a body of organisms causing disease or illness;

d. the presence of a body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness;

e. the malfunction, malformation, or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body;

f. a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or

g. a disorder or illness that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions, or judgement or that results in disturbed behaviour.

And one which:

h. presently exists;




i. previously existed but no longer exists;

j. may exist in the future; or

k. is imputed to a person.

End-of-session Examination Period

Period during which examinations are held, normally conducted by the Student Services Division.

Head of Students An academic staff member with nominated responsibility for providing academic advice and decisions for a particular faculty.

In-session Test A test, examination, quiz or in-class review conducted by an academic unit during session.

Non-award Student A student enrolled in any course that does not lead to a higher education award at the University.

Offshore Partner Institution An institution with which UOW collaborates to deliver UOW courses at locations outside Australia (excluding UOW Dubai).

Reasonable Adjustments Alternative arrangements that are made to ensure that students with a disability and students who are associates of persons with a disability are able to undertake their study and complete their course requirements without disadvantage.

Regional Centre UOW sites at Batemans Bay, Bega, Moss Vale and Loftus.

Registered Medical Practitioner

A medically qualified person registered with AHPRA as a medical practitioner to practice in Australia.

Registered Psychologist A qualified person registered with AHPRA as a psychologist to practice in Australia.

Session A period in which subjects may be offered. Standard sessions are defined as Autumn and Spring. Non-standard sessions may be created in accordance with the Session Policy.

Student Support Adviser (SSA)

Student Support Advisers work within Faculties to provide programs which assist students with access and equity issues at university.

Student Management Package (SMP)

Student Management Package (SMP) consists of SOLS, SMP-Central and the Student administration software and web based systems.

SMP-Central SMP-Central is a class management system used by lecturers, subject co-ordinators and other staff to view and edit class rolls, group students into tutorials, enter assignment marks, enter and grade final marks, send SOLSMail messages and administer academic consideration applications.

Student Online Services (SOLS)

SOLS is a web based system that enables a student to self-manage their enrolment at UOW. The system allows the student to update their personal details, apply for academic consideration, check assignment and final results, receive important messages from university staff, manage fees, and enrol in tutorials.

SOLSMail The Student Online Services email system. It is an official and primary method for communication with students at UOW.

Student A person registered for a course.

Student Central The service centre responsible for the provision of guidance, enrolment management support and services for all UOW students and external




clients.

Student Services Division The Unit responsible for policy, governance and the management of core student functions.

Subject Coordinator An academic staff member with nominated responsibility for a particular subject.

Subject Outline The document governing content, delivery and assessment of material for a subject.

Verified application An application for academic consideration is considered verified when the required documentary evidence has been validated.

3 Application & Scope 1. This Policy applies to all:

a. undergraduate students, including Honours students

b. postgraduate coursework students, including distance education students

c. higher Degree Research students enrolled in coursework subjects, and

d. students undertaking non-award study

e. students studying at all domestic and international UOW campuses except UOW Dubai

i. Students enrolled at UOW Dubai will follow the procedures as set out in the UOWD Student Handbook and Calendar.

4 Policy Principles 1. The principles guiding this policy are:

a. all students shall be treated fairly and consistently;

b. all students are responsible for making reasonable efforts to minimise the impacts of medical, compassionate, and/or extenuating circumstances on their academic performance;

c. all students are expected to liaise with their subject coordinator as soon as they become aware of a medical, compassionate, and/or extenuating circumstance which may affect their academic performance;

d. It is not possible for academic consideration to compensate for every consequence of illness, injury, other serious cause, or extenuating circumstance affecting a student’s academic progress. However, academic consideration, where appropriate, may help to minimise the impact of such circumstances by providing a mechanism to vary assessment requirements of a subject or to avoid some of the usual consequences of failure in a subject.

e. appropriate learning and other support should be offered to students identified as at risk of not achieving satisfactory academic performance;

2. Underlying the requirements, definitions, and procedures of this policy are the principles of equity, consistency, transparency and natural justice.

5 Academic Consideration 1. Students will apply for academic consideration through SOLS, for eligible circumstances as

outlined in this Policy.

2. Academic consideration is only granted in serious or extenuating circumstances, which are beyond a student’s control and which significantly impair a student’s ability to complete an assessment task on or by the due date as stipulated in the Subject Outline; or to progress academically in a subject relevant to their course of study.




3. Academic consideration is not intended to accommodate common occurrences which interfere with daily life. Students who need assistance with study skills, essay writing or time management should contact Learning Development. Students should discuss less serious issues which may be affecting their studies with their subject coordinator or an academic advisor in their faculty.

4. Applications may be declined or approved after assessment by the relevant Subject Coordinator and/or Head of Students. The outcome of an application is determined by whether it meets criteria for eligibility set out in this policy.

6 Circumstances Eligible for Academic Consideration 1. Students are eligible for academic consideration if their ability to complete an assessment

task on or by the due date as stipulated in the Subject Outline or to progress academically in a subject relevant to their course of study has been significantly affected by medical, compassionate, or extenuating circumstances and;

2. Were beyond the student’s control, not due to their action or inaction, and which could not have been reasonably foreseen or avoided and;

3. These circumstances are supported by documentary evidence as outlined in Section 8 of this Policy.

Medical Grounds 4. Applications made on medical grounds may include illnesses, which would require the

student to seek medical attention and which significantly impair the student’s ability to complete an assessment task or performance in their course of study. Medical grounds may include, but are not limited to, illness or injury, hospitalisation, treatment programs, exacerbation of existing medical condition or disability.

5. Students with a disability and students who are associates of persons with a disability who may require reasonable adjustment should register with Disability Services to allow the University to better manage their needs.

6. Students who have a disability, or students who are associates of persons with a disability, for which they have been approved a reasonable adjustment should apply for academic consideration if they are affected by circumstances such as those outlined in Section 6 of this Policy, unrelated to the existing disability.

Compassionate Grounds 7. Applications made on compassionate grounds, that is, where a student is affected by

suffering or misfortune may include, but are not limited to:

a. loss or bereavement – such as death of a family member, immediate relative or close friend, family relationship breakdown, or

b. hardship or trauma – such as sudden loss of income or employment, significant disruption to domestic arrangements, victim of crime.

Extenuating Circumstances 8. Applications made on extenuating circumstances may include, but are not limited to:

a. carer’s responsibilities – where a student has substantial unplanned responsibilities to either members of their immediate family or members of their household who need their care and support

b. legal commitments – where a student is called for jury duty or is required to attend a court or tribunal

c. timetable clash for simultaneous in-session tests

d. military service

e. one-off unusual work commitments

f. accidents or natural disasters




g. participation in sporting events at state, national or international level with an official sporting body

h. religious reasons – where a student is required to observe religious obligations, or

i. participation in major cultural events

Non Eligible Circumstances 9. Academic consideration will not be granted on grounds of common occurrences that

interfere with daily life, and that are caused by a student’s action or inaction, or that could have been reasonably foreseen and avoided by the student. Non-eligible circumstances include, but are not limited to:

a. Usual or routine work commitments

b. Computer failures where a student has failed to back up their work

c. Multiple exams within a time period which do not clash with each other

d. Multiple assessment tasks due in a period

e. Usual or routine family commitments such as birthdays

f. Clashes with recreational activities or holiday arrangements

7 Timeframes for Applying and Providing Documentary Evidence 1. Where a circumstance is known in advance, students should apply and provide documentary

evidence for academic consideration in advance of the due date of an assessment task or scheduled date of an examination. This will allow subject coordinators appropriate time to assist students in managing their studies, as well as providing a greater opportunity for students to receive an outcome before a due date.

2. Where an application cannot be made in advance of the due date, because the circumstance was unexpected and occurred on this date, students must apply and provide documentary evidence within 3 working days of the due date of the assessment task or scheduled date of the examination.

3. The timing requirements in clauses 7.1 and 7.2 may be exempted by the Subject Coordinator if exceptional circumstances prevented the student from applying and providing documentary evidence within the specified timeframe. Late applications will be denied unless an exemption is granted. Examples of exceptional circumstances justifying an exemption may include, but are not limited to, an accidental injury or sudden illness requiring the student’s immediate hospitalisation, or a student being homebound without access to a computer.

4. Where a student has applied close to or after the due date for an extension of time or deferred examination, they must understand that they will receive an outcome after the due date, and that the outcome of their application may not be successful.

5. All applications for academic consideration must be supported by appropriate documentary evidence in accordance with Section 8 of this Policy.

6. Students cannot apply for academic consideration for an exam or assessment task, after completing and submitting that assessment task, including attempting an examination.

7. Students cannot apply for academic consideration for a session after the last date of the session as outlined by UOW’s key dates.

8. In the circumstances outlined in clauses 7.7 and 7.8, students can consult with the Head of Students of the Faculty which offered the subject or lodge an Academic Complaint following the ‘Coursework Students Academic Complaints Policy’.

8 Documentary Evidence 1. All applications for academic consideration must be supported by documentary evidence as

set out in clauses 8.2 to 8.13 of this Policy. Applications without eligible documentary evidence will not be considered, even if the circumstances stated by the student comply with the eligibility criteria set out in Section 6 of this policy.




2. Documentary evidence must verify a student’s eligibility as stipulated in Section 6 of this Policy.

3. Documentary evidence must be submitted at the campus at which students are studying via email, mail, or in person, and must be written in English or be a certified and signed translation.

4. Subject Coordinators are formally notified of applications for academic consideration by email only after supporting documentation is verified.

5. Offshore partner institutions are responsible for establishing appropriate criteria regarding documentary evidence in accordance with this Policy, appropriate to the local regulations, and approved by the relevant academic unit.

Documentary Evidence for Medical Grounds 6. To be considered for academic consideration for medical grounds, including physical and/or

psychological illness, a student must provide a UOW Professional Authority Form, completed by a registered medical practitioner or registered psychologist as documentary evidence.

7. Statutory declarations will not be accepted as documentary evidence for medical grounds.

Documentary Evidence for Non-Medical Grounds 8. Acceptable documentary evidence for non-medical grounds includes:

a. Death certificate or death notice. Where the relationship between the student and the deceased in not obvious from this document, a Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration, as set out in Clause 8.3 of this Policy must be included to establish the relationship.

b. Police report or event number. Where the nature of the circumstances and how they have affected the student are not obvious from this document, a Statutory Declaration for Academic Consideration as set out in Clause 8.3 of this Policy must be included to establish these details.

c. Letter from an employer on an official company letterhead.

d. Jury notice letter from relevant authority.

e. Letter from the armed forces on official letterhead.

f. UOW Subject or Exam Timetable.

g. Selection confirmation on the letterhead of the state, national or international sporting body.

h. Letter from a minister of religion (or the like) on an official letterhead.

i. Letter from an official cultural authority on an official letterhead.

9. Documentary evidence for non-medical grounds must indicate:

a. the exact date/s of the event or circumstance and

b. the nature of the circumstance and

c. to what extent this impacts the student’s ability to complete the assessment for which consideration is sought and

d. the student’s name or relationship of the student where the document refers to family member/s

Statutory Declarations and Secondary Evidence 10. Where documentary evidence as outlined in clauses 8.8 and 8.9 of this Policy is not

available, a student may be permitted to provide a statutory declaration to accompany secondary forms of evidence.

11. Secondary forms of evidence refers to any form of evidence not outlined in clauses 8.6 to 8.9 and may include flight tickets, photographs, receipts or any other form of document




which supports a student’s eligibility for academic consideration as outlined in Section 6 of this Policy.

12. A statutory declaration will not be accepted as documentary evidence without some form of secondary evidence.

13. A statutory declaration will not be accepted as documentary evidence for medical grounds, regardless of whether it is accompanied by secondary evidence.

Verification of Supporting Documentation 14. Documentary Evidence will be verified by professional staff at one of the following locations:

a. Student Central at the Wollongong Campus or

b. Sydney Business School or

c. Shoalhaven campus or

d. Regional Centres, or

e. Offshore partner institutions.

15. In submitting documentary evidence for verification, students consent to UOW conducting an audit of the document/s legitimacy with the issuer of the document/s. Students consent to the release of information to relevant third parties for the purpose of the audit.

16. From the date of verification of the documentary evidence, students are required to retain the document/s for twelve months and may be requested to provide them for further inspection.

17. A Subject Coordinator, Head of Students, and/or Faculty Assessment Committee is entitled to inspect the original documentary evidence prior to making a decision and may request to sight it before a decision is made in regards to the academic consideration application. Failure to provide the original documentary evidence on request may result in an application being denied.

18. The submission of fraudulent documentation will be regarded as serious misconduct and will be managed in accordance with the Student Conduct Rules and associated procedures. The matter may also be referred to the State or Federal Police.

Known Critical Incidents 19. Where UOW becomes aware of a significant, critical incident which affects a student or

group of students, the Director, Student Services Division may issue an internal memorandum which exempts specific student/s from needing to provide documentary evidence.

20. Circumstances in which this may occur include natural disasters and other major adverse events.

21. Students who are included in this type of exemption will be notified and given further instructions via SOLS.

9 Response Times to Applications 1. The Subject Coordinator should respond through SMP within five working days of receiving

the email notification of the application. Students will receive this outcome via SOLS.

2. If the Subject Coordinator has not responded within five working days, they will be sent an email, copied to the student, requesting an urgent response within two working days.

3. If after that period no response has been given, the application will be forwarded automatically to the Head of Students who is responsible for investigating the delay, taking advice from the Subject Coordinator or Head of Academic Unit as appropriate, and may, failing advice from these staff, determine the outcome of the application within three working days.




