Internal course accreditation

Flinders University is a registered higher education provider under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and is authorised to self-accredit all course offerings that lead to a higher education qualification.

It is a requirement of this registration that all accredited courses are comprehensively reviewed at least every seven years to ensure continued compliance with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015.

The Internal Course Accreditation process is the mechanism implemented by the University to support this requirement and replaces the Five Yearly Course Review process.

Quick links

Educational quality context

Your guide to internal accreditation

Schedule

FAQs

Educational Quality Framework

Award Courses Policy

Award Course Improvement and Accreditation Procedures

Educational quality context

Internal course accreditation sits firmly within the Education Quality Framework and supports the two key pillars that underpin educational quality in the university:

Educational quality assurance – uses robust frameworks, models, policies and processes to ensure educational offerings comply with all legislative and regulatory requirements, and reflect excellent practice in core academic structure.
Educational quality improvement – uses a strong central framework and processes to support cycles of continuous improvement, recognising that educational quality is not an end goal, but an ongoing pursuit.

Whilst internal course accreditation is a mechanism for ensuring legislative compliance, it sits firmly in the continuous course improvement and accreditation cycle and is part of a broader educational quality process.

Your guide to internal accreditation

Governance

Internal course accreditation is governed by the Award Courses Policy and supported by the Award Course Improvement and Accreditation Procedures.

As specified in the procedures, the internal course accreditation submission will:

align the data and information with the applicable standards of the higher education standards framework relevant to course accreditation, and
include a set of recommendations to support the ongoing improvement of the course curriculum and delivery, and
include a plan and timeframes for the development and implementation of the recommendations that must not extend beyond one year from the date of the finalised submission, unless an extension of time has been granted by the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Students).

Responsibility

While the educational quality team initiates the review process each year, and supports each review submission through the university’s academic governance, internal course accreditation takes place with oversight of the Education Quality Committee and is led by the relevant teaching program director or their nominee (academic lead). The academic lead will be supported by the assigned Educational Quality Team officer who will source and collate a package of course information and complete the non-academic sections of the submission template.

Submission

The procedures specify content that must be included in the submission and the format of the submission must align the content to the applicable standards of the higher education standards framework. To achieve this, the submission consists of two parts:

Package of course information

The package includes all submission content specified in Section 4.2 of the Procedures and consists of a PDF document and various other files. It is developed by the Educational Quality Team and provided to the academic lead at the beginning of the process. Further items are developed by the academic lead (and other contributors) and are included as they become available. The package is saved as a OneDrive folder and a link is provided in the submission template.

Submission template

The template is in table format and facilitates the alignment of course information, data and recommendations to the applicable HESF standards. This ensures courses are rigorously assessed against relevant criteria and recommendations are supported by a strong, focussed evidence base. It also ensures a consistent, focussed approach is applied to internal course accreditations across the University. A partially completed submission template (i.e. non-academic contributions to the submission) is provided to the academic lead at the beginning of the process and its completion is a collaborative process between the academic lead, educational quality team and other contributors. Guidance notes for users are included in the template as well as an implementation plan.

