1. The purpose of our procedure
This procedure outlines our cycles of monitoring and reviewing the curriculum at Adelaide University. It supports Adelaide University’s ambitions for curriculum, which is designed to be contemporary, future-focused, and supports lifelong learning. It describes the governance structures that assure quality, and legislative and regulatory compliance.
Our curriculum is owned by Adelaide University and delivered in partnership with our academic units. Staff from these units are required to contribute to quality assurance processes relevant to their programs and courses.
[Program Directors and Course Coordinators] are responsible for planning, delivering, and upholding the academic quality and integrity of our curriculum.
Responsibilities for each of these roles can be found at [website]. Materials to support these roles are available at [website].
Please read this procedure in conjunction with our:
- Education Quality Policy
- Curriculum Policy
- Curriculum Management Procedure
- Academic Integrity Policy
- Assessment Quality Assurance Procedure
- Curriculum Approval Procedure
- [Research Components in Coursework Programs Procedure]
- Work Integrated Learning Policy.
2. Who our procedure applies to
2.1 Inclusions
- This procedure applies to Adelaide University staff members involved in monitoring and reviewing coursework curriculum, including programs offered through partnership arrangements.
2.2 Exclusions
- This procedure does not apply to graduate research programs.
3. Our curriculum quality assurance procedure
As part of our approach to quality assurance, all staff involved in the development, design and delivery of the curriculum are also responsible for its ongoing monitoring and review. We will regularly monitor, review and reaccredit our programs to support academic excellence, encourage innovation, and ensure our curriculum remains contemporary, sustainable and relevant. Review processes will be informed by relevant evidence/data and incorporate input from staff, students, and relevant external stakeholders.
3.1 How we include stakeholders in our quality procedures
3.1.1 How we involve students
Students are active partners in our curriculum quality assurance processes, with representation and meaningful engagement embedded at all stages.
Students will have the opportunity to provide confidential feedback on their educational experiences, including, but not limited to:
- providing feedback on their experience of courses and teaching through our Feedback on Learning Experience (FLEX) surveys (see section 3.4)
- participating in the Quality Indicators for Teaching and Learning (QILT) suite, including the Student Experience Survey (SES) and Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS).
Relevant [Deans or nominees] will collaborate to establish appropriate student engagement opportunities for their disciplines, including but not limited to representation on [curriculum and education] committees and working groups.
For more information about student representation on committees and working groups, see [website].
3.1.2 How we involve industry and community representatives
Relevant [Deans or nominees] will ensure that industry and community representatives, as relevant to their disciplines, contribute to the monitoring and review of programs and, where appropriate, courses, including but not limited to:
- [External Advisory Groups (EAGs)] (see [website] for details on EAGs)
- data available from other feedback mechanisms, such as the QILT Employer Satisfaction Survey (ESS).
3.2 How we monitor, review, and improve our programs
[Pro Vice Chancellors-College or nominees], are responsible for ensuring that our programs undergo regular monitoring and review. Outcomes of these processes are used to inform future decisions about curriculum offerings. As appropriate, all staff involved in developing, teaching and quality assuring our curriculum will contribute to monitoring and reviews.
Annual Program Monitoring contributes to continuous quality assurance and is undertaken by the relevant academic unit responsible for managing and/or delivering the curriculum. Outcomes and recommendations resulting from monitoring activities will be included in reports to the [College Education Quality Committee] and [Graduate Research Programs Committee]. Annual Program Monitoring informs the University Review required for internal reaccreditation.
Unless approved otherwise (see section 3.2.2), programs will undergo a University Program Review leading to internal reaccreditation. Outcomes of these reviews, including any recommendations, presented to [The Education Quality Standards Committee (EQSC)] and the [Academic Board].
3.2.1 Annual Program Monitoring
[Program Directors] will ensure continuous assessment of a program’s performance against benchmarks, including alignment with strategic imperatives, and early identification of any risks or opportunities. In undertaking program monitoring, [Program Directors] consider all available evidence, which may include, but is not limited to:
- program elements that support the [Adelaide Attainment Model], including common core courses and Work Integrated Learning (WIL)
- program performance data, including course performance, student enrolment, retention and progress, completion and outcomes data
- early assessment of newly internally accredited programs
- feedback from student representatives, peer reviews, surveys, and industry and community representatives (see section 3.1)
- current or potential resourcing requirements (for example, teaching staff, infrastructure, library, marketing, etc.)
- teaching-research alignment
- other program-specific issues.
The outcomes or actions from program monitoring will be considered by the [College Education Quality Committee].
[College Education Quality Committees] report annually to the [Pro Vice Chancellor (Teaching and Learning)]. Summary reports are presented to the [Education Quality and Standards Committee] twice a year (see [website]).
Supporting resources and templates are available at [website].
Data gathered and actions taken as part of Annual Program Monitoring contribute to a program’s University Program Review and internal reaccreditation (see section 3.2.2).
Programs that operate under a third-party arrangement may have additional evaluation or audit requirements that must be met (see our
3.2.2 When programs undergo a University Program Review
Programs undergo a University Program Review to inform program internal reaccreditation (see our Education Quality Policy). Wherever practicable, related programs including nested programs, [vertically-stacked], or double degrees, will be grouped together for concurrent review.