10 Outcomes of Academic Consideration 1. In deciding whether or not to grant a request for academic consideration, and in deciding

what form of academic consideration, if any, may be appropriate, regard may be had to:

a. the seriousness of the circumstances

b. the extent to which these impact on the student’s academic progress in a subject

c. the extent to which the circumstances and their impact were beyond the student’s control

d. the extent to which the student may have contributed to producing the circumstances

e. whether the student complied with timeframes for submission of their application and documentary evidence, or had extenuating circumstances for not doing so

f. whether the academic consideration sought would unfairly advantage the student in relation to other students enrolled in the subject

g. the relevance of documentary evidence

h. the student’s academic progress in the session

i. previous applications by the student for academic consideration, and

j. any other relevant consideration.

2. Students will be notified through SOLS of the outcome of their academic consideration.

3. Students may be offered an alternative outcome to what they have requested in their academic consideration application.

Applications Denied 4. Denied applications shall include the reason/s why the application has been denied, and the

name of the academic staff member who has made this decision.

5. Students should be aware that a denied application is not an indication that UOW staff do not believe their circumstances are genuine, but that their application and/or documentary evidence do not meet the criteria outlined in this Policy.

Request for Additional Evidence and/or Information 6. A student may be asked to provide additional evidence and/or information if the assessor of

the application believes the application to be incomplete as determined by the criteria of this Policy. In these instances, the assessor will provide the student with a deadline for providing this information, the maximum being 5 working days from the date the assessor requests the information. If the additional evidence and/or information is not received by the deadline, application/s will be declined. Where additional evidence and/or information is provided by the deadline, the application will be assessed in line with the criteria outlined in this policy.

Referral to Unit Assessment Committee 7. In certain cases, a subject coordinator or Head of Students may, at their discretion, choose

to refer an application for academic consideration to the Unit Assessment Committee for decision.

Application Approved 8. Students intending to graduate should be aware that an extension for any assessment task

or examination could impact upon their eligibility to graduate in that session.

Assessment tasks (not including in-session tests and end-of-session examinations)

9. Students will be notified through SOLS of a revised submission date if their academic consideration application for an extension has been approved. Extensions will not be granted beyond the date upon which the assessment task is marked and returned to other students in the class.




10. Students will be notified through SOLS if their academic consideration application for a deferred assessment task has been approved. Details of that task will be included in this notification.

In-session tests

11. Students will be notified through SOLS if their academic consideration application to undertake a deferred in-session test has been approved. If a student is permitted to undertake a deferred in-session test, the Subject Coordinator will determine the nature, date, time and venue of any deferred test. The student will be informed through SOLS at least three working days prior to this date.

12. If a student is not able to attend the scheduled deferred in-session test, they may apply for academic consideration again through SOLS in accordance with this Policy. The Subject Coordinator has the discretion to allow the student to undertake a second deferred in-session test or to complete a substitute piece of assessment where this option is offered in the Subject Outline. Alternatively, the student may be offered the opportunity to withdraw from the subject without academic penalty or may be awarded a zero fail for the in-session test.

Examinations held during the end-of-session examination period

13. Students will be notified through SOLS if their academic consideration application to undertake a deferred examination during the regular supplementary examination period has been approved. An exam timetable will be released on SOLS at least three working days prior to the commencement of the supplementary examination period.

14. If a student is not able to attend the scheduled deferred examination, they may request further consideration via the Academic Complaints Policy, in line with timeframes outlined in Section 7 of this policy. The Academic Unit responsible for the examination has the discretion to

a. decline the request and award a zero fail for the examination

b. allow the student to undertake a second deferred examination

c. allow the student to complete a substitute piece of assessment where this option is offered in the Subject Outline

d. allow the student to withdraw from the subject without academic penalty

11 Support Available for Students 1. Students who make five or more applications for academic consideration within six calendar

months will be requested to contact the Head of Students of the Faculty for academic advice.

2. Students who require advice about the Student Academic Consideration Policy or assistance with its procedures may contact Student Central, (or its equivalent at Shoalhaven campus, Regional Centres or off-shore partner institutions), the Subject Coordinator, the Head of Students/Associate Dean or representatives of UOW student associations.

3. The University provides a free and confidential counselling service to students who are having difficulty coping with disruptive though relatively common life events. Students who are experiencing any difficulties are encouraged to seek counselling support through Counselling Services.

4. Academic support is provided to students through the Learning Development. Students are encouraged to seek the free assistance of staff to develop good academic study patterns, time management skills, note taking and essay writing skills, and examination preparation skills.

12 Appeal against a Decision on Academic Consideration 1. The outcome of an application for academic consideration is determined by one of the

following: the Subject Coordinator, the Head of Academic Unit, Head of Students, or Unit/Faculty Assessment Committee.




2. If a student does not agree with a decision made regarding their application, then a grievance may exist. Students are advised to refer to the Coursework Students Academic Complaints Policy for further details.

13 Responsibilities 1. The University has a responsibility to:

a. ensure that this Policy and its guidelines are accessible to all staff and students

b. ensure that this Policy and its guidelines are implemented and applied consistently across all faculties and academic units

c. promote good practice in considering applications for academic consideration, and

d. provide guidelines for considering applications for academic consideration which allow for:

i. timeliness of response

ii. fairness and equitable consideration

iii. respect for privacy, and

iv. keeping all parties informed of their rights and responsibilities in relation to the application of academic consideration.

2. Students have a responsibility to meet deadlines for work to be submitted as set out in the Subject Outline. Students who cannot meet such deadlines because of circumstances compliant with Section 6 of this Policy, and who are seeking academic consideration must then:

a. lodge an application for academic consideration via SOLS, and provide documentary evidence within the timeframes outlined in Section 7 of this Policy

b. Ensure that documentary evidence meets the criteria outlined in Section 8 of this Policy

c. retain the documentary evidence for twelve months from the date of verification and provide such documentation when requested

d. contact the relevant Head of Students via the Faculty if they have not received a response from their subject coordinator within ten working days

e. seek academic or administrative advice as appropriate, and

f. behave ethically and honestly in all respects when applying for academic consideration.

3. Designated staff at Student Central, the Sydney Business School, Shoalhaven campus, Regional Centres and offshore partner institutions have a responsibility to:

a. receive the documentary evidence

b. verify the authenticity of the documentary evidence ensuring compliance with procedural requirements of this Policy, and

c. return the documentary evidence to the student.

4. It is the responsibility of administrative staff at offshore partner institutions to establish appropriate procedures approved by the relevant academic unit in accordance with this Policy.

5. Subject Coordinators have a responsibility to:

a. ensure consistent application of this Policy and its guidelines so that all students are treated fairly and equitably as far as practicable

b. review documentary evidence as deemed necessary

c. approve or deny the verified academic consideration application within five working days

d. notify the Head of the Academic Unit (or academic nominee) if unavailable to respond, and




e. adhere to the University Code of Conduct – Staff when responding to academic consideration applications.

6. The Head of Academic Unit (or academic nominee) has a responsibility to:

a. ensure every subject has an assigned Subject Coordinator specified in the subject database, and

b. ensure that all applications for academic consideration are dealt with according to the provisions of this Policy.

7. The Head of Students has responsibility to

a. provide advice to students in matters relating to their application for academic consideration, including the determination of an outcome where advice from the Subject Coordinator or Head of Academic Unit is not available.

b. follow up with subject coordinator/s who have not responded to applications within the 7 working day timeframe to ensure applications are assessed.

c. act as assessor for escalated applications, following the same assessment guidelines relevant to a subject coordinator as outlined in this Policy.

8. The Unit and Faculty Assessment Committees have responsibility to review all applications for academic consideration in determining the declaration of final marks for subjects in which the student is enrolled.

14 Privacy and Confidentiality 1. All staff designated to access information contained in applications for academic

consideration are obliged to preserve confidentiality in accordance with the University’s Privacy Policy, the Code of Conduct – Staff and other relevant privacy legislation.

2. Records relating to academic consideration applications will be retained and disposed of in accordance with the State Records Act 1998, General Retention and Disposal Authority GDA23, and the Records Management Policy.




15 Review and Change History

16 Schedule 1 – Application of Policy at Offshore Partner Institutions 1. Students enrolled at UOW Dubai will follow the procedures as set out in the UOWD Student

Handbook and Calendar.

2. Offshore partner institutions are responsible for establishing appropriate criteria regarding documentary evidence in accordance with this Policy, appropriate to the local regulations, and approved by the relevant academic unit.

3. Where they do not exist, offshore partner institutions will designate staff who hold positions equivalent to those specified in this policy:

a. Subject Coordinator b. Head of Academic Unit (or academic nominee) c. Head of Students

Version Control

Date Effective Approved By Change Details

1 Autumn Session 2009

Council Student Academic Consideration Policy replaces the Special Consideration Policy


Vice Principal (Administration)

Amendment to clause 10.7(e) in response to request from the Australian Defence Force


Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Migrated to UOW Policy Template as per Policy Directory Refresh

4 13 August 2009

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Minor amendment to update reference to SEDLOs to refer to Student Support Advisers

5

15 October 2010

University Council Amendments following review by Education Policy Review Subcommittee to better integrate policy with Disability Policy – Students and Disability Standards in Education 2005.

6 28 February 2011

University Council References updated to reflect the rescission of the Code of Practice – Students.

7 23 November 2011

Vice-Principal (Administration)

Definition for “Associate” and “Disability” updated, in line with the Disability Action Plan 2011-2015.

8 2 December 2013

Vice-Chancellor Minor amendment to clarify references to Deferred Assessment/Examination and Supplementary Assessment/Examination

9 11 April 2014 University Council Amendments to reflect the implementation of the new Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results, which replace the previous Assessment Committee Standards.


PROFESSIONAL PRACTITIONER CERTIFICATE

All fields must be completed. This form must be completed by a registered health professional. 1.INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL AUTHORITY The information provided on this document will assist the University of Wollongong to determine the impact of the impairment on the student’s ability to meet academic requirements. Within the limits of confidentiality this document must describe the nature and impact on the student’s ability to perform academically during this the period of impairment

2. PERSONAL DETAILS OF STUDENT UOW Student Number

Family Name Given Name

3. CONSULTATION/APPOINTMENT DETAILSDates of Consultation/Appointment Expected Duration of Condition

From: To: NOTE: For chronic health conditions, please advise if there has been a considerable and unpredictable exacerbation of symptoms on the student’s academic functioning

Nature of Condition: Please provide a simple description of any restrictions on the student’s academic functioning (eg. Reading, writing, learning, memory, concentration) as a result of the health condition:

IMPACT ON THE STUDENT’S ABILITY TO PERFORM ACADEMICALLY DURING THE PERIOD OF IMPAIRMENT

1 2 3 4 5

Able to Study Moderate Capacity to Study Unable to Study

4. PROFESSIONAL AUTHORITY DETAILS By signing below, I authorise the University of Wollongong to contact me or my office to confirm authenticity of this document. Name/Title:

Provider’s Stamp:

STAMP MUST BE AFFIXED HERE

Provider Number: Date: Signature

Once you have made your Academic Consideration Application on SOLS, please upload this form at www.********


UOW Resilience Task and Finish group Strategic paper UEC 2015

1

WELLBEING AND RESILIENCE DISCUSSION PAPER AGENDA C3 In line with current UOW priorities and in order to implement the innovations envisioned in both the Curriculum Transformation Project, and the Continuing Professional Development Strategy, UOW must ensure strategic approaches to staff and student wellbeing become embedded institutional priorities To support this, a Wellbeing and Resilience Task and Finish Group (WRTFG) has been established to review UOW’s current approach to the support and facilitation of staff and student wellbeing and make recommendations. The attached Discussion Paper UOW wellness and resilience strategy: towards a mindful campus of agile lifelong learners outlines the background, challenges and context for development, and is submitted to UEC for preliminary consideration. Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee:

i. note the Discussion Paper, as attached to the agenda paper; ii. provide feedback; and iii. note that the final recommendations of the Wellbeing and Resilience Task & Finish group will be presented to the University Education Committee for endorsement mid 2016

ATTACHMENT

Discussion Paper UOW wellness and resilience strategy: towards a mindful campus of agile lifelong learners

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Ms Sarah Tillott Dr Marcus O’Donnell

Wellbeing and Resilience Task & Finish Group A/Prof Romy Lawson, Director Learning, Teaching & Curriculum



marion

Typewritten Text

marion

Typewritten Text

marion

Typewritten Text


2

UOW wellness and resilience strategy: towards a mindful campus of agile lifelong learners The UOW Wellness & Resilience Task and Finish Group (WRTFG) was established by the DVC(A) to build on enthusiasm generated by the HEPP funded UOW Mindfulness Pilot (UMP) which piloted mindfulness training for low-‐SES first year students in 2014. The UMP identified a range of staff in the university interested or involved in mindfulness, resilience and wellness initiatives and the task and finish group was established to explore and develop these practices. This discussion paper sets out the context and vision – including a set of draft principles – for the development of a cohesive UOW wellness and resilience strategy. It is a work in progress and outlines the necessary consultative process that must be undertaken to promote and grow this vision and develop a sustainable institutional strategy. The membership of the task and finish group has included: Sarah Tillott (SMAH -‐ Chair) Marcus O'Donnell (LTC-‐CTP) Romy Lawson (LTC) Eeva Leinonen (DVCA) Christine Brown (LTC – CPD) Lorraine Denny (PODS) Cameron Faricy (Wellbeing) Jocelyn Harper (Counselling) Alison Hemsley (KBV) Debra Hocking (Grad School Medicine)

Michele Kenworthy (Careers) Lotte Latukefu (LHA) Alexandra McPaul (Co-‐curricular) Lindsay Oades (BUS) Dominique Parrish (SMAH) Neil Ryan (WHS) Michelle Rush (Woolyungah) Gordon Spence( Master of Business Coaching) Susan Sumskis (SMAH) Fran Walder (Student Experience)

1. Terms of reference The UOW WRTFG will report to the DVC(A) on the development of a whole of campus strategy for the promotion of staff and student wellness that embodies the person-‐centered vision of the UOW Strategic Plan. It will:

• Document all current and planned wellness initiatives at UOW • Develop a set of principles and an evidence-‐based framework

that will guide future strategic wellness initiatives



3

• Prepare a discussion paper for University Education Committee and Senate

• Develop a Strategy for the future direction of staff and student wellness programs at UOW that integrates curricular, co-‐curricular and professional development approaches

• Develop a framework for evaluation of wellness initiatives 2. Wellness, resilience and the UOW strategic vision. One of the key commitments at the heart of the 2015-‐18 UOW Strategic Plan is to “invest in people”. The plan set’s out several key objectives that seek to develop this people focus. It promises to: • 2.4 Promote the UOW student experience as a lifelong journey that promotes

inclusion, collaboration, international perspectives, leadership skills and an enduring graduate engagement with learning.

