University of Technology Sydney UTS: Rules, Policy and Legislation


The information in this site is maintained by Governance Support Unit

Act
By-law
Rules
Delegations
Policies
A-Z
by classification
Standing Orders
Faculty Management
Controlled Entities and Commercial Activities
Legislation, Rules
and Policies home


GSU home
Award Course Approval Procedures

Purpose

Scope

Principles

Procedural statements

Procedural ownership and support

Definitions

Approval information

PDF version

References


1. Purpose

1.1 The Award Course Approval Procedures (the procedures) provide information on the approval, reaccreditation, changes to, phasing out and discontinuation of award courses offered by UTS. These procedures should be read in conjunction with the Award Course Approval Policy (the policy).

2. Scope

2.1 The scope of the policy also applies for these procedures. Specifically, these procedures will address the approval processes for:

  • new award courses
  • the reaccreditation of existing award courses
  • the extension of accreditation for all award courses
  • the phasing out, discontinuation and suspension of intake for all award courses
  • changes to award courses that require university-level approval, and changes to award courses that require faculty-level approval.

2.2 Definitions for some of the acronyms and systems in these procedures are provided in section 6. Other definitions are outlined in the policy.

3. Principles

3.1 The principles outlined in the policy apply for these procedures.

4. Procedural statements

Course approval and reaccreditation

4.1 The approval process described in this section applies to:

  • proposals for new award coursework and research courses resulting in the creation of new course codes on CASS, and
  • proposals for reaccreditation of existing award coursework and research courses.
Stages and approval pathways

4.2 Approval and reaccreditation is a three-staged process, as outlined in the policy and the following table.

Stage Stage title Applicability Approval pathway
1 Business case approval For reaccreditation, a business case may not always be required.
Where an existing course is to be offered online through the Online Program Management (OPM), a business case is normally not required.
  • Endorsed by the Courses Planning Committee (CPC)
  • Approved by the Provost (as the Vice-Chancellor’s delegate)
2 Course accreditation approval Where a course is to be offered in Australia to international students, CRICOS code application (for new courses) is required.
  • Endorsed by the Courses Accreditation Committee (CAC), or Graduate Research School Board (GRSB)
  • Approved by Academic Board or the Executive Committee of Academic Board (ECAB)
3 Course commencement For new courses
  • Endorsed by the Manager University Academic Programs Office (UAPO)
  • Approved by the Provost
Course implementation For reaccreditation
  • Checked by the Senior Curriculum Services Manager, UAPO
Submission and approval processes overview

4.3 The internal approval processes within each faculty (including consideration by the faculty courses committee or equivalent, and approval by the faculty board) may run in parallel to the university course approval process.

4.4 Faculties may prepare and submit the business case and course accreditation simultaneously.

4.5 The business case must be approved by the Provost before the CAC or the GRSB can submit the course accreditation proposal to Academic Board or ECAB.

Course approval and reaccreditation responsibilities

4.6 The dean is the sponsor of all new course or reaccreditation proposals. In conjunction with the proposer (see 4.7 below), the dean is responsible for:

  • ensuring the proposal conforms with the policy, these procedures and all required university and faculty-level approval processes
  • ensuring that adequate financial and human resources are allocated to the development and submission of the course proposal
  • the course proposal and its implementation (including development, management, resourcing, risk management and quality assurance)
  • discussing the proposal with all the relevant stakeholders prior to submitting the business case and course accreditation to the relevant committees
  • submitting the business case and course accreditation proposals to the relevant committees
  • ensuring, where applicable, that approvals from all faculties or other stakeholders with an interest in the proposal have been obtained.

4.7 For each new course or reaccreditation proposal, the dean assigns a proposer. A proposer is normally an associate dean or a course director and is responsible for:

  • the development of the course proposal
  • coordinating consultation with stakeholders concerned
  • initiating and completing the required course proposal documentation.

4.8 The sponsor or proposer may also nominate a project manager to assist in developing the proposal and completing the required documentation. The project manager does not have any accountability or responsibility in the course approval or reaccreditation process under the policy and procedures.

4.9 The UAPO determines and publishes the timelines for submission of documentation for new course and reaccreditation proposals based on Academic Board and ECAB meeting dates as well as deadlines for entering data in CASS and CIS.