The [Central Unit] is responsible for scheduling University Program Reviews and working with relevant [Deans Academic] or nominees to initiate program reviews.
The [Central Unit], [Academic and Program Services] will support [Program Directors] to ensure reviews are carried out within the necessary timeframes.
A program may undergo a University Program Review outside of the standard schedule when:
- A new program graduates its second cohort of students before it has been on offer for five years.
- An early review is initiated by an academic unit, [Curriculum Strategy and Enhancement Group (CSEG)], [Pro Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)], or the Vice Chancellor or nominee, in response to strategic or other priorities.
- The scheduling of a formal review occurs earlier to align with a professional accreditation timeline.
- A request for a 12-month extension to a program review and internal reaccreditation is approved by the [Education Quality Standards Committee].
3.2.3 How we review and reaccredit programs
The University Program Reviews, which inform internal reaccreditation, will be led by [Program Directors] and supported by College Academic and Program Services teams, the [Central Unit], and [Performance, Data and Insights].
University Program Reviews should consider all available evidence, including, but not limited to:
- university strategic and thematic imperatives
- outcomes from Annual Program Monitoring and benchmarking
- curriculum benchmarking against relevant national comparators
- responses from relevant internal and external stakeholders, including [Expert Advisory Groups], professional accreditation bodies, professional associations, cultural groups, and employer groups
- feedback from students, including FLEX surveys, student representatives, committees.
Reviews are documented using the [reaccreditation report template] available at [website] and endorsed by the [College Education Quality Committee]. Report summaries are presented to the [Education Quality and Standards Committee], for recommendation to the [Academic Board] for reaccreditation.
The report must address how the available evidence summarises the performance of the program since the last University Review and set out a clear plan for how identified opportunities and risks will be managed. The report must also clearly outline any areas for monitoring or improvement, and how and when improvements will be implemented.
The [Academic Board] may request amendments to the report before it is approved. Once program reviews are approved, programs will be reaccredited for a further five years.
3.3 How we monitor our courses
[Course Coordinators] monitor courses each time they are delivered. This includes, but is not limited to, assessing:
- relevant learning analytics and student performance data
- student feedback from FLEX and any other student engagement activities
- alignment with program learning outcomes and graduate qualities
- peer review and benchmarking activities
- the currency of teaching and assessment materials.
Monitoring of courses will contribute to Annual Program Monitoring (see section 3.2.1). See [website] for supporting materials.
3.4 Feedback on Learning Experience surveys
Feedback on Learning Experience (FLEX) surveys provides:
- students with an opportunity to provide confidential feedback on their experience of their courses and teaching
- a tool for [Course Coordinators, Program Directors, Deans of Academics] and teaching staff to reflect on their practice and identify areas of excellence and areas for improvement
- [Program Directors] and [Course Coordinators] with data that contributes to our approach to quality assurance as described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3
- Adelaide University with data to contribute to the review and reaccreditation of programs.
Students will be supported to participate in FLEX surveys using respectful and constructive feedback. Student participation is voluntary and confidential, with details withheld where the number of responses is below a threshold level. Individual student data may be disclosed only where legally required, where there is a potential risk to the student, or where inappropriate comments breach policy, as approved by [the Pro Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)] (see our [Student Misconduct Procedure]). See [website] for further details.
The content and timing of FLEX surveys is approved by [the Pro Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)]. FLEX must be offered each time a course is delivered, unless the [Pro Vice Chancellor (Teaching and Learning)] authorises an exemption (for example, when an alternative evaluation mechanism is in place).
Staff with authority to access FLEX results are outlined on [website]. Any changes to this access, including the removal of student responses from reporting, must be approved by the [role].
Where appropriate, results from course monitoring and review (including FLEX surveys) and the improvements identified/implemented will be made available to students via the [LMS].
4. Definitions used in our procedures
Please refer to our Adelaide University glossary for a full list of our definitions.
Academic unit means one that is responsible for either management or teaching of Adelaide University curriculum.
Feedback on Learning Experience (FLEX) means a survey conducted to guide staff and the University in making continuous improvements to courses and teaching for the benefit of students and to identify and reward excellent teaching practice.
Graduate Research Program means a program at doctoral or master level which comprises two-thirds or more of its assessable content by research.
Internal accreditation means the process of by which all Adelaide University programs are accredited before they are first offered to students and then regularly reaccredited.
Professional accreditation means the process by which selected courses/programs or Schools are reviewed and accredited by independent professional bodies external to Adelaide University. Not all courses/programs or Schools require or seek professional accreditation.
5. How our procedure is governed
This Procedure is categorised, approved and owned in line with the governance structure of Adelaide University and the offices and officers listed below.
Parent policy | Education Quality Policy |
Policy category | Academic |
Approving authority | co-Vice Chancellors/Vice Chancellor and President |
Policy owner | Deputy Vice Chancellor - Academic |
Responsible officer | Pro Vice Chancellor Teaching and Learning |
Effective from | 24 September 2025 |
Review date | [3/4/5 years after date this version is approved, TBC] |
Enquiries | Interim Central Policy Unit/[Central Policy Unit] |
Replaced documents | None |