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:
Portfolio of course information
The portfolio includes all submission content specified in Section 4.2 of the Procedures and consists of a PDF document and various other files attached to the ICA submission in CourseLoop. 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 uploaded to the submission in CourseLoop included as they become available.
Submission
The submission template is completed online in CourseLoop 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 URL to the partially completed submission template in CourseLoop (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. Explanatory notes are also provided.
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. |
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 works with the College and reports on the implementation of the recommendations twelve months after the reaccreditation of the course. This report is submitted to the DVC(S) via the submission template in CourseLoop.
Sturt Rd, Bedford Park
South Australia 5042
Follow Flinders