Submission template example and guidance notes

Package Contents

Required content as per procedure	Responsibility
a) Summary of the improvements recommended as a result of the last reaccreditation submission, and details of how these have been developed and implemented	Academic lead to provide report. Initially, this will be based on the 5 yearly course review report and implementation plan.
b) Observations and improvements made as a result of the continuous monitoring approach detailed in Section 3, including: quality indicator data (KAMs and OPMs) captured, monitored and acted upon since the last submission outcomes based on recommendations made by course quality advisory groups (as defined in Section 3.2.of the Course Improvement and Accreditation Procedures) since the last submission outcomes based on recommendations made by industry advisory boards since the last submission outcomes of any academic calibration activities undertaken since the last submission improvement-focused changes to the teaching or other delivery aspects made since the last submission, and any additional data requested from the University’s Planning Services Unit.	Academic lead to provide summary report(s) for these items. EQT will provide the following data to support the development of these reports: list of calibrated topics and reports summary of course and topic changes made to course(s) during the current accreditation period course statistics package from Planning and Analytical Services
c) The current course rule, including current program of study and learning outcomes for each course	EQT to provide list of course rule web page hyperlinks (including hyperlinked topics in course rules) Include links to any English language requirements as these are published on separate pages.
d) An outline of all topics included in the course and a summary report of current topic assessment methods	EQT to provide list of topic details pages hyperlinks and SAMs summary report from FLEX
e) A current financial viability model for the course or courses	Academic lead to obtain from college business partner.
f) A current market viability statement (domestic and international)	EQT to request statement from: Director, Student Recruitment Manager, International Recruitment and Engagement (College level)
g) Details of any third-party agreements and credit arrangements	EQT to obtain from contracts officers, WIL team, content manager, Student Management System etc. Provide summary report of currency, accuracy, anomalies etc.
h) A submission from the course coordinator/s	Academic lead
i) A summary of Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) available since the last submission	EQT obtain from QILT website and format into clear report using agreed FOE usage and template/ format
j) Relevant professional accreditation information, if applicable	EQT
Additional content to be included	Responsibility
a) Document that highlights any policy non-compliance, anomalies or inconsistencies (use links as necessary): University course information pages University international portal pages English language pages of international partner universities that market the cours SATAC website Third party webpages that market the course Course “handbooks” (or similar) on web	EQT
b) AHEGS for all courses	AHEGS report generated from Student Management System with any obvious out of date AHEGS or missing AHEGS highlighted. Academic lead to review all AHEGS to ensure currency and relevance.
c) Curriculum structure summary report	EQT reviews curriculum structures of all courses and reports on compliance against Awards Courses policy. Drafts advice.

Approval

The completed submission template (including recommendations and link to the package) is submitted first to the relevant Dean (Education) for endorsement on the advice of the College Education Committee and is then submitted to the Educational Quality Committee for review. Based on their advice, the DVC(S) determines whether to reaccredit the course/s for a maximum of seven years (or shorter period) or to discontinue the course/s.

Implementation

The Educational Quality Team works with the college to develop and facilitate approval for any course or topic amendments identified in the submission. The Educational Quality Team reports on the implementation of the recommendations twelve months after the reaccreditation of the course. This report is submitted to the DVC(S).

Schedule

College	UG/PG	Review group	Review year
BGL	PG	Aged Care Admin / Health Admin	2021
BGL	PG	Business – Postgraduate	2023
BGL	UG	Business - Undergraduate	2023
BGL	Both	Commerce / Accounting	2019
BGL	UG	Criminology / Law and Society	2020
BGL	Both	Innovation and Enterprise	2022
BGL	Both	International Relations	2019
BGL	Both	Law – all & combined degrees with Commerce/ Accounting	2023
BGL	PG	Public Administration - Postgraduate	2021
BGL	UG	Public Administration undergraduate	2023
EPSW	Both	Education - Postgraduate, GE & Organisational Learning	2020
EPSW	UG	Education - undergraduate double degrees	2022
EPSW	PG	Loss, Grief & Trauma Counselling	2020
EPSW	Both	Psychology / Behavioural Science	2022
EPSW	PG	Social Work - Postgraduate	2021
EPSW	UG	Social Work - Undergraduate	2021
EPSW	UG	Special Education (Singapore)	2022
EPSW	Both	Sport, Health and Physical Activity	2020
EPSW	UG	Teaching - Postgraduate	2022
HASS	Both	Archaeology	2020
HASS	Both	Arts / General Studies / English	2023
HASS	Both	Creative Arts / Communication & Professional Writing / Screen Media Arts & Digital Production for Entertainment	2020
HASS	PG	Gender and Development / Women’s Studies	2020
HASS	PG	Gender Mainstreaming / International Development	2022
HASS	Both	Language / Teaching English as a Second Language	2020
HASS	Both	Theology	2020
HASS	Both	Tourism	2023
MPH	PG	Biotechnology	2020
MPH	PG	Chronic Condition Management	2019
MPH	PG	Clinical Education	2020
MPH	UG	Clinical Sciences	2022
MPH	PG	Cognitive Behaviour Therapy	2020
MPH	PG	Doctor of Medicine	2021
MPH	PG	Health and International Development	2021
MPH	UG	Medical Science	2019
MPH	UG	Medical Science (Vision Science)	2019
MPH	Both	Paramedic Science	2019
MPH	PG	Public Health - Postgraduate	2020
MPH	PG	Remote Health	2019
NHS	PG	Applied Gerontology	2023
NHS	PG	Audiology	2020
NHS	PG	Clinical Rehabilitation	2021
NHS	Both	Disability and Developmental Education	2020
NHS	PG	Disaster Health Care	2022
NHS	Both	Exercise Science / Exercise Physiology	2022
NHS	UG	Health Sciences	2019
NHS	Both	Healthy Ageing	2023
NHS	PG	Midwifery - Postgraduate	2023
NHS	UG	Midwifery - Undergraduate	2023
NHS	PG	Nurse Practitioner	2020
NHS	UG	Nursing – Undergraduate	2021
NHS	PG	Nursing Postgraduate	2023
NHS	Both	Nutrition and Dietetics	2019
NHS	Both	Occupational Therapy	2022
NHS	PG	Palliative Care	2020
NHS	PG	Palliative Care in Aged Care	2023
NHS	Both	Physiotherapy	2022
NHS	Both	Speech Pathology	2023
NHS	PG	Vision Science / Optometry	2022
OGR	PG	Research Methods	2022
S&E	PG	Aquaculture - Postgraduate	2021
S&E	Both	Computer Science Information Technology	2023
S&E	UG	Design and Technology Innovation	2021
S&E	Both	Engineering	2023
S&E	Both	Environmental Health	2020
S&E, HASS	Both	Environmental Management	2023
S&E	Both	Geographical Information systems	2022
S&E	PG	Groundwater Hydrology / Water Resources Management	2022
S&E	Both	Mathematical Sciences	2022
S&E	Both	Science	2019