4.10 The UAPO provides guidance to faculties on approval pathways and timelines taking into consideration:

  • the specific course details (coursework/research, undergraduate/postgraduate, delivered on campus/distance/online/offshore, brand new course/replacement course, etc.)
  • whether the proposal is for a new award course or a reaccreditation
  • the date from which faculties would like to begin taking course applications, and
  • the required date of reaccreditation.

4.11 The UAPO’s guidance to faculties also takes into consideration the following dates:

  • deadline for submission of information to UAC for inclusion in the Undergraduate UAC Guide
  • Department of Education and Training reporting timeframes
  • UTS Open Day and other major promotional events (eg postgraduate information sessions)
  • deadline for entering data in CASS and CIS for inclusion in the first release of the UTS Handbook for the following year
  • open dates for applications
  • any deadline set by faculties for faculty-level approval (eg external accreditation, faculty course committee and faculty board meeting dates).
Business case and reaccreditation requirements

4.12 A business case as outlined in the policy is required for all course proposals with the exception of:

  • new bachelor honours degrees to be offered onshore with no more than one-third of coursework component
  • new research degrees to be offered onshore with no more than one-third of coursework component
  • new coursework degrees to be offered onshore, designed as an addition to an existing set of courses. For example:
    • an existing undergraduate degree being combined with the Bachelor of Arts in International Studies or Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation
    • a new postgraduate degree being added to an existing suite of articulated courses.
  • replacement courses to be offered onshore resulting from the restructure of an existing course where the Provost has approved an alternate approval process more commensurate with the opportunities and risks associated with the proposal
  • reaccreditation of non-embedded honours offered onshore, if reaccredited separately from their interlinked courses
  • reaccreditation of a course or set of interlinked courses, offered onshore with an excellent or average overall performance rating, unless otherwise advised by the Provost on the advice of the CPC
  • existing courses to be offered online via OPM.

4.13 The exceptions listed above should start the process at stage 2, course accreditation.

4.14 The CPC is responsible for determining whether the course (or set of interlinked courses) requires a short or full reaccreditation in line with the policy and these procedures.

4.15 Whether a course requires a short or full reaccreditation (as outlined in the policy) is determined based on:

  • course performance data
  • whether significant changes to the course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation process
  • whether the course is offered onshore or offshore.

4.16 Short and full reaccreditation processes have different requirements.

In the short reaccreditation process:

  • the proposed reaccreditation is endorsed by the CPC without requiring a full business case
  • the faculty submits course accreditation to the CAC or GRSB for recommendation to Academic Board.

In the full reaccreditation process:

  • the faculty is required to submit a full business case to the CPC
  • the faculty is required to submit the course accreditation to the CAC or GRSB for recommendation to Academic Board.

4.17 Where the CPC recommends a short reaccreditation process and the faculty subsequently advises that more extensive changes to the course will be submitted as part of the course reaccreditation process, the Provost may, depending on the nature of the proposed changes, review the CPC decision and may require a business case and/or additional information be submitted as part of the reaccreditation proposal.

4.18 The CAC (or GRSB) also reviews the course performance data and may, in response, require the faculty to provide additional information to be provided as part of the stage 2, course accreditation approval.

Stage 1: Business case

4.19 The business case for course approval and reaccreditation (full reaccreditation process) should include the following:

  • market intelligence showing evidence of demand and competitive environment
  • pricing strategy (for new courses)
  • financial plan showing the estimated cost of the initial implementation (for new courses), estimated typical annual income and expenditure and estimated profit generated for the faculty as a result of offering the course
  • risk assessment report (for new courses)
  • project plan detailing how the proposals will be taken from development to market (for new courses)
  • details of course structure (course defining criteria, minimum academic and language proficiency requirements for admission, course and award nomenclature details and completion requirements)
  • evidence and outcome of consultation with all internal and external stakeholders with an interest in the proposal (see 4.21 below).

4.20 Where changes to a course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation, the following additional information must also be included in the business case:

  • details of the proposed changes
  • rationale for and impact of the proposed changes
  • details of transition arrangements for continuing students, where applicable.

