1. Governing policy
These procedures give effect to the Course and Subject Policy. Their purpose is to support consistent, evidence-based subject development, review and approval so that the Institution’s subjects remain current, coherent, appropriately scaffolded and aligned with industry expectations, the relevant Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level, subject and course learning outcomes and student needs.
2. Scope
These procedures apply to staff involved in subject design, subject delivery, subject and course review, course accreditation or reaccreditation, Moodle development and assessment design.
3. Procedures
3.1. New subject development
3.1.1. New subjects may be developed for a new course development, reaccreditation, comprehensive course review, professional accreditation needs, stakeholder feedback, performance data or to keep the subject current and high quality.
3.1.2. The Program Manager consults with the relevant Discipline Dean and confirms the rationale for the new subject, how it fits within the course structure, proposed level, credit points, prerequisites and any professional accreditation requirements.
3.1.3. The Program Manager, Discipline Dean or suitably qualified subject matter expert may undertake new subject development. The Program Manager confirms timelines and deliverables, and coordinates consultation with the Learning, Teaching and Innovation team, Library, Student Success Centre, industry stakeholders and other relevant staff.
3.1.4. The subject must be designed so that subject learning outcomes, assessments tasks, learning activities and resources align with course learning outcomes, Graduate Capabilities and the relevant AQF level.
3.1.5. The draft subject outline must be written using the approved template and be aligned with the Subject Outline Policy.
3.1.6 The Dean (Academic) (or nominee), reviews the new subject outline before it is submitted to the Course and Subject Committee. The review ensures alignment with academic standards, Graduate Capabilities, the relevant AQF level and course structure.
3.2. Subject monitoring
3.2.1. Subjects are reviewed through annual monitoring, internal and external reviews as scheduled in the Course and Subject Review Plan, moderation, comprehensive course review, Board of Examiners outcomes and student feedback.
3.2.2. The Program Manager monitors subjects between scheduled reviews using available evidence such as student and lecturer feedback, moderation outcomes, results data, academic integrity reports, complaints or appeals, professional accreditation feedback and Moodle quality checks.
3.2.3. Where changes are required, the Program Manager determines whether the change is regular, minor and major using the definitions in Appendix A of the Course Development, Review and Approval Procedures.
3.2.4. Program Managers, Discipline Deans and relevant subject matter experts must consult the Dean (Academic) on proposed changes to existing subjects before submission to the Course and Subject Committee.
3.2.5. The Program Manager records any monitoring actions in the relevant course implementation plan including who is responsible and the timeframe.
3.3. Comprehensive internal and external review
3.3.1. Each subject is comprehensively reviewed at least once within the relevant course accreditation cycle in accordance with the Course and Subject Review Plan, and earlier if performance or quality risks arise.
3.3.2. Internal subject review is normally undertaken by a relevant staff member who is not solely responsible for the subject, such as a subject lead, lecturer or Discipline Dean.
3.3.3. External subject review is used where independent expert review is needed including for new subject development, reaccreditation and subjects with higher academic or professional accreditation risk.
3.3.4. The Dean (Academic) approves external subject reviewers before the review commences. Approval is based on the reviewer’s qualifications, experience, independence, expertise, and suitability for the subject or group of subjects. Approvals are recorded in a register maintained by the DVC’s Office and reported for noting to the Course and Subject Committee once per year.
3.3.5. The Program Manager or nominated project lead prepares an evidence pack for the subject reviewer. The evidence pack should be proportionate to the purpose of the review.
3.3.6. Reviewers must complete the approved subject review template.
3.4. Responding to review findings
3.4.1. After the comprehensive internal and external review, the Program Manager or relevant Discipline Dean arranges a workshop with lecturers to discuss the findings.
3.4.2. The Program Manager or nominated project lead records the review feedback and proposed actions in the subject review feedback tracker or action list. They record whether recommendations are accepted, accepted in principle, partly accepted or not accepted, and include reasons where needed.
3.4.3. Actions may include changes to the subject outline, assessment matrix, Moodle site, assessment design, moderation process or broader course recommendations.
