Skip to content | Change text size

Coursework Course Accreditation Procedures

Parent Policy

Coursework Courses and Units Accreditation Policy

Course proposals may require documentation of both the Academic Case and the Business Case depending on the type of proposal. The Academic Case is assessed according to the process set out in these procedures. The Business Case is assessed by the Provost, or delegate, in parallel with the assessment of the Academic Case, who provides a summary of the Business Case for inclusion in documentation. The Provost determines her own procedures for the assessment of the Business Case.

Definition of terms

Academic Case: Documents the academic design of a course (academic content, standards and quality), impact on the University’s course portfolio, internal and external compliance, governance and management of the course and associated partnerships.
Academic Course Description: Document that sets out the academic information about a course.
Business Case : Evidence for introducing a course, major or specialisation or making changes that may have strategic or market impact, or, in relation to re-accreditation, evidence for continuing the course or area of study at this time.
CAPC: Coursework Admissions and Programs Committee, a subcommittee of Academic Board.
Degree Faculty : The faculty responsible for the degree or other award, as specified in the University Handbook. For double degree courses there may be two degree faculties.
Managing Faculty: In relation to double degree courses, means the faculty specified in the University Handbook as being responsible for the administration of that double degree course.
New Proposal: Proposal for a new course; major, 'stand-alone' minor or specialisation in a new field; new teaching location where the field or discipline is not currently established; new partnerships that fall under the scope of the Collaborative Coursework Arrangements Policy.
Notice of Planning: Email notice about a forthcoming course proposal. The purpose of a notice of planning is to allow stakeholders across the University to raise and resolve any concerns at an early stage.
Progression Map: Visual representation of an indicative order and timing of the units in a course, demonstrating how course requirements can be completed.
Stand-alone Minor: A minor where there is no corresponding major in the area of study.

A. Responsibility for approval of course amendments

1.   Determining the responsibility for approval of course amendments

 1.1. The principles for determining who is responsible for approving amendments to accredited courses are set out in the Coursework Course and Unit Accreditation Policy. The Chair of CAPC has the power to determine the necessary level of approval where an interpretation of the principles is required for a particular amendment.

1.2. Detailed information on the application of the principles is documented in the Guidelines for determining the body or person responsible for approving course proposals.

Responsibility

Chair, Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)

2.   Interfaculty consultation and approval of new proposals and course amendments

2.1. A faculty must consider if a course proposal may impact on other faculties. Appropriate consultation with those faculties must take place:

  • Prior to submission of the proposal, where CAPC or Academic Board approval is required; or
  • Prior to the Dean (or delegate) approving course amendments which do not require CAPC or Academic Board approval. However, if another faculty objects to the amendment and no agreement can be reached between the parties, the course amendment must be submitted to CAPC for approval.

2.2. Proposals concerning double degree courses that require Academic Board or CAPC approval must be endorsed by Deans of both degree faculties prior to final approval.

2.3. A faculty planning to make amendments to a course that is offered in a double degree combination, including where there are multiple managing faculties for the double degrees, must contact the partner faculties prior to the notice of planning stage. Where an amendment affects multiple courses managed by multiple faculties, only one notice of planning and one proposal should be submitted.

2.4. When a faculty proposes amendments to a course that is offered in a double degree combination, the impact on double degree students and partner faculties must be demonstrated by revising the indicative progression map/s.

  • If no change to the progression map/s is required, the proposing faculty will notify the partner faculty/ies of the change, unless endorsement by both Deans is required as per 2.2 above.
  • If changes to the progression map/s are required, partner faculties must sign-off on the revised progression map/s to verify that course requirements can be met prior to the decision being made. Such amendments and the revised progression map/s must be reported to CAPC prior to implementation.

Responsibility

Deans
Course Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)

3.   Approval of courses offered at Monash University Malaysia

3.1. Proposals concerning courses offered at Monash University Malaysia must follow the University course accreditation process and the approval/endorsement process of the relevant faculty, and must comply with the Course Accreditation Business Rule for the campus.

3.2. The faculty must consult with the relevant Head of School, with a copy to the Director of Quality Assurance and Compliance (Monash University Malaysia), prior to the Dean (or delegate) endorsing/approving a proposal.

3.3. Proposals that require Academic Board or CAPC approval, and relate to courses offered at Monash University Malaysia, must be endorsed by the President and Pro-Vice Chancellor, Monash University Malaysia, or delegate, prior to submission to CAPC.

3.4. Following approval, the faculty must report the approval of the proposal to the relevant Head of School, with a copy to the Director of Quality Assurance and Compliance.

Responsibility

President and Pro-Vice Chancellor Monash University Malaysia
Deans
Heads of School (Monash University Malaysia)
Director of Quality Assurance and Compliance (Monash University Malaysia)

B. Proposal development and approval stages

4.   Proposal development overview

4.1. A course proposal may require both an Academic Case and a Business Case depending on the type of the proposal. Development of the Academic Case and the Business Case inform each other and take place in parallel.