• 2.5 Empower graduates with the experience and qualities needed for their

responsibilities and success in the community and global workplace, irrespective of destination

• 4.2 Leverage our reputation for opportunity and innovation, strong

workplace culture and commitment to people to attract and retain the most talented staff

• 4.4 Promote collaboration, teamwork, diversity and inclusive practices as

valued, enduring and distinctive characteristics of our workforce • 4.5 Ensure UOW’s work environment continues to support our people in

balancing their University roles and responsibilities with their personal lives and wellbeing and is uncompromising in maintaining workplace health and safety of the highest standards

This person-‐centered vision of UOW as an institution which values and fosters inclusion, collaboration, diversity, balance, wellbeing and lifelong learning requires a strategic approach to staff and student resilience.



4

3. Current focus and programs A number of recent UOW strategic initiatives and a range of ongoing programs have student and staff resilience at their core. 3.1 Strategic Initiatives The Curriculum Transformation Project has been designed to enhance the student learning journey and is underpinned by three key principles of transition, synthesis and broadening. Transition is the supported process through the university experience in order to enable confident life-‐long learning. It is a process oriented to becoming. Synthesis is a process of reflection and integration in order to enable connected learning. It is a process oriented to wholeness. Broadening is a process of extending the boundaries of minds and classrooms in order to enable global learning. It is an orientation to engagement. (O’Donnell, Wallace, Melano, Lawson & Leinonen 2015)

The Continuing Professional Development Framework that supports academic staff in their ongoing professional development is organised around seven key outcomes. One of these key outcomes is to enable staff to demonstrate personal & professional effectiveness through the development of resilience, leadership and teamwork. Co-‐curricular Reward and Recognition project launched UOWx to enable students to explore new ideas and extend their learning experiences outside formal course work. The Co-‐curricular program includes opportunities for mentor roles, student leaders, project team members, student representatives and volunteers. The vision for co-‐curricular learning at UOW is to engage students in challenging, transformative co-‐curricular experiences, which contribute to their success as outstanding graduates who are equipped to make significant contributions to society and their future workplaces. Each of these projects shares a commitment to invest in people and takes a whole of person approach to learning and human development. They address the need for what UK educational philosopher Ron Barnett calls learning in the age of supercomplexity (Barnett 2000). Barnett argues that we have moved beyond complexity – the situation of knowledge overload – to a situation of supercomplexity where the very frameworks we use to assess and make sense of



5

new knowledge are themselves uncertain, contested and in constant redefinition. In this environment he suggest that the pedagogical imperative is no longer epistemological – how or what to know – it is ontological – how or what to be. Until we equip students and staff to live with supercomplexity – and the fragility and anxiety this entails – deep engagement with knowing become impossible. 3.2 Ongoing Programs There are a range of other ongoing programs, projects and partnerships at UOW also support living with supercomplexity. Higher Education Participation Scheme and Social Inclusion Scheme A number of projects have been developed since 2012 funded under the Higher Education Participation Scheme and other social inclusion initiatives. These initiatives aim to assist the University of Wollongong in meeting the Federal Government’s goal that by 2020, 20% of domestic undergraduate students will be from LSES backgrounds. Many of these programs incorporate integrated approaches to student support and wellbeing. Woolyungah Indigenous Centre is responsible for Indigenous student recruitment, access and support. The programs aim to foster equity by supporting Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from entry to University, through to successful completion. It works in association with AIME (Australian Indigenous Mentoring Program) which provides a dynamic educational Program that gives Indigenous high school students the skills, opportunities, belief and confidence to finish school at the same rate as their peers. AIME has proven to dramatically improve the chances of Indigenous young people finishing school. UOW and Woolyungah Indigenous Centre have worked in partnership with AIME since 2008 and encourage all students of UOW, to give back to the community by participating in AIME Student Experience Unit: The Student Experience Unit provides a range of counselling, peer-‐led student programs and wellness initiatives that are in high demand. A substantial increase in the number of students presenting for counselling and other direct student support services has been noted in the last twelve months and a new model is currently being developed which will establish a triage system to facilitate access to services. An effective triage process will ensure that all relevant services are linked and a potential client can be provided with quick access to support. This will ensure the client will have the opportunity to speak to a mental health professional within two days of seeking support. This process has the potential to link the range of internal and external services available to support student wellbeing and will be critical to satisfying the current demand for direct services. It also has important



6

application as a wider model in the provision of programs supporting student wellbeing outlined in this paper. Services provided by the unit include: The UOW Wellbeing Centre is a key part of providing an access point to services and referrals. It was established to facilitate student success by providing the knowledge, skills and access to services, that enable students to address the physical and emotional challenges they face. Wellbeing Centre programming is underpinned by positive psychology principles and public health empowerment models as prescribed by Glenn Laverack (2009 and aligns with the concepts of the Ottawa charter, 1986. UOW Counselling Service provides individual counselling sessions to UOW students and staff. One significant component that the UOW counsellors provide is psychoeducation dealing with the benefits of mindfulness and meditation practices. In addition counsellors run workshops in mindfulness, meditation, and understanding key factors for resilience for specific cohorts of students. This includes partnerships with Centre for Student Engagement, Alive Leadership program, Wellbeing Centre, UOW REACH Group and the Graduate Research School, Higher Degree Research Workshop program. International Student Programs foster positive engagement with international students to support their transition into UOW and the community. Programs are delivered in partnership with a community volunteer group, Illawarra Committee for International students and other internal and external partners. Kooloobong Positive Village: This student residence situated on the main campus of the University of Wollongong currently has 553 residents, all of whom are students at UOW. Since 2013 it has been a “positive residence” influenced and guided by the science of positive psychology and the principles of positive organisational scholarship. Positive psychology is the science of optimal human functioning. It is oriented towards understanding the best aspects of human experience and, through the application of this knowledge, seeks the enhancement of wellbeing (i.e. feeling good and functioning well) in a variety of contexts (Rusk & Waters, 2015). A positive organisation is one where leadership and management seek to enhance the use of strengths, positive communication, positive emotions and positive relationships of all those associated with the organisation. To implement these general principles at KBV, five enablers were developed to underpin both program development and organisational development. These include:

1. Web and smartphone based self-‐regulation tools; 2. integrated wellbeing social marketing;



7

3. positive psychology coaching training and culture; 4. wellbeing informed activity planning; and 5. strengths knowledge, use and spotting.

The program (commonly referred to as the “Live Out Loud” program) is currently being formally and informally evaluated. UNI Centre, URAC, WUSA, WUPA These organisations provide a range of student support, health and wellness programs and bring together networks of students that build student connections and wellbeing. The social and cultural activates initiated by these student run organisations are critical to building the sense of belonging that underpins student wellbeing. Staff-‐focused programs As well as these programs that support student wellbeing several programs at UOW have been designed to facilitate staff health and wellness. These include: The UOW Well@Work program is part of the Workplace Health & Safety Unit and offer a range of initiatives to UOW employees, faculties and divisions. They promote a holistic approach to wellbeing through programs covering aspects of mental health, nutrition, general health & physical activity. It has over 60 Well@Work champions across the University who assist in promoting events within their designated areas. The program recently conducted free skin cancer checks for staff on campus, which resulted in over 260 assessments over 6 days. Serious melanomas were detected that resulted in following day surgery with successful outcomes. Another initiative provided 300 free flu vaccines for UOW employees over two days. The Global Corporate Challenge is a 100 day challenge that was initiated by the VC upon his arrival to UOW. Some 640 UOW employee are participating in the program designed to raise awareness of inactivity through encouraging staff to monitor their daily step counts using an accelerometer. An Amazing Race on UOW campus was held recently as the launch and Well@Work will provide many physical activities, and nutritional advice to participants throughout their journey. The UOW Employee Assistance Program provides confidential counselling services designed to enhance the emotional, mental and general psychological well-‐being of employees. All UOW employees and members of their immediate family have access to qualified external counsellors via face to face or phone consultations to assist with a range of work or personal issues that might be impacting their lives.



8

Professional and Organisational Development Services provide a range of programs that cover resilience and staff well-‐being as part of the annual Staff Development Calendar. These programs, identified as part of the PODS training needs analysis processes, include:

• Emotional Intelligence • Power of Optimism • Living in a changing environment • An Introduction to Mindfulness • Building resilience in the workplace

All of these programs are open to both academic and professional services staff, however the majority of attendances are professional services staff. Developing resilience is also covered in both the academic and professional service staff senior leadership programs. 4. Towards evidence-‐based practice This impressive list of current UOW programs shows the university’s commitment to promote the wellbeing of students and staff. The programs draw on a range of conceptual models of wellness and resilience-‐focused strategies with strong support in the literature including:

• Positive psychology • Mindfulness • Strength-‐based coaching • Emotional Intelligence • Optimism focused approaches • Psycoeducation and counselling • Movement-‐based physical approaches

This indicates the rich resources that are available for the development of a strategic whole of university approach to staff and student wellness. While health support programs have long been part of higher education institution’s suite of student and staff services wellbeing programs, which focus on a whole of person approach to mental and physical health, are now gaining popularity among higher education institutions. Investing in staff and student wellbeing creates an opportunity to build supportive environments that in turn, sustain employee/student retention and health. A combined approach that places student and staff resilience and wellbeing as an overarching institutional value will ensure that UOW fulfils its mission of becoming an agile adaptable hub for innovation and transformation.



9

Research indicates that students often exhibit higher levels of stress than the general population (Myers & Mobley 2004). This is particularly associated with transition to university. Cook et al (2006) report that any student who has experienced a poor transition into university, regardless of their demographics, is at high risk of early drop out, (Cooke, Bewick, Barkham, Bradley and Audin 2006). Ongoing stress related to life stages, inadequate financial resources and academic demands contribute to the psychological strain on students participating in tertiary programs. This can result in, and be further compounded by, impaired academic performance and affect future progression (Allan, McKenna, Dominey 2014). Universities continue to report significant student dropout rates and levels of psychological distress. This comes at a high personal and institutional cost. For example, Australian universities report that student attrition costs in excess of $1.4 billion annually (mean = $36 million per institution), with attrition rates ranging from 9.7 % to 24.2% (mean = 17%) (Oades, Robinson, Green and Spence 2011) Strengthening student’s ability to adapt to challenging environments, through programs that promote psychological resilience and wellbeing, is emerging as an important aspect of curriculum in higher education. (Allan, McKenna & Dominey 2014). In secondary school education, Seligman et al. (2009) argue that well-‐being should be taught in schools for three primary reasons:

• as an antidote to depression, • as a vehicle for increasing life satisfaction, and • to improve learning and generate creative thinking.

This tripartite approach is supported by Oades, Robison, Green and Spence (2011) as a viable model for higher education.

Programs to promote psychological resilience often adopt a strengths-‐based approach that encourages a focus on the positive development pathways at the heart of “positive psychology” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi 2000 & Sameroff 1995). Providing students with the opportunity to embrace and engage with these resilience-‐based practices does not alter their exposure to stress or replace feelings of vulnerability, but it can provide facilitate competent functioning of students in times of stress or difficulty (Layne, Warren, Watson & Shalev 2007). In schools, incorporating programs that encourage the intrinsic aspects of resilience (self esteem, self management and self empowerment) and extrinsic factors (Social support, positive role models and networking) has been linked to protective factors that facilitate student success and wellbeing (Prince-‐Embury 2011). In order to promote the success of resilience based practices, these concepts underpinning resilience must be embedded into programs and these



10

programs must incorporate appropriate pedagogy (Allan, McKenna and Dominey 2014) As Schreiner, Hulme, Hetzel, and Lopez (2009) point out, a strengths-‐based educational approach at the tertiary level will quickly descend into faddism unless it is informed by relevant fields of scholarship, such as education, psychology, social work, and organizational theory and behavior. Aubrecht (2012) warns that the vocabularies of stress and resilience can lead to an overly pathological view of student experience and an easy “positive thinking” approach, which resists some of the harder critical work of the university in questioning the social organisation of competitive stress: Rather than a consequence of the exploitative conditions that organize how higher learning gets done within the context of a competitive labour market productive of surplus peoples, distress is perceived as living proof of the need for flexible relations to adversity as a problem that can be accommodated through restructuring and adjustment. (Aubrecht 2012:80)

One of the key ways to mitigate against such a reductive approach is to frame our approach to resilience as both an institutional as well as an individual strategy. A resilient organisation is not one in which members “bounce-‐back” it is one in which members are supported towards a fulfilling experience as staff and students through institutional values which embed:

• Collaboration • Mindfulness • Mentorship • Open critique and enquiry • Consultation • Distributed leadership

These values and approaches are equally important for staff: growing evidence suggests that the cultivation of wellbeing might be beneficial within university environments. For example, a meta-‐analysis conducted by Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener (2005) suggested that happy people are more successful at work, have more satisfying relationships and better health status (Oades, Robinson, Green and Spence 2015). As already indicated current UOW programs draw on a variety of theoretical frameworks and conceptual models of wellness and resilience focused strategies including:

• Positive psychology • Mindfulness • Strength-‐based coaching • Emotional Intelligence



11

• Optimism focused approaches • Psycoeducation and counselling • Movement based physical approaches

Further investigation of the research base of each of these approaches and ways that they might be best employed as part of a unified framework is an essential task for the second phase of this project. 5. Draft Principles In initial discussions, drawing on the available research and the experience of UOW programs, the WRTFG has developed the following as an initial set of draft principles that might underpin the development of a whole of institution approach to promoting staff and student wellness and resilience. These principles will be further revised and developed and be the focus of campus wide consultation during the consultation phase of this project.