4.21 The sponsor must ensure that all necessary consultation with internal stakeholders (including but not limited to the Provost, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, faculties with an interest in the proposal, Graduate Research School, UAPO, Student Administration Unit (SAU), UTS International, students and alumni) and external stakeholders (eg professional accrediting body, industry advisory board, commercial partner) has been undertaken prior to submitting the business case.

4.22 Business cases for new course approval and for reaccreditation of existing courses are endorsed and approved as follows:

  • The dean, as sponsor, submits the business case to the CPC for endorsement.
  • The CPC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the business case.
  • Where conditions are set by the CPC for business case approval, the proposer must provide evidence back to the CPC that these conditions have been met prior to the business case being submitted to the Provost for approval.
  • Where the business case pertains specifically to a new online course via OPM, the Chair CPC may endorse (with or without conditions) or reject the business case by executive action for submission to the Provost for approval. Details of all decisions made by the Chair in relation to online courses via OPM will be reported to the next CPC meeting for inclusion in the minutes.
  • The Provost:
Stage 2: Course accreditation

4.23 The course accreditation proposal for course approval and reaccreditation should outline:

  • details of the course structure (ie defining criteria, detailed academic and language proficiency requirements for admission, completion requirements)
  • graduate attributes and course intended learning outcomes (including Indigenous graduate attributes or course intended learning outcomes)
  • details of consultation with internal stakeholders (including but not limited to faculties with an interest in the proposal, Graduate Research School, UAPO, SAU, UTS International, students and alumni) and external stakeholders (professional accrediting body, industry advisory board, etc.)
  • details of transition arrangement for continuing students where there are changes to an existing course, or where an existing course is being phased out
  • details of internal and external articulation arrangements associated with the new course or proposed as part of the reaccreditation (including the number of students admitted under the external articulation arrangements, where applicable)
  • details of faculty board approval for the new course or reaccreditation from all the faculty stakeholders.

4.24 Where changes to a course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation, the details, rationale and impact of the proposed changes, as well as outcomes of consultation with all stakeholders in the proposal, must be included in addition to the information outlined in 4.23.

4.25 Course accreditation for new course approval and for reaccreditation of existing courses are endorsed and approved as follows:

  • The dean, as sponsor, submits course accreditation to both the faculty board and the CAC.
  • The faculty board endorses the course accreditation for submission by the dean to the CAC or GRSB, as appropriate.
  • If scheduling of faculty board meetings does not allow timely consideration and advice on the proposal, approval can be sought in line with section 5 (iii), Standing Orders for Faculty Boards.
  • The CAC or GRSB endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the course accreditation proposal.
  • Where applicable, for new courses, the CAC also advises the Provost on whether the use of Advanced or Extension in the course name and/or award title is suitable for a particular course, in accordance with the Course Name and Award Title Nomenclature Policy and Procedures.
  • Where conditions are set by the CAC or GRSB for course accreditation approval, the proposer must provide evidence to the CAC or GRSB that these have been met prior to the course accreditation proposal being submitted to Academic Board for approval.
  • Academic Board approves or rejects the course accreditation proposals.
  • If Academic Board approves the course accreditation, the proposal may proceed to the CRICOS code application stage as noted in the policy. If the course is not to be offered in Australia to international students, the proposal can proceed directly to the course commencement stage.

4.26 The information required for CRICOS code application is determined by the Tertiary Education Qualification Standards Agency (TEQSA).

4.27 Where required, the UAPO completes the CRICOS code application. The dean is responsible for submission of the application to UTS International.

4.28 UTS International checks and lodges the application with TEQSA and communicates the CRICOS code to the UAPO upon issuance. UAPO records the CRICOS code in CASS.

Stage 3: Course commencement (new courses) or implementation (existing courses)

4.29 The course commencement stage acts as a checklist for the faculty and UAPO to ensure that all necessary legislative, administrative and resource conditions (if any) have been met prior to offers being made and students being admitted to the course. Course commencement should include confirmation that:

  • all approvals have been granted
  • all conditions set for approval by the university courses committee have been satisfied
  • new curriculum data has been fully recorded in CASS and validated
  • existing curriculum data, where applicable, has been amended in CASS and validated
  • compulsory course information has been recorded in CIS, ready for publication in the UTS Handbook and on the public website
  • transition arrangements and communication plans for existing students, where applicable, are in place and have been discussed with the stakeholders.

