• Section 1 - Preamble
• Section 2 - Purpose
• Section 3 - Scope
• Section 4 - Procedure
• Review preparation
• Course data
• Course analysis and recommendations
• Monitoring of actions
• Reporting on outcomes
• Section 5 - Non-Compliance

Section 1 - Preamble

(1) Charles Darwin University (‘the University’, ‘CDU’) is committed to ensuring that Higher Education (HE) courses are designed, accredited, and reviewed against key performance-based indicators aligned to the strategic objectives of the University.

(2) In accordance with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021,the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018, the National Standards for Foundation Programs 2021, and the ELICOS Standards 2018, the University will undertake interim course reviews to ensure the viability of a course and to identify actions to continuously improve a course to enhance student learning and the student experience.

Section 2 - Purpose

(3) This procedure outlines the Annual Course Review (ACR) process at the University.

(4) The procedure must be read in conjunction with the University’s Higher Education Course and Unit Accreditation Procedure, Academic Calibration Procedure, Course Professional Accreditation Procedure, and Benchmarking and External Referencing Policy and Procedure.

(5) Annual Course Review is an interim review process which is used to identify course strengths and concerns, mitigate future risks to the quality of a HE courses, the education provided and to guide potential enhancements to course and unit design and delivery.  It also enables evidence-based performance monitoring of courses against internal and external benchmarks.

Section 3 - Scope

(6) This procedure applies to higher education coursework courses, including:

1. Active HE award courses;
2. Enabling courses; and
3. Courses provided under third-party arrangements.

(7) This procedure does not apply to:

1. Vocational education and training courses;
2. Higher degrees by research award courses;
3. HE courses undergoing a major course review for re-accreditation;
4. HE exit-only award courses;
5. HE courses on teach-out; and
6. Courses where an extension or waiver is approved by the Provost.

Section 4 - Procedure

(8) Annual Course Review is a four-stage process that runs from June to August. The stages in the process are:

1. Review preparation;
2. Course analysis and recommendations;
3. Monitoring of actions; and
4. Reporting on outcomes.

Review preparation

Course scope

(9) Courses in years 2, 4, and 6 of the accreditation cycle are subject to a mandatory review.

(10) Teaching and Learning Connect will work with the faculty quality teams to confirm the courses-for-review schedule each year based on courses in year 2, 4 and 6 of the accreditation cycle or additional courses requested by the faculty executive or the Provost.

Strategic themes

(11) University Learning and Teaching Committee will review and advise on the data thresholds and strategic themes. 

(12) The Senior Academic Team will endorse any data thresholds and priority themes of strategic importance at the commencement of each review cycle, including but not limited to:

1. Growth;
2. Retention;
3. First Nations success; and
4. Teaching quality.

Course data

(13) The main course data sets are used to guide an evidence-based review:

1. ACR dashboards
2. Stakeholder feedback
3. Previous reviews

(14) Annual Course Review dashboards provide Faculties with course data for the review and analysis of student performance and feedback against internal and external benchmarks.

(15) The Director Planning and Performance is responsible for creating Annual Course Review dashboards for each Faculty and course.

1. Each year, dashboards are produced for all active courses with five or more students, regardless of whether a course is undergoing Course Review.
2. Dashboards are produced using validated data and released by July each year.
3. Where a course has fewer than five students, Planning and Performance will provide the data as a PDF.

(16) ACR Dashboard data and detail includes:

1. Course demand indicators: application data, course EFSTL and enrolment data and trends, conversion and growth opportunities;
2. Admissions profile;
3. Student profile indicators, including diversity and equity cohort data;
4. Student outcome indicators, including progression, completion and retention data and trends;
5. Pass rates and grade distributions;
6. Unit data including unit size, representation and success rates;
7. Student experience data; and
8. Graduate outcomes, including graduate survey data.

(17) ACR dashboards are accessible by Faculty Pro Vice Chancellors and Faculty team members involved in the ACR process.

(18) Teaching and Learning Connect will advise Faculties of the Annual Course Review Dashboard release, review dates and priority themes at the commencement of each review cycle.