• Establishing a positive institutional culture that builds sustainable strategies for personal and organisational resilience is at the heart of student and staff success.

• The development of professional and academic capacity is only possible

in a healthy organisation committed to o Collaboration o Mindfulness o Mentorship o Open critique and enquiry o Consultation o Distributed leadership

• Development of personal and organisational resilience requires a whole

of institution strategic approach that is o Transformational not transactional o Embedded across curricular and co-‐curricular programs o Staff and student focused

• Creative strategies must draw on a strong evidence base and include

experimental approaches to innovation and evaluation. 6. Initial Strategy framework The WRTFG will develop a UOW Wellness and Resilience Strategy in the second phase of this project. The topic schema represented in Table 1 is an initial



12

framework that arises out of our analysis of the current UOW environment and is meant to be indicative of the shape a final strategy might take. Firstly any strategic approach must embed key values and practices in major institution-‐wide programs that are at the heart of core business. Secondly a series of enabling programs should include:

• a select series of signature calendar events which target key parts of the organisational year;

• a range of physical sites which facilitate programs and act as places of encounter and collaboration;

• key services which provide support and development opportunities. This strategic approach is underpinned by clear principles and buttressed by a communication and branding strategy and a strong evidence and evaluation base. 1 Principles 2 Embedded Institutional Practices

• Curriculum Transformation Project • Continuing Professional Development Framework • Enterprise Bargaining • Strategic Plan

3 Enabling programs • Wellbeing Calender

o Orientation o Wellbeing Festival o End of year celebration (graduation)

• Wellbeing sites o Wellbeing Centre o KBV o Woolyungah o Queer Space o URA o Informal learning spaces o Contemplative spaces

• Wellbeing programs and services o Student services o Training programs o Special events

4 Branding and identity 5 Evaluation and research

Table 1. Initial Strategy Framework



13

5. Project Outputs and Process The WRTFG will engage with a series of consultations and development activities over the next 18 months that will result in the development of a UOW Wellbeing and Resilience Strategy presented for final approval at UEC and Senate mid 2016. Output Stakeholders Timeline Finalisation of discussion paper: following feedback from UEC this discussion paper will be finalised as a basis for the initial phase of consultations with the UOW community

WRTFG UEC

Q3 2015

Consultation: Faculty-‐based consultations to promote an understanding of an institution-‐wide approach to wellbeing and resilience

WRTFG Faculties DVCA Units

Q3/4 2015

Pilot projects: a number of initiatives such as the initial UOW Wellbeing Festival and the installation of meditation pods are being piloted in 2015. These will be evaluated as part of the groups ongoing strategy development.

WRTFG DVCA Units KV

Q3/4 2015

Draft Strategy: Present draft strategy to UEC and Senate and then use as basis for development of further pilot programs

WRTFG UEC Senate

Q4 2015

Development of model CTP and CPD Resources: initial modules to support student and staff wellbeing as part of the rollout of these two strategic initiatives

WRTFG LTC

Q3/4 2015

Development of contemplative spaces project: in co-‐operation with the Learning Spaces TFG develop ideas and pilot strategies for the incorporation of contemplative spaces into the portfolio of learning spaces

WRTFG LSTFG FMD

Q3/4 2015

Phase 2 Pilots implementation and trailing of resources in selected subjects and resilience focused student orientation activities

WRTFG Faculties DVCA Units

Q1 2016

Final Strategy presented for approval to UEC and Senate following on from evaluation of pilot programs and consultation.

WRTFG UEC Senate

Q2 2016



14

References Allan, J, F. 2014, McKenna, J., Dominey, S . 2014 ‘Degrees of resilience; profiling psychological resilience and prospective academic achievement in university students’ British journal of guidance and counselling, vol. 13, no. 19 Barnett, R., 2000, Supercomplexity and the Curriculum, Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), pp. 255-‐65. Cooke, R . Bewick, B.M, Barkham, M. Bradley, M. and Audin, K 2006 Measuring, Monitoring and managing the psychological wellbeing of first year university students,. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, vol. 34, no. 505-‐516‘ Glenn Laverack, 2009, Public Health: Power, Empowerment and Professional Practice, Palgrave Macmillan. Layne, C. Warren, J,. Watson, P. J & Shalev, A. Y 2007 ‘ Risk, vulnerability, resistance, and resilience: Towards an integrative conceptualisation of post traumatic adaptation Accessed online 5 may 2015 http://www.academia.edu/2928707/Layne_Warren_Watson_Shalev_2007_._Risk_Vulnerability_Resistance_and_Resilience_Towards_an_Integrative_Model_of_Posttraumatic_Adaptation Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. 2005 ‘The benefits of frequent positive affect’ Psychological Bulletin, vol. 131, pp. 803-‐855. Myers, J.E., & Mobley, A.K. (2004) Wellness of undergraduates: Comparisions of traditional and nontraditional students. Journal of College Counseling. vol 7.pp. 18-‐24 Oades, L. G., Robinson, P., Green, S. & Spence, G. B. (2011). Towards a positive university. Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 6, no. 6 pp. 432-‐439 Prince-‐Embury, S. 2011 ‘ Assessing personal resiliency in the context of school settings: Using resiliency scales for children and adolescents Canadian Journal of School Psychology, vol. 23, no. 1 pp. 41-‐56. Sameroff, A. J, 1995 ‘ General systems theories and development psychopathology Journal of developmental psycholopathology vol. 1 pp. 659-‐695



15

Schreiner, L. A., Hulme, E., Hetzel, R., & Lopez, S. (2009) ‘ Positive psychology on campus. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds). Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.) pp. 569-‐578. New York: Oxford University Press. Seligman, M. E & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000 , Positive Psychology : An introduction. Journal of American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 5-‐14. Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. ‘2009’ Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 293-‐311.


ANNUAL REVIEW PROCEDURES – UOW DUBAI AGENDA ITEM C4 Background A key deliverable under the University of Wollongong Education Strategy for 2014 is a review of the offshore quality assurance framework. At present, all quality assurance for Transnational Education (TNE) is undertaken by representatives from within the portfolio of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International). However, responsibility for the quality assurance of all teaching and learning-related activities falls within the portfolio of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). A working party chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) reviewed the current provisions, and made recommendations regarding the future shape of the policy suite. These recommendations were submitted to the 01/2015 University Education Committee for noting and comment, and have subsequently been actioned by the Academic Quality and Standards Unit. A suite of documents that govern the manner in which quality assurance of all course delivered in collaboration with another institution has been developed, and is currently undergoing targeted consultation. The suite of documents will be submitted to the 05/2015 University Education Committee for review and endorsement. Proposal The redesign of the quality assurance processes around collaborative delivery is, for the most part, little more than a formalisation of the level of rigour that currently exists. However, the documents will also recognise a shift in the ownership of the quality assurance of academic issues, and an extension to ensure that all relevant evidence is made available. It is proposed that a single policy will govern the quality assurance of all courses delivered in collaboration with another institution, both transnationally and within Australia. Supporting the policy will be procedures that relate to:

• initial due diligence processes, • sessional quality assurance (relating to the quality assurance of subject outlines, and

moderation of assessment), • annual and periodic quality assurance (differentiated to ensure more information is

considered prior to the renegotiation of an agreement for joint delivery), and • the quality assurance of joint and dual awards.

Attached to each of the procedures is a quality assurance checklist detailing the information and evidence required to undertake the quality assessment. Where appropriate, these checklists are being tailored to ensure that the specificities of certain relationships are accounted for. The procedures, and associated checklists, will break the evidence down into institution, course and subject-level information. This will facilitate the processes of providing the evidence and undertaking the quality assessment. UOW Dubai As part of the working party’s efforts, work was done to prepare a new annual review checklist for use as part of the annual review of UOW in Dubai. This has been discussed with staff at UOW Enterprises and with the President of UOWD. It is proposed that the annual review of the relationship between UOW and UOW Dubai scheduled to occur in November 2015 will be used to pilot the checklist and the associated draft procedure. The checklist is attached to the agenda papers. It is hoped to ensure that this process provides for more consistent and more quality focussed annual reviews, and does so efficiently by taking full advantage of existing quality assurance reporting processes where possible.


The rationale for piloting the procedure with UOW Dubai is threefold. The relationship between UOW and UOW Dubai is close and collegial enough to enable a strong test of the proposed quality assurance measures to occur. It will also ensure that when the procedures are finalised, UOW will be sure that the information and evidence requested is sufficient to enable a comprehensive and rigorous assessment to be made. Finally, were this to await finalisation and endorsement of the new Collaborative Delivery suite of policy and procedures, then the opportunity to apply this new checklist would be missed. In addition to seeking endorsement from UEC, the draft procedure and checklist will be brought to the next meeting of the UOWD Academic Board to be held in late July. The annual review of UOWD is scheduled to take place in November 2015, so further opportunity exists to enhance and clarify the requirements set out in the procedure and the checklist before planning for the annual review gets underway. Draft Resolution That the University Education Committee:

i. Note that the draft quality assurance policy suite will be submitted to the 05/2015 university Education Committee;

ii. Endorse the piloting of the revised annual quality assurance procedure at UOW Dubai at the 2015 scheduled annual review;

iii. Provide feedback on the draft quality assurance checklist, as attached to the agenda paper.

Attachment: i. UOW Dubai Annual Quality Assessment Checklist

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Academic Quality and Policy Specialist, Academic Quality and Standards Unit

Manager, Academic Quality and Policy, Academic Quality and Standards Unit

Prof Eeva Leinonen, Chair University Education Committee


Academic Quality and Standards Unit Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) Portfolio Academic Quality Assurance Checklist Template - UOWD Introduction The template below is to guide preparation for each UOWD Annual Review. Column A details the thematic area being measured Column B details the data or other information to be prepared by UOWD in preparation for the annual review meeting. Items in bold are data collections or direct evidence to be provided Items in italics are matters for reporting by UOWD Column C details the standard against which the data and other information will be assessed Column D provides guidance on whether the item is an exception reporting item or a standard reporting item. Sections 1, 2 and 3 deal with Institutional, Course-Level and Subject Level assurance at the annual review. Section 4 describes a fuller model of Subject-Level assurance designed to sit below the annual review process. 1. Institution-Level Assurance

A. Measure B. Inputs/Evidence for Assessment C. Standard Required D. Commentary E. Source of Data

Governance and Oversight

� Current academic governance structure in place

� Changes to the academic governance structure since the last assessment, and their impact on the governance of the course.

� Minutes of the UOWD Academic Board for the past year

� Advice on communication between UOWD and UOW Academic Boards

� Equivalence and efficiency of governance structures in place.

� Evidence of effective oversight of the course or course being delivered.

Exception reporting only with respect to:

• Changes to academic governance structure

• Changes to academic policies

UOW Dubai

� Report on the effectiveness of academic quality assurance mechanisms in place.

� Evidence that host institution has equivalent quality

UOW Dubai


1. Institution-Level Assurance A. Measure B. Inputs/Evidence for Assessment C. Standard Required D. Commentary E. Source of

Data

� Report on action taken against issues identified by internal quality assessments at an institution level.

assurance mechanisms in place at an institution level.

� Report on changes to the institution-wide academic policies and procedures that relate to the course or courses being delivered

� Equivalence of policies and procedures with those at UOW

UOW Dubai

� Report on Institutional Licensure Status including any issues identified by CAA in the previous year and how they are being managed

� Copy of any institutional licensure correspondence from CAA in previous year

� Management of institutional risk and institutional reputation

UOW Dubai

� CHEDS (UAE Ministry sector) data including comparisons between UOWD and other UAE Providers

� Equivalence of UOWD with local market

UOW Dubai

Student Experience � Student Experience Questionnaire data (current year)

� Summary of significant issues identified and actions taken

� Report on action to resolve issues identified in most recent survey (previous year)

� Student complaints and grievance data � Report on significant issues raised through

student complaints and grievances, and action taken to resolve them

� Equivalence of enriching student experience across all UOW delivery locations

UOW (Business Analysis and Learning Analytics)

Facilities and Infrastructure

Advice on � Changes/updates to Library facilities and

resources; � Changes/updates to Information Technology

resources available to students;

� Equivalence of facilities and support services (academic and non-academic) available to students with those

Exception reporting only. Evidence from previous quality assessments will be taken into account, particularly in instances where issues for action have been identified.