4.2. The purpose of the development of the Academic Case is to:

  • Design the curriculum including course outcomes, course structure, course requirements, unit synopses, learning and teaching approach, assessment regime, prerequisites, entry levels and pathways, and indicative progression maps.
  • Obtain and consider input from relevant academic areas, students and graduates, employers and professional bodies (if applicable), and other external stakeholders.
  • Ensure that resource requirements are well understood and will be in place for implementation of the proposal.
  • Document the proposal in sufficient detail and in the format required for approval.

4.3. For new proposals the Dean or delegate should contact the Provost or delegate at an early stage to initiate discussions about the preparation of a Business Case. Refer to the Course Accreditation website for more information.

Responsibility

Deans
Provost and Senior Vice-President

5.   Notice of planning stage

5.1. For new proposals or amendments to existing courses that require Provost, Academic Board or CAPC approval faculties must circulate a notice of planning before submitting the proposal for approval. The purpose of the notice of planning is to allow stakeholders across the University to raise and resolve any concerns early in the process.

5.2. A notice of planning may only be sent by the Dean of a faculty or the person to whom the Dean has delegated responsibility with regards to the course proposal. Senders of notices of planning should refer to the information and email templates available from the Course Accreditation website.

5.3. Faculties and President-led campuses should nominate one academic and one administrative staff member to receive notices of planning. Other relevant areas nominate one staff member. Nominated recipients should be persons with a broad overview of the area and who are able to identify issues that affect the faculty, campus or area, including academic, business and governance issues.

5.4. Recipients must review notices received and alert the proposing faculty to any concerns the faculty, campus or area may have. Recipients of notices of planning have seven working days to respond.

5.5. If any issues are raised, the proposing faculty should seek to address these prior to finalising the proposal. See also 2.1 above.

Responsibility

Deans
Faculty Managers
Recipients of notices of planning at President-led campuses and other areas

6.   Faculty and campus approval stage

6.1. Prior to submission for university level approval, a course proposal must have all the required endorsements, including that of the Dean of the degree faculty and, if applicable, Deans of partner faculties (for double degrees) and the President and Pro-Vice Chancellor Monash University Malaysia (for courses offered at Monash University Malaysia).

6.2. Campus endorsement for Monash University Malaysia ensures that the proposal aligns with campus strategic priorities, government and professional accreditation requirements of the country and the campus resource strategy.

6.3. Deans have responsibility for ensuring that all proposals align with University and faculty educational priorities, academic standards as expressed in University policy, professional accreditation requirements and the faculty resource strategy.

Responsibility

Deans
President and Pro-Vice Chancellor Monash University Malaysia

7.   Academic Board approval stage

7.1. Submission of course proposals that require CAPC or Academic Board approval and applications for re-accreditation of existing courses are submitted to ap@monash.edu.

7.2. Proposals must include all the required documentation at the point of submission, including the Academic Case, faculty and campus signatures (as applicable) and a summary of the Provost and Senior Vice-President's assessment of the Business Case (for proposals where a Business Case is required).

7.3. Proposals are then distributed to the Course Proposal Evaluation Group (CPEG) one week before the CAPC submission deadline. CPEG advises CAPC on matters of curriculum design, academic standards and compliance with the University's policy framework, but does not make a determination on whether to recommend accreditation, re-accreditation or approval of course amendments.

7.4. CPEG will notify the proposing faculty of any issues identified through its assessment. The faculty will be given an opportunity to respond and/or amend the proposal documentation before it is considered by CAPC and Academic Board. Any revised documentation will normally be available by the CAPC submission deadline.

7.5. The proposal is then considered by CAPC during its scheduled meeting cycle. If in favour of the proposal, CAPC may, in accordance with the principles for determining the level of approval as set out in the policy:

  • approve the proposed course amendment; or
  • endorse the proposal for submission to Academic Board, recommending an accreditation period.

Responsibility

Deans
University Policy Unit
Course Proposals Evaluation Group (CPEG)
Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)
Academic Board

C. Course proposal documentation

8.   Templates

8.1. The purpose of the course proposal templates is to obtain the information necessary to support the assessment of proposals against the criteria set out in the Coursework Courses and Unit Accreditation Policy.

8.2. The Academic Case of course proposals must be documented using the appropriate course proposal template/s approved by the Chair of CAPC. Academic Board, CAPC, CPEG and other stakeholders may provide suggestions for improving the templates.

Responsibility

Chair, Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)
Academic Board
Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)
Course Proposals Evaluation Group (CPEG)

9.   Exemptions to documentation requirements

9.1. The Chair of CAPC may grant an exemption from the usual documentation requirements for a change to a course title or an award title where such a change is necessitated by changes to administrative requirements and there are no variations to the course requirements or learning outcomes of the course. In such cases, the faculty may prepare the submission in the form of a memorandum outlining the proposed changes, the reasons and any implications of the changes. The memorandum must be signed by the Dean or delegate and submitted to ap@monash.edu. A Notice of Planning is not required.