Frequently asked questions

How is this process different to five yearly course reviews?

Internal course accreditation signifies a shift away from standalone review events held every five years to an ongoing process that forms part of the continuous course improvement and accreditation cycle. It sits firmly within the Educational Quality Framework and is underpinned by the Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF). The previous terms of reference have been replaced by applicable HESF standards.

Do we still need to appoint an external chair and panel?

No. The university recognises that academic staff who manage, coordinate and teach into the courses are best placed to report on curriculum, outcomes, achievements and areas for improvement. The external review panel model does not align with the continuous improvement cycle and is no longer a requirement.

What kind of documentation is involved?

See Submission section above.

Who writes the submission if there is no chair?

The process is driven by an academic lead who is either the relevant teaching program director or their nominee. The academic lead may appoint “Other contributors” and together they complete various academic sections of the submission template, provide specified course information and write recommendations.

The academic lead is supported by a dedicated educational quality officer who collates and prepares specified course information, completes non-academic sections of the template and manages the development, submission and approval process.

Who interviews stakeholders if there is no panel meeting or site visits?

We do not need to interview stakeholders. More regular stakeholder contributions will be supported by the inclusion of industry, external and student representation on Course Quality Advisory groups, as outlined in the Award Course Improvement and Accreditation Procedures. These contributions, combined with information collected via other college consultation mechanisms (such as advisory boards and academic calibration activities), will contribute to the internal course accreditation process.

Do we need formal internal course accreditation meetings? Is that part of the process?

There is no formal requirement for meetings. The academic lead is responsible for deciding who needs to meet and how often. There may be several meetings or no meetings at all if other collaborative tools are deemed to be more useful.

Who determines the schedule of internal course accreditation submissions? When is my course up for re-accreditation?

The Master Schedule was approved by the DVC(S) in March 2019 and is based on the year the last course review was undertaken or the first year of course accreditation (if course not yet reviewed). Each year, it is reviewed by the Associate Director, Educational Quality (with input from the Deans -Education) and any recommended amendments are submitted to the DVC(S) for approval. See the Schedule.

What happens when the documentation is submitted to EQC?

The completed submission template and package is submitted to the Dean (Education) for endorsement on the advice of their College Education Committee, and then to the Education Quality Committee for review. Based on the advice of the Education Quality Committee, the DVC(S) determines whether to reaccredit the course/s for a maximum of seven years (or shorter period) or to discontinue the course/s.

What happens after the course is re-accredited?

The Educational Quality Team works with the college to develop and facilitate the approval of any course or topic amendments identified in the submission. The Educational Quality Team reports on the implementation of the recommendations twelve months after the reaccreditation of the course. This is submitted to the DVC(S).

Do we need to negotiate an implementation plan after the submission is approved?