UOW Dubai (with UOW quality assurors assessing through site visit)



Data

� Changes/updates to academic support services: • Learning Development; • English Language Support; • Peer Assisted Study or equivalent; • Other

� Changes/updates to non-academic support services: � Disability Services; � Counselling Services; � Student Support Advice; � Other

available at UOW.

Student Performance and Outcomes

� Aggregated student performance data for the delivery location across:

o Enrolments o Offer to Enrolment

Conversion o Attrition o Progression to Completion o WAMs vs UOW

� Equivalence of performance and outcomes across all UOW delivery locations

Comparative Student Outcomes Data (BALA)

� Graduate Destinations Survey data (current year)

� Equivalence of graduate outcomes and employability outcomes across all UOW delivery locations

Advice on � Changes/updates to academic staff

development structures and processes, including: � Courses available to staff; � Uptake and completion of courses

� Up to date aggregate data on academic staff profile

� Compliance with UOW policy requirements relating to academic staff qualifications;

� Equivalence of academic staff development activities with those available at UOW

UOW Dubai (with aggregate data on academic profiles coming through UOW Faculty approvals information)



Data

Advice on � Changes to administrative structure at the

partner institution � Impact of this on the administration of the

course or courses.

� Suitability of administrative processes to support the delivery of the UOW course or courses

Exception reporting only. Evidence from previous quality assessments will be taken into account, particularly in instances where issues for action have been identified.

UOW Dubai

Marketing and Promotion

� Sample institutional and course marketing materials

� Marketing materials comply with UOW policies and requirements.

� Evidence of signoff at the appropriate level

UOW Dubai

Future Developments of Academic Portfolio

� Academic Portfolio Plan � Implementation plan for proposed new

courses and new areas of major study

� Alignment of course portfolio with UOW

To adapt Portfolio Plan to UOWD purposes (already provided to Dr Alison Freeman)

UOW Dubai


2. Course-Level Assurance A. Measure B. Inputs/Evidence for Assessment C. Matters Assessed D. Commentary E. Source of

Data

Accreditation and Academic Standards

For each course: � Comparison of Course Learning Outcomes for

the course with UOW cognate � Report on its CAA accreditation status � Report on action taken in light of CAA

requirements � Advice on any changes made to the course. � Where changes have been made, evidence

of: • Assessment of impact of changes on

equivalence with comparable course at UOW;

• Assessment of impact of changes on the Course Learning Outcomes for the course or courses;

• Evidence of approval of course changes through UOW course approval mechanisms.

� Compliance with UOW course approval processes.

� Compliance with external accreditation requirements.

� Equivalence of course learning outcomes

Summary report for each course UOW Dubai (through data provided to the UOW Dubai Academic Board)

� Most recent Course Analytics report for each course

� Commentary on any exceptional results

� Equivalence of course performance

Commentary by exception UOW (BALA)

For each affected course, advice on: � Changes to course admissions requirements � The impact on equivalence to those for

comparable courses at UOW.

� Equivalence of entry requirements and credit for previous studies with comparable course at UOW.

Exception reporting UOW Dubai

� Report on academic misconduct cases � Data relating to number of academic

misconduct investigations including o grounds for investigation and o outcomes

� Equivalence of academic integrity standards at the host institution with those of UOW.

Evidence of use of UOW policies or equivalent.

UOW Dubai


2. Course-Level Assurance A. Measure B. Inputs/Evidence for Assessment C. Matters Assessed D. Commentary E. Source of

Data

Student Performance � Comparative Student Outcome (CSO) data for UOWD including commentary on significant issues

� Evidence that student performance is comparable with that in the equivalent course at UOW.

� Evidence that marking standards

High level reports and raw data where available.

UOW (BALA)

� Student Feedback at a course-level o Course Experience

Questionnaire o Student Experience

Questionnaire results by course

� Action taken against feedback

� Evidence that student feedback is being sought, and that the feedback is being actioned where appropriate

� Evidence of comparable student experience

UOW Dubai

Governance and Oversight

� Report on any changes to course-level governance mechanisms

� Equivalence of oversight with that in place at UOW.

Exception reporting UOW Dubai

Closing the Loop � Report on actions taken to close the loop on issues identified at a course level in the previous year

� Effective quality assurance processes

Parties identified in previous Quality Assurance report


3. Subject-Level Assurance – Annual Review A. Measure B. Inputs/Evidence for Assessment C. Matters Assessed D. Commentary E. Source of

Data

Student Performance and Feedback

� Student outcome data per subject, over two or more years where available at a subject level, including: • Data highlighting subjects with below

average student progression rates of weighted average marks.

• Evidence of action taken in subjects with consistently poor datasets

• Summary reporting of subject

� Equivalence with student outcomes in equivalent subjects at UOW.

� Improvement or maintenance of student outcomes per subjects

Exception Reporting of Subject Performance

� Report on actions taken to close the loop on issues identified in previous reports at a subject level

� Report on any subjects moving from Tier 1 to Tier 2 Quality Assurance in the previous year.

� Effective Quality Assurance Exception reporting


4. Subject-Level Assurance – Annual Review A. Measure B. Inputs/Evidence for Assessment C. Matters Assessed D. Commentary E. Source of

Data

Accreditation and Academic Standards

� Subject Outline Report. � Accuracy of subject outline. � Approval of subject outlines at the

appropriate level � Assessment of equivalence of

outcomes and assessment � Assessment of appropriateness of

customisation and contextualisation.

Outlines for each subject should be submitted for assessment.

Transnational Education and Alliances

� Summary of changes made to the subject including information relating to the implementation of changes

� Approval of changes through the relevant UOW course approval mechanisms.

� Assessment of impact of changes against Subject Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and where applicable, with Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)

By exception Transnational Education and Alliances

� Student enrolment data � Student performance data (over two or

more assessment periods where possible)

� Comparative Student Outcomes Report for the subject

� Viability of continued delivery based on student attainment and student enrolment numbers

UOW

� Moderation reports for assessments resulting in significant variances between host institution’s grades and moderator’s grades.

� Alignment of assessment tasks with Subject Learning Outcomes (SLOs).

� Action taken to ensure differences highlighted by moderation are addressed.

Data submitted for each subject, including timelines for moderation where not previously undertaken.

Transnational Education and Alliances

� Subject Evaluation Survey data, including: • Outcome of questionnaires as data

� Evidence that student feedback is being sought, and that the feedback is being actioned where

UOW Dubai


• Trends identified over two or more years.

• Action taken against student feedback at a subject level.

appropriate


ACADEMIC ADVICE TO STUDENTS POLICY AGENDA ITEM C5 Background Ownership of the Academic Advice to Students Policy, and the guidelines that are appended to the policy, was handed to the Academic Quality and Standards Unit in 2014. The policy outlines which staff members are able to provide academic advice to students, under what circumstances, and what form that advice may take. The policy exists to ensure that academic advice is given only by those with the authority to do so, and conversely that advice not be given by those without the authority to do so. An initial review of the provisions of the policy, and limited consultation with members of two faculties, has highlighted inconsistency of practice that should be further explored. The Education Policy Review Subcommittee has provided feedback on a number of issues relating to the policy, and endorsed the proposed approach to the policy review. Data from the Student Experience Questionnaire has been received, and will be further explored. In addition, some formatting changes are proposed to further enable the provision of academic advice in line with the requirements of the policy. The key issues are outlined below. Policy Issues and Amendments In general, the provisions of the policy as they stand are largely acceptable, in most instances requiring small or no amendment. A number of minor changes to content have been made to aid readability. However, there are a number of significant issues that require consideration:

Signoff and Data Retention Perhaps the most significant issue with the provisions of the current policy is that there is a requirement for Executive Deans to authorise certain staff members to provide specialised academic advice, and to ensure that those so authorised have sufficient training and can be deemed competent to provide advice.

It is unclear at present that this requirement is complied with across the board. Feedback has been sought from each Faculty in relation to the dual issues of authorisation and sign-off, and when received will provide a clearer picture of current practice. Provisionally, it is proposed that the same level of signoff be required, but that Faculties be required to maintain records of the signoff. While stopping short of mandating the manner in which these records be maintained, a new clause has been added to this effect (section 4.14). Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice At present, the guidelines that support this policy are appended to the end of the policy. It is proposed that the guidelines be uncoupled from the policy. This would not only enable them to be amended more easily if required (as they would not have to go through the formal policy approval process, but rather amendments could be approved at the Deputy Vice-Chancellor level), but also make them more visible for staff seeking guidance on the provision of advice to students, and for students.

Next Steps These issues will be further explored with representatives from each faculty, in addition to seeking their input regarding general changes to the policy provisions. At a minimum, the following consultation will occur to ensure that changes to the policy are warranted and practical:

• SEQ data relating to student’s perception of the provision of academic advice, both University-wide and at a faculty level, will be analysed.


• Requests for information relating to current practice have been sent to the Associate Deans Education (for onshore) and Associate Deans International (for offshore), to ascertain current levels of awareness and/or practice in relation to the issue of authorisation for staff to provide academic advice to students will occur. Once received, this information may be used to inform further changes to the draft policy.

• Feedback on changes required from ADEs, ADIs, Heads of Students, Heads of School, relevant Directors (as outlined in the Policy), senior staff members from Faculty Student Hubs, Student Central and other interested parties will be sought.

• Finalise amendments to the policy and guidelines, and publish them on the Policies Under Development page for broad consultation.

• Resubmit the finalised policy to EPRS, prior to seeking endorsement from UEC. Should the amendments to the policy remain minor in nature, approval will be sought from the Vice-Chancellor, as required by the Standard on UOW Policy.

At this time, we are not proposing the formation of a working party to consult on changes to the policy, as it is not considered that this is warranted. Rather, consultation on policy amendments will occur through the channels outlined above. Draft Resolution That the University Education Committee:

i. note the current issues relating to the provision of academic advice to students; ii. note that the finalised amendments will be submitted to the 05/2015 University Education

Committee. iii. invite members to provide feedback on proposed amendments to the policy, and any other

information that may inform the policy review.

ATTACHMENT

Draft Academic Advice to Students Policy Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Academic Quality and Policy Specialist, Academic Quality and Standards Unit



ACADEMIC ADVICE TO STUDENTS POLICY Date first approved:

3 December 2010

Date of effect:

Autumn Session 2011

Date last amended: (refer Version Control Table)

Autumn Session 2015

Date of Next Review:

December 2013



Director, Academic Quality and Standards Unit [email protected]

Author: Governance Unit (EPRS Academic Advice Working Party)


Academic Quality and Standards Unit Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Portfolio


Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice

References & Legislation:

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2002). The Role of Student Affairs and Services in Higher Education State Records Act 2008 General Course Rules Complaints Policy UOW Learning and Teaching Rules, Codes, Standards and Policies UOW Research Rules, Codes, Standards and Policies Records Management Policy

Audience: Public – accessible to anyone

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

Contents

1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................ 3

2 Application & Scope - Exclusions or Special Conditions ........................................................................ 4

3 Policy Principles ...................................................................................................................................... 5

4 Providing Advice ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Record Keeping ................................................................................................................................................. 7

5 Roles & Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................... 7

6 Version Control and Change History ....................................................................................................... 8

Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice ............................................................................ 9

Web Based Advice: ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Comment [JD1]: These guidelines appear as an appendix at the end of this doc. Would it be better to have them as a separate doc? This would make it easier to change the guidelines if required without having to go through a full approval process.

Comment [JD2]: These are general info pages, but should be kept as reference points to lead users of the policy to relevant policy info.



http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001281/128118e.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001281/128118e.pdf

http://www.uow.edu.au/ssLINK/UOW058680

http://www.uow.edu.au/about/teaching/policies/index.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/about/teaching/policies/index.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/research/forms/UOW009458.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/about/ssLINK/UOW039584

http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/feedback/index.html

1 Purpose of Policy..................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................ 2

3 Application & Scope - Exclusions or Special Conditions (if any) ............................................................ 3

4 Policy Principles ...................................................................................................................................... 4

5 Providing Academic Advice ..................................................................................................................... 4

6 Record Keeping ....................................................................................................................................... 5

7 Roles & Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................... 6

8 Version Control and Change History ....................................................................................................... 7

Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice ............................................................................ 8


Purpose of Policy

1. Students require access to information and advice to support their academic progress through their programs of study. The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework for the provision of academic advice to students and to ensure that staff who provide specialist academic advice to students maintain appropriate records of this advice.

2. This policy is supported by Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice, which are designed to support faculties to implement effective systems to ensure that academic advice is accessible, accurate and timely.

1 Definitions


Academic advice Advice or information that is provided to a student and on which the student relies, or can be expected to rely regarding:

1. their academic discipline or area of study;

2. the rules, policies, codes and standards that apply to a course or a program of study and a student's progress through it;

3. other matters that impact on the student's progress;

4. the learning skills required for the course or subject and student support services available to help students with their studies; and/or

5. the professional requirements and attributes for the professions affiliated with the academic discipline.

Academic advice may be:

1. administrative advice;

1. general academic advice; or

2. specialist academic advice.

Note: Academic advice does not include consideration of formal applications for determination relating to academic matters, such as academic consideration, applications for credit or advanced standing or applications to vary a course or program of study.

Administrative advice Advice that may have implications for a student’s or a prospective student’s study and or progression, relating to legislative requirements, admission, enrolment and related visa and/or financial matters, leave of absence or deferral, timetabling, examinations or graduation, or University policy documents,

Academic Complaint A complaint by a student concerning a decision, act or omission of a member of UOW staff or committee which affects the student's academic progress.

Electronic records Includes emails, electronic versions of letters, memoranda and other records communicated and maintained by means of electronic equipment.