9.2. A change of course code required due to changes to the administrative requirements of a course (such as changes to the funding/scholarship arrangements or to ensure compliance with internal requirements) is considered a management decision and does not follow the procedures set out above in sections 2-7. In such cases, the faculty may submit a request to the Vice-Provost (Education Programs) in the form of a memorandum outlining the proposed change, the reasons for and any implications of the change. The memorandum must be signed by the Dean or delegate and submitted to ap@monash.edu. The Vice-Provost (Education Programs) will report on such course code changes to CAPC.

Responsibility

Deans
Chair, Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)
Vice-Provost (Education Programs)
Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)

D. Implementation of new courses and course amendments

10.   Implementation

10.1. Where a course involves more than one faculty, the managing faculty is responsible for the overall administration and management of the course.

10.2. Once a course has been accredited and the Provost has made the decision to offer the course, Education Business Services will enter the course details in the student management system and the course will be published in the University Handbook.

10.3. Course amendments will be reflected in the student management system and in the University Handbook. Where an amendment has been approved by the Dean, the faculty must notify Education Business Services and the Academic Programs Change Manager, Office of the Vice-Provost (Education Programs) of the amendment.

10.4. Where a course amendment affects currently enrolled or deferred students, the managing faculty must notify students of the amendment, the options available to students and any transitional arrangements that will be put in place.

10.5. Accreditation of courses by professional bodies is the responsibility of the degree faculty. Where a major, specialisation or unit sequence within a course is professionally accredited the teaching faculty of the major/specialisation/sequence is responsible for assuring the professional accreditation.

Responsibility

Deans
Education Business Services
Academic Programs Change Manager, Office of the Vice-Provost (Education Programs)

E. Re-accreditation of courses

11.   Applications for re-accreditation

11.1. When Academic Board accredits a course, it will also determine the period of accreditation, up to seven years. Prior to the expiration of the accreditation period, the managing faculty must apply for re-accreditation in order to continue offering the course.

11.2. The Dean or delegate should contact the Provost or delegate at an early stage to initiate discussions about the preparation of a Business Case to support the application for re-accreditation. Refer to the Course Accreditation website for more information.

11.3. An application for re-accreditation must be supported by a course review report. The requirements for course reviews are set out in the Coursework Course Review Procedures.

11.4. An application for re-accreditation may be accompanied by a course amendment proposal. When this is the case, all steps for course amendments must be completed, as set out in these procedures, including obtaining all the required signatures.

11.5. The Dean/s or delegates of the degree faculty/ies must endorse applications for re-accreditation prior to submission to CAPC.

11.6. An application for re-accreditation must include a summary of the Provost's assessment of the Business Case for continuing to offer the course.

11.7. The Academic Board assessment and approval process for applications for re-accreditation follows that of new proposals, as set out in section 7 above.

11.8. Re-accreditation of a double degree course is not automatic following the re-accreditation of the component courses but must be sought explicitly by the managing faculty. The managing faculty must consult with the Chair of CAPC about the required documentation to support the case for reaccreditation, prior to submission to the committee.

11.9. If a faculty decides not to apply for re-accreditation, the course and all of its double degree combinations must be disestablished in accordance with the Disestablish and Teach Out Coursework Award Course Policy and associated procedures.

Responsibility

Deans
Course Proposals Evaluation Group (CPEG)
Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)
Academic Board

12.   Failure to conduct course review or apply for re-accreditation

12.1. If a course is not reviewed or an application for re-accreditation is not received by CAPC before the end of the accreditation period, and the course is not in teach-out mode, the managing Faculty must provide a rationale to CAPC as to why the course's current accreditation term should be extended, explaining why the review and/or application has not been completed within the timeframe.

12.2. CAPC will then propose a suitable course of action and make a recommendation to Academic Board accordingly. CAPC may recommend that Academic Board:

  • Grant re-accreditation;
  • Grant re-accreditation with condition/s and/or a shorter accreditation period, or;
  • Withdraw accreditation and recommend to the Provost that any new intake/commencing enrolments be ceased.

12.3. If Academic Board does not accept the rationale for the failure to conduct a course review or apply for re-accreditation, Academic Board will determine that the accreditation is withdrawn and recommend to the Provost and Senior Vice-President to cease any new intake/commencing enrolments into the course until the course has been re-accredited.

Responsibility

Deans
Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)
Academic Board
Provost and Senior Vice-President

13.   Maintaining oversight and reporting requirements

13.1. The Vice-Provost (Education Programs) will initiate the annual reporting of academic course descriptions by sending a request to faculties.

13.2. When requested, faculties must provide the current academic course descriptions and report on all amendments made since the academic course descriptions were last reported.

13.3. Prior to the academic course descriptions being considered by CAPC, compliance with current University policy and legislation will be verified and accuracy of the descriptions assessed. If changes are required, the faculty will be advised and may be required to amend the course and/or the academic course description prior to CAPC.

Responsibility

Deans
Vice-Provost (Education Programs)
University Policy Unit
Coursework Admissions & Programs Committee (CAPC)

Related Documents

Levels of approvals for courses and course amendments


Campus Course Accreditation Business Rule (Monash Malaysia)

Content Enquiries: Policy Bank

University Policy Use Only:

Version Number: 3.0Effective Date: 01-April-2015Contact: adm-PolicyBank@monash.edu