3.4.4. Where subject changes affect course structure, course learning outcomes, professional accreditation, delivery arrangements or student progression, they must be escalated through the relevant course approval or reaccreditation process.
3.5. Governance approval
3.5.1. New subjects are endorsed by the Course and Subject Committee and approved by Academic Board. They may only be added to a course structure through course accreditation or reaccreditation. Courses outside the Institution’s self-accrediting authority are approved by TEQSA. Courses within the Institution’s self-accrediting authority are approved by the Board of Directors.
3.5.2. Changes to existing subjects are managed as regular, minor or major changes, using the definitions in Appendix A of the Course Development, Review and Approval Procedures.
3.5.3. Where changes are proposed after subject information has been published to enrolled students, the Program Manager must assess the impact on students, seek the required approval, notify students in writing and retain evidence of the decision and communication. Changes made after publication in each study period must not disadvantage students.
3.6. Implementation, publication and monitoring
3.6.1. After subject changes are approved, the Program Manager saves the approved subject outline in the required location, publishes it in the required systems, notifies Marketing where relevant, and gives teaching staff enough time to prepare for delivery.
3.6.2. The Moodle site must meet minimum standards and align with the approved subject outline, assessment briefs, rubrics, learning materials and delivery mode. Learning, Teaching and Innovation supports Moodle design, learning activities educational resource development.
3.6.3 The Program Manager consults the Library Services Manager if new or updated resources are needed and informs the Student Success Centre if the changes affect academic or learning skills support.
3.6.4. Teaching staff, tutors and markers must be briefed on the approved subject outline, assessment requirements, rubrics, academic integrity expectations, moderation arrangements and key changes from the previous offering.
3.6.5. The Subject Lead or Program Manager monitors the first delivery of a new or substantially changed subject, including Moodle issues, student questions, assessment clarifications, lecturer feedback and risks to student learning.
3.6.6. After delivery, the Subject Lead or Program Manager reviews student and lecturer feedback, results, moderation findings and any academic integrity, complaint or appeal themes.
3.6.7. Actions from course review, external review, professional accreditation or committee conditions must be tracked until completed.
3.6.8. If a change does not achieve the intended improvement, the Program Manager identifies further action and, where needed, seeks approval through the relevant governance process.
4 Roles and responsibilities
4.1 Discipline Deans / Associate Deans provide academic leadership and oversee subject quality, disciplinary coherence, professional accreditation implications and course-level escalation.
4.2 Program Managers coordinate subject development and review, staffing, approval papers, consultation, implementation of approved changes and recordkeeping.
4.3 Subject Leads contribute to subject design and review, keep the subject current, support delivery readiness, brief teaching staff and review delivery outcomes.
4.4 Subject Matter Experts / Reviewers review subject content, learning outcomes, assessment and learning resources in line with approved requirements and timelines.
4.5 Learning, Teaching and Innovation supports learning design, Moodle site development, educational technologies, assessment design and learning site readiness.
4.6 The Library Services Manager advises on the availability, adequacy and currency of learning resources, readings and research support.
4.7 The Student Success Centre advises on student learning support needs and resources where required.
4.8 The Course and Subject Committee approves subject outline amendments and endorses new subjects and external reviewers where required.
4.9 Academic Board approves new subjects and major curriculum matters that require peak academic governance approval.
5. Related documents
Course and Subject Policy
Course Development, Review and Approval Procedures
Benchmarking and External Referencing Procedures
Assessment Policy
Learning and Teaching Policy
Subject Outline Policy
6. Version control and change history
| Summary of changes | Approval date | Approved by |
| 5 April 2019 | Learning and Teaching Committee | |
| 17 September 2020 | Learning and Teaching Committee | |
| 16 June 2022 | Learning and Teaching Committee | |
| Extensive updates to reflect current process. Plus, external subject reviewers to be approved by Dean (Academic) with annual reporting to CSC. All subject outline changes to be submitted to Dean (Academic) for review before submission to CSC. | 22 October 2026 | Course and Subject Committee |