General academic advice

Advice that describes and clarifies relevant University rules, codes, policies or standards and/or published or standardised information on academic issues,


Examples include:

• general advice on the requirements of a course or subject, based on the relevant course rules or subject outline

• general advice on the requirements for major and/or minor studies within a course

• general advice on honours requirements

• general advice on the operation of a University policy

Any advice on academic matters provided to prospective students is general academic advice.

Policy documents University rules, policies, codes, standards, guidelines and procedures.

Specialist academic advice

Advice that is iIndividual advice to a student that addresses the student’s specific circumstances and varies from general, published or standardised information.

Examples include:

• detailed course or subject planning and/or selection advice

• interpretation and application of course or subject requirements to the student’s individual circumstances

• interpretation of academic policy or procedures to the student’s individual circumstances

• tailored advice on learning skills or support services available to the student to meet the student’s individual circumstances/

All academic advice that is not general academic advice is specialist academic advice.

Staff Employees of the University, UniAdvice and/or the UOW College and in respect of offshore programs, includes personnel involved in the delivery of UOW programs offshore.

Student A person registered with the University of Wollongong for a course or unit of study.

2 Application & Scope - Exclusions or Special Conditions (if any) 1. This policy applies to academic advice provided to all current or prospective students of the

University:

a. When applying for a course of study delivered by, or on behalf of, the University;

a.b. while studying at an Australian campus or education centres of the University or offshore; or

b.c. while undertaking study at the University within a virtual or online environment; or

c.d. while studying a UOW course or unit of study at UOW College;

d.e. while studying at the University while on student exchange, Study Abroad or undertaking a cross-institutional program; and

e.f. whether undertaking coursework or research.

2. This policy does not apply to students studying at the University of Wollongong Dubai.


3. This policy applies to staff of the University, UniAdvice and/or UOW College in providing academic advice to current or prospective students of the University.

3 Policy Principles 1. In order to support the student experience, the University strives to ensure that students have

access to appropriate academic advice to inform the decisions that students must make to progress their study at the University.

2. According to UNESCO, sStudent advice programs support the following important objectives:

a. assisting students with decision-making and career direction.

b. helping students understand and comply with institutional requirements.

c.b. providing clear and accurate information regarding institutional policies, procedures and programs, and assisting students in complying with these institutional requirements.

d.c. assisting students in the selection of courses and other educational experiences (e.g.internships, study abroad).

e.d. referring students to appropriate resources, on and off campus.

f.e. evaluating student progress towards established goals.

g. collecting and distributing data regarding student needs, preferences and performance for use in refining or revising institutional/agency decisions, policies and procedures.

h. interpreting various interest/ability inventories that provide students with information related to their career choices.

i.f. utilizsing a variety of supplemental systems such as online computer programs to deliver advising information.

3. Academic advice given to students will must be:

a. current and accurate;

b. based on the information provided by the student (where advice is provided by a staff members to a student);

c. ethical and impartial;

d. provided directly by staff to the student, and not through an intermediary;

e. provided in a timely manner, responding as promptly as possible to student enquiries; and

f. provided only by those persons properly authorised and qualified to provide the advice.

4. Any student who considers that they have been disadvantaged as a result of receiving academic advice that does not meet the requirements of this policy is entitled to lodge an academic complaint.

4 Providing Academic Advice 1. Academic advice may be:

a. provided by a staff member to a student; or

b. information published by the University in printed form or on its website and/or systems.

Comment [JD3]: While these are contained in the UNESCO document, they are underpinned by other policies or strategies at a university level.


General Academic Advice 2. General academic advice may be provided to students by all staff authorised to do so.

Authorisation may be given by the relevant Executive Dean or Director at the Faculty or Division or at UOW College, or by the Manager of the University Education Centres. Authorisation must be in writing, and may be granted to individual staff or to staff holding designated positions.

3. General academic advice may be provided to prospective students by all staff authorised to do so by the relevant Executive Dean or Director at with responsibility for UniAdvice, UOW College or at the Faculty.

Specialist Academic Advice 3.4. Specialist academic advice may be provided by the following staff, known as Specialist Academic

Advisers:

a. Executive Deans, Head of Students, Deputy Deans, Associate Deans, Directors of Study, Discipline AdvisorsLeaders, Course Coordinators, Academic Program Directors (for offshore courses) Heads of School and Associate Heads of School in relation to the program of study;

b. Lecturers and Subject Coordinators in relation to advice on a subject which they teach or coordinate;

c. Supervisors, Associate Deans – Research, Heads of Postgraduate Studies and the Director, Graduate Research School in relation to higher degree research students;

d. Members of University Ethics Committees and the Ethics Manager on ethics issues in relation to higher degree research students; and/or

e. Learning Development staff in relation to learning skills.

4.5. Specialist academic advice or may also be provided to students by any member of general staff authorised to do so, who is known as a Student Adviser, subject to the following:

a. Student Advisers must be authorised to provide specialist academic advice by the Executive Dean or Director of the faculty or Division;

b. Staff are not eligible to be authorised as a Student Adviser unless and until the Executive Dean or Director is satisfied that they have been trained to provide advice or are otherwise competent to do so on the basis of previous experience;

c. The authorisation may include restrictions on the nature or scope of the advice to be provided by the Student Adviser, who must only provide advice in accordance with those restriction; and

d. Student Advisers must consult with Specialist Academic Advisors or refer students to appropriate Specialist Academic Advisers where the issues are complex.

Administrative Advice 5.6. Administrative advice will be provided to current students by staff of the Student Services Division

(in respect of leave of absence or deferral, timetabling, examinations or graduation, University policy documents) singly or in conjunction with any person authorised to provide specialist academic advice.

6.7. Administrative advice to prospective students relating to legislative and visa requirements, will be provided by designated staff of UniAdvice.

8. Administrative advice to current students relating to legislative and visa requirements and that may have implications for an international student's study and or progression will be provided by designated staff of the Student Services Division.

Comment [JD4]: Investigation into howthis is done and how the Faculties and Divisions store this information?

Comment [JD5]: How is this assessed? How can this be better supported?


Exclusions 7. Academic advice should must not be provided to students by Peer Leaders in the Peer Assisted

Study Sessions programUniversity staff or students who are not authorised to do so by the relevant Executive Dean or Director.

Record Keeping 8.9. Where staff provide specialist academic advice that impacts or is likely to impact on a student's

studies, it is recommended that the advice is confirmed in writing using a SOLSMail message or by providing it to the student in some other written form.

9.10. Written or electronic records of specialist academic advice will be recorded and retained in accordance with the principles and requirements for the management of records set out in the Records Management Policy.

10.11. Specialist academic advice provided during public and high activity periods such as during enrolment may be recorded and retained using batch forms, running sheets or using other efficient methods of recording information.

12. Under the State Records Act, 1998, each public office (which includes the University of Wollongong) must make and keep full and accurate records of the activities of the office. Under the General Retention and Disposal Authority – University Records, records of advice to students in relation to academic matters must be retained for a minimum period of 6 years from completion or discontinuation of the student’s course of study.

11.13. Faculties are required to maintain records of authorisation for staff to provide academic advice, as outlined in sections 4.2 and 4.5.b of this policy.

5 Roles & Responsibilities 1. Faculties and the Student Services Division are responsible for:

a. ensuring that all information regarding courses, subjects, relevant University rules, codes, standards and policies and regarding how to access providers of administrative, general and specialist academic advice is:

i. accurate

ii. current

iii. appropriately presented to assist students to access and understand the information, and

iv. readily available on the University's website and on relevant student systems.

b. taking action to inform students of significant changes to the University’s rules, codes, standards and policies affecting students’ academic experience.

2. Faculties and Divisions are responsible for ensuring that all staff authorised to provide academic advice are provided with appropriate induction, training, resources and support to ensure this responsibility can be carried out.

3. Faculties are responsible for implementing, where appropriate, the Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice.

4. Staff authorised to provide academic advice are responsible for familiarising themselves with relevant University rules, codes, standards and policies, and for providing advice consistent with these University policy documents.

5. Students are responsible for:

a. familiarising themselves with relevant University rules, codes, standards and policies and for seeking academic advice when required from designated staff.


b. being proactive in seeking academic advice from those staff authorised to provide that advice before making significant decisions affecting their academic experience;

c. fully and accurately disclosing all background information that they believe is relevant to the issue on which academic advice is sought to the person providing the academic advice;

d. retaining records of academic advice they receive (e.g. retaining electronic or hard copies of specialist academic advice, making diary notations etc.);

e. the actions that students take contrary to academic advice provided, and the consequences of such actions.

6 Version Control and Change History

Version Control Date Effective Approved By Amendment


University Council 3rd December 2010

First Version

2 21 June 2011 Vice-Principal (Administration)

Updated to reflect change of name from Wollongong College Australia to UOW College.

3 13 February 2014

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education)

Updated to reflect change from Dean of Students to Student Ombudsman.


University Council Amendments to reflect the implementation of the new Coursework Student Academic Complaints Policy and Higher Degree Research (HDR) Student Academic Complaints Policy, which replace the previous Academic Grievance Policy (Coursework and Honours Students) and Academic Grievance Policy (Higher Degree Research Students). Updated to reflect name change from Academic Registrar’s Division to Student Services Division and Student Research Centre to Graduate Research School.


Guidelines on Good Practice Provision of Academic Advice

Web Based Advice: 1. The University should provide on the web information on courses and subjects including

a. Course Overview, Entry Requirements, Course Requirements, Time Limits, Fields of Study (if applicable), Assessment Summary

b. Subject Information as per the Subject Database

2. The University should provide web based access to all University rules, codes, standards and policies affecting academic matters, which can be located on the UOW Policy Directory, http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/index.html

3. UniAdvice, the Research Students Centre and the Student Services Division should provide web based information for students on :

a. The process of seeking admission to the University, and

b. The process of enrolling at the University

Both items should be located on the UOW Future Students website.

4. Faculties should must provide web based information for students, both on the Current Students website (in cooperation with Student Serves Division) and on their fFaculty websites, on who to contact at their Faculty (including the location of these staff and the times at which these staff are available during sessions, study recess and exam periods, or the process for making appointments with these staff):

a. For general advice

b. For specialist advice

5. FAQs and Student Handbooks provided by Faculties

6.5. FAQs Information on the following topics should be made available to students:. Topics should include but are not limited to

a. Enrolling in tutorials/seminars/workshop/computer labs

b. Finding a lecture/tutorial room or office

c. What are lectures and tutorials, and when do they start

d. What are subject codes, credit points, core and elective subjects

e. What is a major and what is a minor study

f. What are prerequisites and co-requisites

g. Important deadlines

h. Credit transfer

i. Details on student professional experience programs

j. Who to see about enrolment, advanced standing, subject variations and other specialist academic advice matters

k. Subject outlines – what they are, what do they contain and how to obtain them

l. Plagiarism and academic integrity

m. Copyright

n. Where to get assistance with study

o. Student consultation hours

Comment [JD6]: These Guidelines should be taken out of the Policy and be housed in a separate Guideline document. – This would facilitate their use by those who don’t know where to look for them otherwise, and mean that they can be changes without going through the full Policy review approval procedure.

Comment [JD7]: Suggest removing the ref to FAQs as it is overly prescriptive where info is available but not presented in FAQs


http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/index.html

7.6. Access to FAQ will be provided through faculty specific websites.

8.7. Student Handbooks prepared by faculties for students generally, or for specific cohorts, should contain up to date references to university policy documents and other relevant information such as that listed above at 2.1

Student Enquiries Centres 9.8. Student Enquiries Centres (known in some faculties as Faculty “Centrals” and including the

Research Students Centre at the Wollongong Campus) should be available to students studying on the Wollongong Campus.

10.9. Students studying at Shoalhaven Campus, Sydney Business School Sydney and Education Centres should have access to a facility that offers services like those provided at the student access centre for the location.

11.10. Students should be advised on the faculty, campus or education centre website and in other information (such as subject outlines and enrolment information) of the following:

a. hours of operation (which should as closely as possible coincide with the hours of operation for the University),

b. which providers of general and specialist advice are available at the Student Access Centre or equivalent

c. services offered at the Student Enquiries Centre or equivalent, for example,

i. access to forms,

ii. submission and collection of assignments,

iii. access to general advice,

iv. scholarship enquiries,

v. credit transfer enquiries,

vi. student academic consideration enquiries,

vii. arranging appointments with academic staff,

viii. referral of students to appropriate specialist academic advice providers, and

ix. referral of students to other relevant support and/or advocacy services, including:

o the Student Ombudsman,

o the Student Advocacy Officer or

o the Student Support Advisor for the faculty.

Access to Specialist Advice 12.11. Students requiring specialist academic advice require tailored advice that involves the

exercise of judgment in the interpretation of facts and circumstances and the application of University policy documents to those circumstances.

13.12. Specialist advice may be in the areas including, but not limited to of course or subject selection, enrolment, assessment requirements, credit transfer, student discipline matters, academic complaints or learning support.

14.13. Students should be able to access specialist academic advice in a timely way using the information noted in these guidelines to determine from whom such advice may be obtained and how and where to access the providers of such advice.

Comment [JD8]: Couldn’t find any FAQ pages on the faculty websites – suggest removing this.


15.14. Faculties should ensure that alternative arrangements are in place in the event that a staff member who is designated to provide specialist academic advice is unavailable for a significant period.

Communicating Changes 16.15. Any policy changes which directly affect students should be brought to the attention of

students through a variety of means including:

a. Using the New Policy Information area of the University Policy Directory

b. Advising students using the Current Students website

c. Notifying students using SOLSMail

d. Using UOW digital signage

e. Using local staff in the case of offshore programs.