4.30 Course commencement for new courses is approved as follows:

  • The dean or their nominee submits the course commencement to the Manager, UAPO.
  • When satisfied that all necessary requirements have been met, the Manager UAPO recommends to the Provost that the course be made active in CASS so that students can be admitted into the new course.
  • The Provost approves or rejects the course commencement.
  • Upon approval by the Provost, the UAPO activates the course in CASS.

4.31 The course implementation stage acts as a checklist for the UAPO to ensure that all conditions set for approval by Academic Board have been satisfied and, where changes to the course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation, that changes to curriculum data in CASS have been validated.

4.32 Course implementation of reaccreditation is approved as follows:

  • The Senior Curriculum Services Coordinator, UAPO reviews the information and confirms that all conditions set for approval by Academic Board have been satisfied.
  • On confirmation, the business analyst, UAPO:
    • checks that changes to curriculum data has been validated in CASS
    • activates the changes in CASS where applicable.

Extension of accreditation

4.33 The policy outlines the accreditation period for all coursework courses and provides for extension of course accreditation in both routine and exceptional circumstances.

4.34 Requests for an extension of accreditation period should include:

  • the proposed duration of the extension, noting that accreditation is approved until the end of an academic year
  • whether an extension of accreditation period has previously been applied for and approved or rejected
  • the course performance data for the courses for which the extension of accreditation period applies
  • whether the extension should also apply to all active external articulation arrangements associated with the course
  • the rationale to request the extension of accreditation period, and
  • the reaccreditation action plan and timeline.

4.35 Requests for extension of accreditation period are approved as follows:

  • The dean or associate dean (teaching and learning) submits the proposal to the CPC and CAC or GRSB, as appropriate.
  • The CPC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the business case for extension of accreditation.
  • The Provost approves or rejects the business case request for extension.
  • Following approval of the business case, the CAC or GRSB endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the requested extension of course accreditation and makes a recommendation to Academic Board.
  • Academic Board approves or rejects the request for extension of accreditation.
  • Upon approval of the extension by Academic Board, the UAPO updates the course record and, where applicable, the external articulation arrangement records in CASS to reflect the new accreditation end date.

Phasing out, discontinuation and suspension of intake into courses

Stages and approval pathways

4.36 The approval process for phasing out or discontinuation is a three-staged process as outlined in the table below.

Stage Stage title and applicability Approval pathway
1 Business case approval
  • Endorsed by the CPC
  • Approved by the Provost
2 Course accreditation approval
  • Endorsed by the CAC or GRSB
  • Approved by Academic Board or ECAB
3 Implementation (of cessation)
  • Checked by the Senior Curriculum Services Coordinator, UAPO
  • Approved by the Provost

4.37 The internal approval processes within each faculty (including consideration by the faculty courses committee or equivalent and approval by faculty board) shall be completed prior to submitting a business case for phasing out or discontinuation to the CPC and prior to submitting the course accreditation to the CAC or GRSB.

4.38 The business case must be approved by the Provost before course accreditation approval can be recommended to Academic Board or ECAB.

4.39 In taking the decision to phase out or discontinue a course, the faculty should assess the impact of the decision on:

  • continuing students
  • international applicants
  • graduates of the course
  • other faculty stakeholders in the course (eg combined courses, teaching by another faculty), and/or
  • internal and external articulation arrangements.

4.40 Supporting documentation for phasing out or discontinuation of a course must meet the requirements set in Rule 3.6, Student Rules.

4.41 In addition to the requirements of Rule 3.6, supporting documentation for phasing out and discontinuation should include:

  • rationale for phasing out or discontinuing the course
  • teaching session and year of last intake of new students into the course
  • teaching session and year from which the course will be phased out
  • number of continuing domestic and international students currently admitted in the course
  • number of pending and accepted offers to domestic and international students
  • transition arrangements for continuing students
  • evidence of consultation with all relevant stakeholders
  • details of faculty board approval for the phasing out or discontinuation from all faculty and internal stakeholders in the course.