Course analysis and recommendations

(19) Other course data that may be collected to enable analysis includes:

(20) Stakeholder feedback

1. current students
2. alumni
3. industry
4. professional bodies
5. lecturers and unit coordinators
6. course advisory groups
7. broader community

(21) Previous reviews

1. Academic Calibration
2. Benchmarking
3. Professional body reviews
4. internal calibration/peer review

(22) The course analysis and review includes: 

1. Course Coordinator Analysis;
2. Discipline Peer Review Group; and
3. Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee Review.

Course Coordinator Analysis 

(23) The Course Coordinator undertakes an initial course analysis. The analysis will include: 

1. Contextual interpretation and analysis of course data, identifying: 
   1. Strengths and successes;
   2. Opportunities for enhancement or growth; and
   3. Concerns or threats to course continuation, quality indicators and student success.
2. Consideration of course design, structure, study plan, unit reviews, unit performance and feedback, and any recommendations for course or unit amendments. 
3. Consideration of stakeholder feedback (such as professional bodies, industry representatives, current students, alumni and broader community)and previous reviews.

(24) The Course Coordinator Analysis will be submitted to the Discipline Peer Review Group.

Discipline Peer Review Group

(25) The Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee will determine the number of discipline peer review groups each year and may choose to include multiple disciplines in each group.

(26) The Discipline Peer Review Group facilitates academic discussion, review and actions about courses across discipline(s).

(27) The Discipline Peer Review Group will comprise the Discipline Head/Head of School, Course Coordinators, and other representatives as determined by the FLTC. 

(28) The Discipline Peer Review Group will: 

1. analyse data from all courses scheduled for review;
2. be informed by Course Coordinator Analyses;
3. validate or amend each Course Analysis on the template provided;
4. discuss issues and priorities of strategic importance and identify any themes across the course reviews; and
5. recommend evidence-based actions to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee to address results of the analysed data. 

Faculty Quality Improvement Plan

(29) The Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee will develop a Faculty Quality Improvement Plan, informed by:

1. Validated Course Analyses;
2. Discipline Peer Review Group recommendations; and
3. Discussed issues and priorities of strategic importance as directed by the faculty executive.

(30) Where the draft Faculty Quality Improvement Plan contains resourcing issues, the Associate Dean Learning and Teaching will advise the Faculty Pro Vice-Chancellor, who will raise these matters during the University’s annual budget preparation process in August and September.

(31) The Associate Dean Learning and Teaching will present the finalised Faculty Quality Improvement Plan to the Academic Programs Committee by the end of the review cycle (September). 

Monitoring of actions

(32) The Associate Dean Learning and Teaching monitors the actions in the Faculty Quality Improvement Plan as part of the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee.

(33) Course Coordinators are responsible for implementing specific recommendations for course and unit amendments and reporting progress to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee.

(34) Actions from the Faculty Quality Improvement Plan apply to all Courses and Units within a Faculty and progress will be monitored by the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee.

Reporting on outcomes

(35) The Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment and Teaching Development will submit an annual report to the Academic Programs Committee (APC) summarising common themes in Faculty Quality Improvement Plans and outlining any potential risks to quality of courses. The annual report will include recommendations for the next ACR cycle.

(36) The APC may refer actions to the Learning and Teaching Committee to inform the review of learning and teaching outcomes.

(37) The Provost reports on the outcomes of Annual Course Review to the Academic Board at the completion of each review cycle in accordance with the Comprehensive Reporting Framework.

Section 5 - Non-Compliance

(38) Non-compliance with governance documents is considered a breach of the Code of Conduct - Employees or the Code of Conduct - Students, as applicable, and is treated seriously by the University. Reports of concerns about non-compliance will be managed in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures outlined in the Charles Darwin University and Union Enterprise Agreement 2025 and the Code of Conduct - Students.

(39) Complaints may be raised in accordance with the Complaints and Grievance Policy and Procedure - Employees and Complaints Policy - Students.

(40) All staff members have an individual responsibility to raise any suspicion, allegation or report of fraud or corruption in accordance with the Fraud and Corruption Control Policy and Whistleblower Reporting (Improper Conduct) Procedure.