17.16. Student Services Division and faculties will ensure that changes to UOW courses and subjects are communicated to students by timely updates to the Online Course Handbook information and the UOW Subject Database.

Record Keeping 18.17. Records should be kept of specialist advice given to students who are or have been

enrolled, documenting the nature of the advice, to whom it was provided, by whom and on what date.

19.18. Where practicable, it is recommended that students should receive a copy of any record of advice given.

20.19. Advice should be given directly to the student, not through an intermediary. Students should be aware that advice given to a third party or received via a third party is not official University advice; official University advice is given directly to the student.

21.20. Students should make and retain a record of any academic advice received, when it was received and by whom it was given.

22.21. If a student receives academic advice and acts against that advice then the student is responsible for the consequences of that action.

23.22. Where advice is given to a student, the record can be made directly on the student’s record on the Student Management Package. If it is not possible to make such a record directly, the record should be made in written form and retained consistent with University record keeping obligations. It is good practice to provide a copy to the student.

24.23. Where specialist academic advice is provided to students during public and high activity periods such as during student enrolment, records may be made and retained using run sheets such as the example set out at Attachment 1.

6. Faculties should prepare process maps for staff and students showing how the process of providing academic advice at UOW is administered.

Induction and Training 1.24. Faculties should provide assurancemust ensure that staff are equipped to deal with

enquiries through structured induction and development of staff performing this role.

2.25. Faculties should provide ongoing training and development of staff, including ensuring that staff are provided with access to information on changes to University policies and practices that impact on the provision of routine academic advice.

3.26. Faculties should use a range of methods to monitor and confirm the capacity of staff to provide quality routine academic advice, such as monitoring student feedback (including

Comment [JD9]: Is this not too complex to achieve? Would be better to provide information on public-facing websites, as listed above.


complaints) relating to the quality of academic advice, surveying student satisfaction and monitoring issues identified in other University surveys such as the Student Experience Questionnaire.

7.6. Rights of Appeal

1. Faculties and the Student Services Division should make students aware of their right to lodge an academic complaint in response to any academic advice they receive that detrimentally affects their academic experience on the basis that the advice is not in conformity with the standards set out in this policy.

Appendix – Student Advice Run Sheet Sample

Student Advice Run Sheet – Enrolment Day – 17 February 2011

Student Adviser:

Student Name Student Number

Issue Advice

John Smith 3217445 • Subjects

• Course

• Student Support

• Intn’l

• Other (specify)

Student interested in double major in international business and marketing. Discussed options and outlined limits of double counting of subject MGMT 302

Sani Hamid 3934579 • Subjects

• Course

• Student Support

• Intn’l

• Other (specify)

Has wife with disability. Advised of option of registering under associate provisions with Disability Services. Referred to SSA.

Li Lin 3766782 • Subjects

• Course

• Student Support

• Intn’l

• Other (specify)

Looking at transfer from MAF to MComm. Discussed scope for use of MAF subjects to fulfil elective requirements, and outlined compulsory subjects in MComm. Explained process of course transfer. Will need change to COE as International Student. Referred to Student Services Division for Application to Vary Course Registration form.

Aliesha Davies 3999111 • Subjects

• Course

• Student Support

• Intn’l

• Other

Dean’s Scholar – seeking information on support for program. What is value of the text book voucher? Advised it depends on number of subjects. Gave advice on upper limit per year, pro-rata depending on subjects undertaken.


(specify)


EXTERNAL REFERENCING PILOT PROJECT AGENDA ITEM C6 Background The requirement for external referencing of courses is implied in the existing Higher Education Standards Framework, and articulated in the revised draft standards that are due to come into effect in 2016. (http://www.hestandards.gov.au/final-proposed-framework). The regulatory standards outline the external referencing process to be undertaken, but not the methodologies, evaluative framework, templates or documentation to be used. This remains for universities to determine and is the driver behind an External Referencing Pilot Project that UOW has been invited to participate in. This pilot project has been established to trial a process for external referencing of selected courses with participating partner(s) as a means of designing and testing methodologies and processes to meet the relevant Higher Education Standards. Participating partners are, at commencement of the project, RMIT, UOW, QUT, and Curtin. Sara Booth from the University of Tasmania is taking an advisory role as an expert on Quality, and in light of her role in developing online systems to support external referencing. Project Objectives The project objective is to develop and pilot a process for external referencing of assessment methods and grading of students’ attainment of learning outcomes that is focussed, economical, sustainable, and appropriate to meet the Higher Education Standards, while clearly prioritising quality enhancement outcomes. Project Outcomes The expected project outcomes (deliverables) are:

1. Establishment of a tested and verified approach to external referencing of assessment methods and grading of students’ attainment of learning outcomes, including creation of peer review templates and supporting documents such as instruction guides.

2. Project Evaluation and Report 3. Preliminary database of comparable subjects and a network of discipline experts as

reviewers 4. Conference paper / published journal article

Project Team Progress to Date The project team has met on two occasions to date: May 11-12, Melbourne: At this 2-day Workshop the project team discussed the scope and purpose of the project, and agreed on general principles of good practice for the project. July 3, Sydney: The project team drafted review forms and agreed on a triangulated review process. Next Steps A Memorandum of Understanding is expected to be signed by all participating institutions in the coming weeks.


http://www.hestandards.gov.au/final-proposed-framework

During July and August the project team will finalise the process including supporting materials, and will liaise with Faculties to identify suitable subjects to participate in the Pilot. Throughout Spring Session the required documentation (subject outlines, assessment tasks, marking criteria, information about course level learning outcomes and samples of student work) will be collected, so that the triangulated review can take place at the end of Spring Session, i.e. in November to December 2015. Following the review, feedback will be provided to subject coordinators (and course directors), with subsequent response from these participants. The project team will then reconvene to evaluate the process and identify necessary changes for full implementation, and the final project report and other deliverables will be produced in early 2016. Call for Expressions of Interest A call for Expressions of Interest to participate in the pilot will be sent from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), aimed at all subject coordinators of final year undergraduate subjects (300 or 400 level) being delivered in Spring Session 2015. Coordinators of subjects included in this pilot study who complete the set of tasks will have the opportunity to have their participation acknowledged as part of their own continuing professional development (CPD) and to contribute to scholarly outputs associated with this project (such as a report, conference paper, published journal article). Other benefits include feedback on the design of their subject’s assessment tasks and how well they align to learning outcomes, and validation of the assessment quality cycle, all compared with similar subjects and courses within the wider Australian sector. Questions or comments relating to the External Referencing Pilot Project should be directed to Tori Funnell in the Academic Quality and Standards Unit, via email to [email protected]. Draft Resolution That the University Education Committee note the report on the External Referencing Pilot Project as attached to the agenda papers. Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Tori Funnell Moderation of Assessment Project Officer

Chair, EPRS



GRADUATE QUALITIES POLICY AGENDA ITEM C7 In light with the development of legislation over the recent years, with the emphasise having shifted to evidencing student achievement in course level learning outcomes; and the requirement for all courses to be AQF compliant, the need for an additional set of University Level Graduate Qualities seems redundant and in fact is adding an additional layer of work in course approval and quality assurance. This paper therefore proposes that the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy is revoked. Draft Resolution that UEC note the case for revoking the Graduate Qualities Policy and approve the proposed action to progress to a university wide consultation phase

ATTACHMENT Graduate Qualities Discussion Paper

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: A/Prof Romy Lawson, Director Learning, Teaching & Curriculum




GRADUATE QUALITIES DICUSSION PAPER: UEC July 2015

1. Background In 1992, as a requirement of government funding of universities, all higher education institutions were required to make a public statement of graduate attributes (Barrie, Hughes & Smith, 2009). These graduate attributes were defined as “descriptions of the core abilities and values a university community agrees all its graduates should develop as a result of successfully completing their university studies” (Barrie et al 2009, p.1). Responding to this, UOW developed the Attributes of UOW Graduates. These were complemented by the then UOW Tertiary Literacies Policy.

In 2006, a major project to refresh UOW’s approach to graduate attributes resulted in the current UOW Graduate Qualities and accompanying policy and guidelines. These were approved by University Council, in August 2007. This policy described the distinctive qualities of a graduate of the University of Wollongong (“the UOW Graduate Qualities”), qualities that would equip UOW graduates for roles in society and the workplace.

The UOW Graduate Qualities were developed to guide: • UOW students, to develop personally and professionally as they progress through their

courses; • UOW and UOW College staff, in their curriculum development, learning and teaching

strategies, evaluation and assessment practices; • UOW Higher Degree Research (HDR) supervisors, in their role of supporting and mentoring

HRD students.

The 2007 UOW Graduate Qualities Policy stated that the University of Wollongong is committed to developing graduates who are:

• Informed: Have a sound knowledge of an area of study or profession and understand its current issues, locally and internationally. Know how to apply this knowledge. Understand how an area of study has developed and how it relates to other areas.

• Independent learners: Engage with new ideas and ways of thinking and critically analyse issues. Seek to extend knowledge through ongoing research, enquiry and reflection. Find and evaluate information, using a variety of sources and technologies. Acknowledge the work and ideas of others.

• Problem solvers: Take on challenges and opportunities. Apply creative, logical and critical thinking skills to respond effectively. Make and implement decisions. Be flexible, thorough, innovative and aim for high standards.

• Effective communicators: Articulate ideas and convey them effectively using a range of media. Work collaboratively and engage with people in different settings. Recognise how culture can shape communication.

• Responsible: Understand how decisions can affect others and make ethically informed choices. Appreciate and respect diversity. Act with integrity as part of local, national, global and professional communities.

The policy states that the Graduate Qualities were to be addressed in all courses of study taught at the University, and could be interpreted as a list of “Faculty/Discipline Graduate Qualities”, in which Faculties and Graduate Schools articulate the Qualities for students in a particular faculty, discipline or course level. They were then developed through both students’ participation in their courses of study; and a range of programs and activities available to students that supplement their courses of study.


2. Current Climate This focus on university level graduate attributes has shifted since 1992. Under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Act 2011, universities and other higher education providers are responsible for ensuring that their self-accredited courses of study comply with the Provider Course Accreditation Standards. Section five of the framework sets the standards for assessment with the expectation that is designed so that it “is effective and expected student learning outcomes are achieved”. This was reinforced in standard 5.1 which stated:

Assessment tasks for the course of study and its units provide opportunities for students to demonstrate achievement of the expected student learning outcomes for the course of study.

In 2015, the Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) has been revised and this expectation of demonstrating course (degree) level learning outcomes are met is even more heavily emphasised:

Higher Education Standards framework (2015) - Section 1.4 - Learning Outcomes and Assessment 1. The expected learning outcomes for each course of study are specified, consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded, and informed by national and international comparators. 2. The specified learning outcomes for each course of study encompass discipline-related and generic outcomes, including:

a. specific knowledge and skills and their application that characterise the field(s) of education or disciplines involved b. generic skills and their application in the context of the field(s) of education or disciplines involved c. knowledge and skills required for employment and further study related to the course of study, including those required to be eligible to seek registration to practise where applicable, and d. skills in independent and critical thinking suitable for life-long learning.

3. Methods of assessment are consistent with the learning outcomes being assessed, are capable of confirming that all specified learning outcomes are achieved and that grades awarded reflect the level of student attainment. 4. On completion of a course of study, students have demonstrated the learning outcomes specified for the course of study, whether assessed at unit level, course level, or in combination. HESF Reference Points (for identifying course level learning outcomes)

i. Australian Qualifications Framework ii. Learning outcomes statements developed for the field of education or discipline by

discipline communities or professional bodies. iii. The requirements for professional accreditation of the course of study and registration of

graduates where applicable. iv. Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Research, Good Practice Principles of Graduate

Research In addition to the TEQSA Act (2011) the national ministerial council approved the revised Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (2011), with the following implementation arrangements:

• For the higher education sector, use of the AQF commences from the date of commencement of the regulatory functions of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

• All requirements of the AQF will be met from 1 January 2015. • From 1 January 2015, all new enrolments will be in qualifications that meet the

requirements of the AQF.


3. Proposed Changes to Graduate Qualities Policy In light with the development of legislation over the recent years, with the emphasise having shifted to evidencing student achievement in course level learning outcomes; and the requirement for all courses to be AQF compliant, the need for an additional set of University Level Graduate Qualities seems redundant and in fact is adding an additional layer of work in course approval and quality assurance. This paper therefore proposes that the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy is revoked. It is felt that none of the richness of the Graduate Qualities would be lost from this exercise, as when the current UOW Graduate Qualities are compared to the AQF levels it is evident that all the attributes are incorporated (See Table 1): UOW GQ Informed Independent

learners Problem solvers

Effective communicators

Responsible

AQF (7) Bachelor Degree

Graduates at this level will have broad and coherent theoretical and technical knowledge with depth in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement and responsibility: • in contexts that require self-directed work and learning • within broad parameters to provide specialist advice and functions

Graduates at this level will have well-developed cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse and evaluate information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to unpredictable and sometimes complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will have well-developed cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse and evaluate information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to unpredictable and sometimes complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement and responsibility: • in contexts that require self-directed work and learning • within broad parameters to provide specialist advice and functions

AQF (8) Bachelor Honours, Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma


Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Graduates at this level will have advanced cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse critically, evaluate and transform information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will have advanced cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse critically, evaluate and transform information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Comment [MW1]: ‘In line with . .’?