4.42 Proposals for phasing out or discontinuation of a course are approved as follows:

  • The dean (as sponsor) submits the phasing out or discontinuation business case and course accreditation proposal to the faculty board.
  • The faculty board endorses the phasing out or discontinuation business case and curse accreditation for submission by the dean to the CPC and the CAC or GRSB. If scheduling of faculty board meetings does not allow timely consideration and advice on the proposal, approval can be sought in line with section 5 (iii), Standing Orders for Faculty Boards.
  • The CPC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the business case for phasing out or discontinuation and makes a recommendation to the Provost.
  • The Provost approves or rejects the phasing out or discontinuation business case.
  • Where the provost approves the business case, the course accreditation proposal is submitted to the CAC or GRSB.
  • The CAC or GRSB endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the course accreditation for phasing out or discontinuation and makes a recommendation to Academic Board.
  • Academic Board approves or rejects the course accreditation proposal for phasing out or discontinuation as follows:
    • where there are no students currently admitted to the course, Academic Board approves immediate discontinuation of the course
    • where students are still admitted to the course, Academic Board approves phasing out of the course until all admitted students have withdrawn, transferred to another course or graduated.
  • Upon approval by Academic Board, the business analyst, UAPO updates the course status in CASS to either ‘phasing out’ or ‘discontinued’.

4.43 The UAPO monitors the report on phasing out courses and, upon confirmation from the faculty that until all remaining students have either withdrawn, transferred to another course or graduated, sets up the course as discontinued in CASS.

Suspension of intake into a course process

4.44 Requests for the suspension of intake should include:

  • the intake/s for which the suspension is requested
  • the rationale for the suspension
  • how existing applications/offers into the course will be managed
  • course performance data
  • stakeholders consultation outcome
  • whether the course should continue to be published in the UTS Handbook and /or future students website.

4.45 Requests for suspension of intake are approved as follows:

  • The dean submits the proposal to the Provost.
  • The Provost approves or rejects the suspension of intake request for either a specific or indeterminate period of time.

4.46 Suspension of intake results in the course remaining active in CASS without availability. The course is not, however, included in the university’s official course publications.

Changes to award courses

Changes approved at faculty level

4.47 Changes to approved, accredited and commenced courses are normally approved by faculties, in accordance with Rule 3.6.3. Faculty approval processes for changes to award courses and study packages are published on Staff Connect (see faculty approval processes). Section 4.54 covers changes that require university-level approval.

4.48 All changes to a course must take into account the potential impact on other university units and systems.

4.49 Faculty course changes approval processes are developed and endorsed by faculty boards and approved by Academic Board. These processes specify the faculty-level approval procedures and outline responsibilities. These should align with UTS rules, delegations and policies.

4.50 These processes must be reviewed by Academic Board at least every five years.

4.51 Faculty processes must require an impact assessment and risk analysis of proposed course changes including:

  • resourcing and capability to deliver the changed course, including impact on staffing
  • arrangements for and quality of teaching and learning
  • compliance with legal and external requirements (eg AQF, ESOS Act)
  • compliance with UTS rules, delegations and policy
  • effectiveness and practicality of administration (eg timetabling)
  • requirements and interests of internal and external stakeholders (eg faculty stakeholders, institutions with external articulation arrangements)
  • requirements and interests of students
  • course monitoring process and key performance indicators
  • change management strategies, including detailed transition arrangements for students, are required under Rules 3.6.4 and 3.6.5, allowing sufficient notification to students and stakeholders before implementation, redeployment of staffing resource and liaison with SAU.

4.52 Faculty processes must ensure that proper consultation with all relevant parties is conducted, including but not limited to:

  • faculty staff (academic and professional) who are or may be impacted by the proposed changes
  • other university units (including UAPO, SAU, UTS International, SSU, Library, ITD, FMU), and external stakeholders (particularly where there are external articulation arrangements attached to the course (eg UTS Insearch) or accreditation issues and requirements).

