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.
Internal course accreditation sits firmly within the Education Quality Framework and supports the two key pillars that underpin educational quality in the university:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
|
Academic lead to provide summary report(s) for these items. EQT will provide the following data to support the development of these reports:
|
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:
|
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):
|
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. |
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.
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).
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 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
No. The Implementation Plan is included in the submission template - it is not a separate document or process
Please see professional accreditation for further information.
Sturt Rd, Bedford Park
South Australia 5042
CRICOS Provider: 00114A
Flinders University uses cookies to ensure website functionality, personalisation, and for a variety of purposes described in the website privacy statement. For details about these cookies and how to set your cookie preferences, refer to our website privacy statement.
You consent to the use of our cookies if you proceed.