Comment [MW2]: emphasis


UOW GQ Informed Independent learners

Problem solvers

Effective communicators

Responsible

AQF (9) Masters Degrees

Graduates at this level will have advanced and integrated understanding of a complex body of knowledge in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, expert judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Graduates at this level will have expert, specialised cognitive and technical skills in a body of knowledge or practice to independently: • analyse critically, reflect on and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories • research and apply established theories to a body of knowledge or practice • interpret and transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to specialist and non-specialist audiences

Graduates at this level will have expert, specialised cognitive and technical skills in a body of knowledge or practice to independently: • analyse critically, reflect on and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories • research and apply established theories to a body of knowledge or practice • interpret and transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to specialist and non-specialist audiences

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, expert judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Table 1: Mapping of UOW Graduate Qualities to AQF Levels 7-9

With this emphasis on course learning outcomes as the driver of curriculum design, it is therefore vital that time is spent on constructing appropriate CLOs that meet internal and external requirements. If they are constructed well the CLOs will encompass external requirements (for example, AQF Levels; Discipline Thresholds; Professional Body Requirements), university themes and the course context and standard (Figure 1). In this way curriculum mapping need only occur once, to the course learning outcomes (CLO) – allowing the assurance of learning process to be streamlined to focussing on just assuring the CLOs, eliminating the need to repeat the AQF and Graduate Qualities mapping process to individual subjects.

Figure 1: Streamlining AOL process through CLOs


The university is already undertaking work that supports a focus on course level learning outcomes to meet the HESF. When this is complete, the UOW Graduate Qualities will be redundant. This work includes the proposed Course Design Policy, the recently Academic Senate endorsed Assessment and Feedback Principles and work on a mapping tool for course learning outcomes within an online new curriculum management system.

The Course Design Policy states: 1. Assurance of learning involves a systematic process of:

a. identifying expected course learning outcomes b. designing courses to foster attainment of learning outcomes c. collecting data about student attainment of learning outcomes d. reviewing and benchmarking this data, and e. continuously developing and improving courses and subjects.

2. The purpose of Assurance of Learning is to ensure UOW graduates achieve the learning outcomes we claim they will achieve. As well as contributing to the improvement of our courses, assurance of learning is also a way of demonstrating our accountability to students and external stakeholders. 3. A well-developed Assurance of Learning process is characterised by:

3.1. clear course learning outcomes, which are consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded and informed by national and/or international comparators;

3.2. teaching and learning activities arranged to foster progressive and coherent achievement of expected learning outcomes;

3.3. methods of assessment which are capable of confirming that students are achieving the course learning outcomes;

3.4. grades which reflect the level of student achievement; 3.5. course review and improvement activities, including periodic comprehensive reviews of

all courses of study; 3.6. review and improvement are informed by consideration of indirect measures of

learning (graduate surveys, employers surveys, alumni feedback) and regular benchmarking; and

3.7. evidence of the way in which this information (learning outcomes, student performance, indirect measures) influences teaching, learning and research by informing students, initiating curriculum change or developing teaching practice and resource development.

The Assessment & Feedback Principles include the principle of ‘alignment’, stating that: Good assessment design is a whole of course task that requires:

• planning and systematic development by course teams; • explicit alignment with course and subject learning outcomes; and • focus on scaffolding and integrating learning, especially at key points throughout the course.

The new online curriculum management system will include tools for course teams to:

• Align Course Learning Outcomes to internal and external standards, including the Australian Qualifications Framework

• Describe and map the assessments which will assure attainment of Course Learning Outcomes

• Optionally, describe and map assessments which will scaffold the attainment of Course Learning Outcomes

• Visually represent how student attainment of Course Learning Outcomes is progressively developed across the entire program.


4. Implications and transitional arrangements This proposal would be implemented in a phased approach so work already done in mapping subjects to the AQF and UOW Graduate Qualities will not have to be repeated. Rather than embark on remapping each course, it is proposed that new courses adopted this revised approach and the existing AQF and Graduate Qualities mappings for current courses should stand until the time of each major cyclic course review. At that point, the course mapping will be to course learning outcomes which will be aligned to the AQF and any additional external body requirements.

5. Proposed Actions Action Timing

Discussion Paper to UEC for comment July 2015

Consultation Phase July - August 2015

Amend related policies: UOW Graduate Qualities Policy Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment Code of Practice – Supervision Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience Academic Review Policy UOW Strategic Plan 2011 - 2013 Plus additional policy search

December 2015

Implementation by faculties • New courses – from June 2016 • Existing courses – as part of cyclical

major course reviews, commencing June 2016



http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/ssLINK/3426/UOW058666









http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@spq/documents/doc/uow090598.pdf

TEQSA UPDATE AGENDA ITEM C8 1. TEQSA Re-Registration A draft TEQSA Re-Registration Project Plan has been developed for consideration by the Academic Quality & Standards Subcommittee (AQSS) on 28 July. Work has commenced on three related tasks:

• gap analysis against TEQSA’s re-registration minimum evidence requirements • gap analysis against the proposed new Higher Education Standards Framework • review of outcomes since the last major external audit (AUQA Audit 2011).

The results of the above assessments will inform the development of a UOW Quality Improvement Plan (QIP). This Plan will enable UOW to monitor and report key improvement initiatives in a systematic way. The QIP will be forwarded to UEC in early 2016.

2. TEQSA Liaison UOW has a new TEQSA Case Manager - Chris Ingamells was appointed to this role recently. UOW has notified TEQSA of the new courses to be offered in Hong Kong in conjunction with Community College of City University (CCCU). 3. TEQSA publishes new Guides TEQSA has published five new Guidance Notes on:

• Equivalence of professional experience to academic qualifications • Third party arrangements • Course approval, design and delivery • Benchmarking • Information resources

A summary of these guides is attached (Attachment 1), together with an assessment of how well UOW meets TEQSA’s expectations in these five areas.

All TEQSA guides can be assessed at http://www.teqsa.gov.au/news-publications/current-consultations.

Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee note the TEQSA Update as set out in the agenda paper.

ATTACHMENT

1. Summary of TEQSA Guidance Notes

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Manager, Academic Quality & Policy 8 July 2015




http://www.teqsa.gov.au/news-publications/current-consultations

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/news-publications/current-consultations

Attachment 1

Summary of TEQSA Guidance Notes

Equivalence of professional experience to academic qualifications

This guide is designed to assist providers when developing or reviewing a formal approach to determining the equivalence of professional experience of current and/or prospective teaching staff who do not hold a qualification above the level at which they teach (i.e. do not meet the AQF+1 requirement).

According to TEQSA, the policy should detail the specific criteria for assessing professional equivalency. This should go well beyond a measure of the time spent by a person working in a particular profession.

Examples of evidence might include: performing in a role that requires high order judgement, leadership in the development of professional standards, participation in advisory boards and professional networks, peer reviewed publications in the field of study etc.

At a minimum, academic staff should hold a qualification at least equivalent to the AQF level of the course of study being taught.

TEQSA expects that providers can demonstrate:

• how the policy is communicated to current and future academic teaching staff and to human resource staff

• who is delegated to apply the policy and that there are processes for ensuring transparency and equity in relation to its application

• who is able to approve decisions made under this policy • how we assure that the policy can be applied to all existing staff, as well as new appointments • how the outcomes of any assessment of professional equivalency may inform a staff member’s

professional development activities • how the policy will be subject to periodic review.

UOW RESPONSE: UOW does not have a policy on “Equivalence of professional experience to academic qualifications” however last October AQSS considered a discussion paper on this topic and a working group made up of a number of Heads of School and other key stakeholders has been established to help develop an appropriate policy. It is expected a draft policy will be released for broad consultation in Quarter 3 2015.

Third Party Arrangements

This guide includes useful information on what TEQSA will be looking for when it assesses such arrangements as part of a provider’s re-registration process.

The Appendix on page 3 is particularly helpful as it provides a checklist of topics that TEQSA expects will be covered within a third party agreement.

In assessing third party arrangements, TEQSA will seek evidence of:

• Close monitoring of material issues and risks as evident in the Minutes of the corporate governing body and the academic governing body;

• Formal agreements with the third party which clearly define roles and responsibilities; • Marking of assessment tasks … controls to ensure external consistency of standards with other

higher education providers, such as marking of examination scripts by own academic staff, and external moderation;

• Periodic audits which are two way – consider to what extent has the third party fulfilled its obligations AND to what extent has the provider fulfilled its obligations;

• The use of external reviewers (i.e. reviewers not employed by the provider or the third party) adds credibility to audits of third party providers;

TEQSA will review samples of recent audit reports and evidence that recommendations for improvement have been followed up and implemented by either the provider or the third party, as needed.

UOW RESPONSE: UOW does not have policy covering third party arrangements per se (though it does have an International Alliances Policy and a number of procedures relating to offshore delivery). However, work is well underway on developing new policy provisions around third party delivery of UOW courses and


http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/EquivProfExpGNFinal_0.pdf

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/TPAGNFinal_0.pdf

this guide will inform that work. It is expected that a draft policy will be released for broad consultation by Quarter 3 2015. Course Approval, Design and Delivery

According to TEQSA “the extent to which a provider can achieve and maintain academic quality will in large measure depend on the robustness of its course approval processes”. In assessing course approval and re-approval processes, TEQSA will seek evidence of:

• Policy and procedures framework covering course documentation, the criteria for approval of course proposals, the stages of course development and the relevant staff and committees with course development and course review responsibilities;

• Clear path of approval (from faculty to main academic governing body); • Clear allocation of responsibilities; • Active external input; • A major course review in the period leading up to the next reaccreditation of the course; • Active scrutiny and response.

UOW RESPONSE: UOW is currently reviewing it Course Policy framework. New procedures for course design and revised procedures for course review have been released for broad consultation. A well-attended consultation forum was held on 20 May. It is expected that a revised draft Course Policy and related procedures will go to EPRS in June, UEC in July, Senate in August and Council in October – for implementation in late 2015.

Benchmarking

The Threshold Standards mandate benchmarking at both an institutional and course level, but do not prescribe any particular process. This guide describes was TEQSA calls “indicative elements that would contribute to meeting the expectations for benchmarking”.

For benchmarking to be successfully implemented it has to become the ‘way things get done’. Institutional processes need to support benchmarking exercises, including policies and procedures and adequate resourcing needs to be considered, including administrative and management support. For benchmarking to be a key strategy for institutional organisational change, it needs to be endorsed and supported by senior executive leadership.

For benchmarking exercises to be truly successful, there has to be a bottom-up empowerment where there is sharing of expertise. Collaboration and openness are key ingredients for effective benchmarking exercises. Benchmarking becomes a shared conversation and a form of peer development, as well as a mechanism to drive institutional change and quality improvement.

UOW RESPONSE: UOW has a Benchmarking Policy (currently under review) and has engaged in major cross-institutional benchmarking projects looking at: first year student experience (2009), assessment (2010), HDR student support (2012), academic promotion (2013) and technology enhanced learning (2014). A ‘Guide to Benchmarking’ is available on the Benchmarking website. Course level benchmarking is embedded in the Course Review Procedures, however evidence of benchmarking of student learning outcomes (external moderation) is patchy at best. UOW is looking at developing processes to support external [and internal] moderation of assessment and is participating in an “external referencing project” with RMIT, Curtin, QUT and Deakin in Spring Session 2015.

Information Resources

TEQSA expects that the currency, relevance and academic quality of library and information resources will be maintained and reviewed to support the attainment of student learning outcomes and to promote a culture of academic scholarship and lifelong learning within the institution. Key features for the effective management of information resources:

• Clear responsibilities reflected in policy, strategy and planning processes. • An effective information resource plan that addresses acquisition, retention, culling and renewal.


http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/CourseApprovalDesignDeliveryGNFinal.pdf

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/BenchmarkingGNFinal.pdf


http://www.uow.edu.au/quality/aqp/benchmarking/UOW085692.html

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/InformationResourcesGNFinal.pdf

• Adequate budget allocations, integrated into annual financial projections and aligned with course delivery, research requirements and student projections.

• Information resources are managed by suitably qualified and experienced staff. • Information resource staff liaise with academic and support staff to ensure a comprehensive and

integrated resource collection and system • Systems enable ready access for students and staff on and off campus, regardless of their location

and mode of study. • Full-text, digital access is available to students and staff for resources listed as required on academic

outlines. • The performance of information resources provision is periodically reviewed and student feedback

mechanisms and benchmarking activities are built into reviews and acted on. • Data is collected and analysed in relation to the usage of resources and information systems to

monitor and enhance student experience. • There are appropriate and accessible physical spaces including library services and related student

study. • The library operating hours are appropriate for all students and staff to ensure reasonable access.

Third Party Considerations: • Are the library collection, facilities and services of the partner appropriate to support the learning

outcomes of students at the required level? • Is there a written agreement that clearly outlines the responsibilities of both the partner and

registered provider to provide access to information resources, including library services? • Does the arrangement present an extra cost to the student? If students will need to pay specific fees

for access to another library collection, is this information clearly communicated to students prior to enrolment?

• Are information resources readily and easily accessible to all students both geographically and digitally? Is the physical distance between the provider and the partner library a barrier to student access?

• Is the arrangement financially sustainable and is it appropriate to support projected student enrolments and growth?

• Are the students actively encouraged to use the resources at the third party?

UOW RESPONSE: UOW has an IT Strategic Plan 2013-18 and a Library Operational Plan 2015. In 2015 UOW extended Library opening hours at Wollongong campus (in response to student feedback) and introduced two new initiatives aimed at improving online access to Library resources: a new, web-based interface providing a one-stop-shop for student subject materials; and My Library embedded within Moodle to provide students with access to discipline specific resources and the ability to run a contextualised search across the Library’s collections. Digital Learning Thresholds were introduced 2014. UOW has minimum Library and IT standards for offshore delivery.