4.53 Where another faculty has an interest in the course to which changes are proposed, endorsement from that faculty must be sought as part of the approval process as follows:

  • for combined degrees, a faculty board resolution i supporting the responsible faculty’s proposal to change the course (possibly subject to changes and/or amendments to minimise the impact of the proposal), or
  • for non-combined degrees, a memo from the dean or associate dean (teaching and learning) acknowledging that the impact of the course proposal on the faculty’s activities has been discussed and assessed and, where relevant, action has been and/or will be taken to manage the impact.

i. If scheduling of faculty board meetings does not allow timely consideration and advice on the proposal, approval can be sought in line with section 5 (iii), Standing Orders for Faculty Boards.

4.54 Changes requiring university-level approval are covered in the following table.

Change Approval process
Course admissions requirements
Course and award nomenclature
Course structure deemed by the Provost to warrant consideration and approval at university-level
  • As outline in these procedures, many changes to course structure can be approved at faculty-level. In some instances however, the impact of the changes on other academic and administrative units and on students may be deemed by the Provost to warrant consideration and approval at university-level. In those instances, the Provost determines, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate process and level of documentation required to approve the changes to the course structure.
Total number of credit points in a course
  • The level of documentation and approval pathway for changes to the total number of credit points of an existing course is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Provost.
Standard duration of a course
  • The level of documentation and approval pathway for changes to the standard duration of an existing course is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Provost.
Liability category of a course
  • The liability category refers to the category of students admissible in a course (domestic, international, postgraduate, undergraduate, etc.).
  • Proposals to change (add/remove) liability categories of a course are submitted via the Online Curriculum Approval Process system (OCAP).
  • Normally, proposals are endorsed by the CPC and approved by the Provost. Academic Board is notified of these changes via a report from CAC.
  • Where CPC assesses that the changes may have an impact on the teaching and learning aspects of the course, a proposal must be submitted to the CAC or GRSB for consideration. The CAC or GRSB makes a recommendation to Academic Board for approval as per the process for new course accreditation.
Study mode and attendance mode of the course (with the exception of online courses via OPM)
  • Study mode and attendance mode refers to how the course is typically delivered (weekly on campus ie standard mode, block on campus, distance, online).
  • Proposals to change (add/remove) study mode and/or attendance modes against a course are submitted using the relevant template in OCAP.
  • Normally, proposals to change study mode or attendance mode of a course are endorsed by the CPC and approved by the Provost. Academic Board is notified of the changes via a report from CAC or GSRB.
  • Where CPC assesses that the changes may have an impact on the teaching and learning aspects of the course, a proposal must be sent to the CAC or GRSB for consideration. The CAC or GRSB makes a recommendation to Academic Board for approval as per the process for new course accreditation.
Online versions via OPM of existing courses
  • Proposals to offer online versions via OPM of an existing UTS course are submitted using the relevant template in OCAP.
  • Normally, proposals to create an online version via OPM of an existing course do not require submission of a business case.
  • Course accreditation is endorsed and approved in line with statement 4.25 of these procedures.
Course location
  • Changes to the location of a course refers to an instance where a new location for course delivery is added, an existing location is deleted or a location unused for the past four semesters is reactivated.
  • Proposals are submitted using the relevant template on the OCAP system.
  • Normally, proposals to change the location of a course are endorsed by the CPC and approved by the Provost. Academic Board is notified of the changes via a report from CAC.
  • Where CPC assesses that the changes may have an impact on the teaching and learning aspects of the course, a proposal must be sent to the CAC or GRSB for consideration. The CAC or GRSB makes a recommendation to Academic Board for approval as per the process for new course accreditation.
Partner or partnership arrangement of a course (except online offerings of UTS courses via OPM)
  • The level of documentation and approval pathway required for changes to the partner (ie addition of a new partner, withdrawal of existing partner) or partnership arrangement for a course is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Provost.
Funding cluster and/or ASCED code
  • Changes to the funding cluster or ASCED code(s) of a course are approved by the Provost (see change a course on Staff Connect.)
  • The dean must submit the proposal in the form of a memo (to the UAPO) addressed to the Provost.
  • The proposal (memo) must include:
    • course name, code and version
    • proposed new funding cluster/ASCED code
    • the rationale and benefits of the change.
Implementation of course changes

4.55 All approved course changes (faculty or university-level approval) must be implemented in CASS in time for admission of new students or re-enrolment of existing students.

4.56 The UAPO will require supporting documentation and evidence of approval by the relevant authority before the changes can be effected in CASS for implementation.

4.57 Should the proposed changes cause any concerns, the Manager, UAPO may refer the changes to the Provost for advice on the need for further consideration and (where determined by the Provost) approval at university level.

5. Procedural ownership and support

5.1 Procedural owner: The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students), in line with the policy, is responsible for the approval, enforcement of and compliance with these procedures.

5.2 Procedural contact: The Manager, University Academic Programs Office, in line with the policy, is responsible for providing advice on the implementation of these procedures.

5.3 Others: Further lists of responsibilities and authorities are outlined in section 5 of the policy.

6. Definitions

The following definitions apply for these procedures. These are in addition to the definitions outlined in Schedule 1, Student Rules and the policy.

These acronyms are used throughout these procedures.

  • CAC means Courses Accreditation Committee
  • CPC means Courses Planning Committee
  • ECAB means Executive Committee of Academic Board
  • GRSB means Graduate Research School Board
  • UAPO means University Academic Programs Office
  • OPM means Online Program Management — this is operated with a delivery partner.

Articulation, articulated courses and articulation arrangements are defined in the policy and the Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy.

Curriculum Information System (CIS) is the system that holds the descriptive text-based curriculum data (eg course description, subject outlines). Faculties are responsible for entering and updating the course information in CIS, while the UAPO is responsible for developing and supporting the system. The Publication of Official UTS Award Course and Fee Information Vice-Chancellor’s Directive defines CASS/CIS data as the authoritative source of official award course information.

Curriculum and Student System (CASS) means the storage system for the high-level curriculum data collected and approved during the course approval or reaccreditation approval process. Faculties are responsible for providing accurate and up-to-date curriculum data to UAPO, which, in turn, is responsible for entering and maintaining the currency and integrity of the data in the system. Course information, student administration, course management and performance monitoring are based on the curriculum data held in CASS.

Distance refers to the mode of attendance of a course where there is no face-to-face teaching and where lesson materials, assignments, etc. are delivered to the student electronically, online and/or by mail, and any associated attendance at the institution is of an incidental, irregular, special or voluntary nature.

Faculty stakeholder means a faculty has an interest in a course where (but not limited to):

  • the course (existing or proposed) is a combined course
  • a faculty owns subjects offered as core subjects or study packages within a major/sub-major/stream in a course owned by another faculty
  • a faculty teaches subjects offered as core in a course owned by another faculty
  • faculties offer courses or study packages in areas of studies that may overlap (for example, some areas of Communication and Design, some areas of Science and Health, some areas of Education and Management).

Online refers to the mode of delivery of a course where the course is delivered fully online.

Online Curriculum Approval Process (OCAP) system means the system that supports the implementation of these procedures. The UAPO is responsible for the development and support of the OCAP system. The OCAP system is used to collect the information required for submission of course proposals to the relevant authority for endorsement/approval at faculty and university level.

Proposer means an academic staff member appointed by the dean to develop and progress the new course approval, reaccreditation or change to an existing course.

Sponsor means the dean, who acts as a sponsor for all new courses within their faculty.

Suspension of intake means the temporary pausing of a course, resulting in a pause in admission of new students as approved by Academic Board in line with these procedures.

Approval information

Policy contact Manager, University Academic Programs Office
Approval authority Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)
Review date 2022
File number UR19/1044
Superseded documents Award Course Approval and Reaccreditation Procedures 2011 (UR10/1182)

Version history

Version Approved by Approval date Effective date Sections modified
1.0 Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) 11/04/2019 18/04/2019 New procedures
1.1 Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) 21/11/2019 28/11/2019 Clarification of approval steps for courses offered online via the OPM and provision of definitions.

PDF version

Award Course Approval Procedures (PDF)

References

Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy and Procedures

Award Course Approval Policy

Course Name and Award Title Nomenclature Policy and Procedures

Delegations

Faculty approval processes (Staff Connect) for changes to award courses and study packages

Standing orders for faculty boards, in particular, duties and powers (section 2)

Universities Admissions Centre (UAC)

UTS Rules: