The purpose of the Comprehensive Course Review process is to provide an opportunity to consider, review, evaluate and enhance the academic quality of a course, alongside fulfilling the University’s reporting requirements. As such, it is important to ensure the review panel and the final report adopts a reflective, evaluative tone. Panels are encouraged to use evidence to honestly identify the strengths and weaknesses of a course, and solutions to further enhance quality.
The Comprehensive Course Review assesses the academic program's quality and includes an evaluation of the course structure, learning outcomes, graduate attributes, assessment methods, and the effectiveness of teaching and learning. This comprehensive evaluation utilises external benchmarks, threshold and accreditation standards, as well as feedback from students and professionals.
Comprehensive Course Reviews are a core requirement of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Thresholds Standards) 2021 (HESF standards) as determined by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Within a seven-year cycle, each course must undertake a review of the quality of its learning and teaching. The Comprehensive Course Review process has been embedded within the University’s Learning and Teaching Procedures (Schedule 5).
The Comprehensive Course Review Process is informed by detailed market analysis provided by Sydney Future Students, results from the Student Experience Surveys, Unit of Study Surveys and the Graduate Outcomes Survey.
The timelines below represent the final dates for completing specific actions required for course reviews and professional accreditation. These deadlines ensure accurate reporting and support forward planning.
They have been carefully aligned with all internal requirements, including those impacting the course review schedule and reporting obligations to University governance and Senate, where applicable.
For any questions about these timelines, please email [email protected].
| Course Review Timelines | Decision Paper | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty or University School Board | Curriculum and Quality Team, Division of Academic Registrar | Academic Quality Committee | |
| Submit an amendment to course review schedule (defer or bring forward a review) | By 03 August 2026 | N/A | Paper due: Mtg: 11 August 2026 |
| Submit a request to amend and/or create a course review bundle | By 03 August 2026 | N/A | Paper due: Mtg: 11 August 2026 |
Submit a request to align course review to professional/external processes NB: Professional mapping matrix to be submitted as part of request |
By 03 August 2026 | N/A | Paper due: Mtg: 11 August 2026 |
| Submit request to delay course reviews and to receive conditional course accreditation | End April – early May 2026 | The C&Q team (DAR) will refer the request to the DVC (Education and Students) and chairs the AB And AQC for review and recommendation | Faculty submit paper to next available AQC meeting |
| Course Reviews and Professional Accreditation Reporting | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty or University School Board | Curriculum and Quality Team, Division of Academic Registrar | Academic Quality Committee | UE | |
| Provide professional (re)-accreditation report and outcome documentation | Next available meeting | On reception | Next available meeting (for noting) | N/A unless escalated by AQC |
Yearly finalisation of updates to course review recommendations status and narrative updates; Obtain Dean’s approval for Closed recommendation NB: Updates should be made regularly throughout the year |
N/A | 20 March 2026 | Report compiled by C&Q (DAR) Team and submitted to 05 May 2026 meeting | N/A |
Bi-annual finalisation of updates to the professional accreditation status and milestones meeting accreditation conditions NB: Updates should be made regularly throughout the year |
N/A | 20 March 2026 and 28 August 2026 |
Paper due: Paper due: |
Reports compiled by C&Q (DAR) Team and submitted to 07 May 2026 meeting; and 13 October 2026 meeting |
The Comprehensive Course Review Template was endorsed by the Academic Quality Committee (AQC) at their meeting on 11 March 2025 and noted by Academic Board on 8 April. Faculties are asked to transition to this new template for all course reviews to be conducted from 2025 onwards.
Program Directors are predominantly responsible for the completion of the Parts 2 -5, by providing context to the data, but note completion of the template is not linear. To complete the review:
Refer to the updated Course Review Data Guide for further information.
This information is intended as a guide/checklist for faculty Curriculum and Quality teams to ensure that all course reviews cover key compliance areas, predominately around:
Before submitting the reviews to faculty and university governance committees, faculties are recommended to review the draft and final review reports against the following guide. Faculties are also encouraged to forward draft and final review reports to the Curriculum and Quality Team for review prior to submission to faculty governance committees:
| Item/Select | Checklist |
|---|---|
| AQC Coversheet | □ Cross check the listed courses against the Comprehensive Course Review schedule to ensure that they have all been captured. □ Ensure that the listed next review date is within 5-year allowable cycle. Calculate this by adding 5 years to the AQC approval date (e.g. May 2025 – next cycle 2030). |
| Comprehensive Course Review Template | □ Check that the most recent version of the Comprehensive Course Review Template is used. □ Note that faculties can use the previous version of the template if they had significantly progressed their review by the time the new version was released. Faculty to check with Curriculum and Quality team if needed. |
| Part 1 Course Details |
|---|
| 1.1 Course Names and 1.2 Course codes | □ Cross check check the listed courses against the Comprehensive Course Review schedule to ensure that they have all been captured. |
| 1.3 CRICOS Course Code | □ Cross check CRICOS course code against CRICOS register |
| 1.4 Combined degree and 1.5 Combined Type | □ If combined degree ticked, ensure that the combined degree is included in the review (either via a full CCR or a combined course coversheet). □ Note that the use of the combined degree coversheet/process is optional. |
| 1.9 Course AQF Level | □ Check if the right AQF level was nominated. □ Cross check against AQF Framework Document. |
| 1.13 Mode of Delivery | □ If online 100% selected, ensure that it’s not open to international student visa holders. □ Cross check with Sydney Courses info for accuracy. |
| 1.14 Does the course require clinical or industrial placement/experience | □ If Yes, refer to CRICOS register and check:
|
| 1.15 Does the course require internships | □ If Yes, refer to CRICOS register and check:
|
| 1.17 Does the course provide entry to a profession i.e. need professional accreditation | □ If Yes, ensure that:
|
| Part 2: Review Details |
|---|
| 2.1 Responsible Program Director | □ Ensure that Program Director details are all listed. that |
| 2.2 Review Committee (Panel) membership | □ Ensure that Course review panels are composed of at least six members, including:
□ Note: For all professionally accredited courses for which the accreditation or reaccreditation has been granted by the professional body within the last 12 months, external panel membership requirement can be waived, provided that the details and credentials of the expert(s) consulted are submitted within this report. Check if report was submitted along with this CCR. |
| Part 3: Recommendations and Implementation |
|---|
| 3.1 Recommendations | □ 6-10 recommendations (fewer is acceptable). □ Recommendations should adhere to the following principles.
□ Recommendations should be based on the data in the report. □ Recommendations should not focus on student recruitment but more on the teaching and pedagogical quality of the course. □ Ensure that in section 2.2 of the review template there is a note of when relevant teams were consulted as part of the drafting and finalisation of the recommendations. □ Recommendations relating to Curriculum Management and Quality need to be reasonable and within governance timelines (e.g. Curriculum Amendments, UoS development etc). |
| 3.2 Dean's Approval | □ Dean’s signature obtained and dated. |
| 3.3 Implementation Plan | □ Recommendations numbered clearly with a relevant responsible delegate. □ Implementation date – faculties have 2-3 years to implement. □ Do not list any recommendations with an ongoing Implementation date. |
| Part 4: Strategic Context |
|---|
| 2. Benchmarking |
|
| Part 5: Academic Quality |
|---|
| 5.1 Academic objectives and Learning Outcomes | □ A list of CLOs and mapping to AQF level provided. □ Crosscheck to see if it has been appropriately mapped to AQF or if CLOs need further refinements. Use AQF Framework Document □ Crosscheck volume of learning of course against AQF Framework Document. □ Refer to Handbook resolutions/UoS table for Volume of Learning. |
| 5.3 Admissions | □ Faculty to provide admission criteria for course. □ Check admissions criteria listed is most up to date by referring to Sydney Courses and Handbook. □ Cross check suitability of admissions criteria against AQF requirements using AQF Framework Document and Coursework Policy 2021. |
| 5.4 Course Structure | □ Does the course structure meet required volume of learning for AQF as per AQF Framework Document? □ Note: Generally, the maximum number of student hours per year for a full time (24cp) student is 600hrs. Approx. 25hrs per 1cp (150hrs per 6cp). |
| 5.4(a) Overall course structure | □ Check if course structure is compliant with Coursework Policy 2021 and AQF Framework Document. |
| 5.4(b) Professional accreditation | □ Where professionally accredited, ensure that:
|
| 5.6(a) Assessment Plan | □ Check if assessment plan is compliant with principles in Coursework Policy 2021. |
| 5.6(b) Generative AI | □ Check if assessment framework and use of generative AI is compliant with Assessment Procedures 2024 framework. |
Note: This guidance information is modelled on the Comprehensive Course Review Template, but note that some aspects are applicable to Combined Course Reviews and Suspended and Discontinued Course Review as well.
The template was endorsed by the AQC at their meeting on 11 February 2025 and noted by the Academic Board. The Suspended and Discontinued Course Review is designed for suspended and/or discontinued courses that cannot be bundled with a related scheduled Comprehensive Course Review; and have active enrolments. Note, a Suspended and Discontinued Course Review is no longer required once the course has no active enrolments.
The Suspended and Discontinued Course Review is a light touch review focused primarily on student progression and student experience. The Suspended and Discontinued Course Review does not require the appointment of a review panel.
To complete the review:
Refer to the updated Course Review Data Guide for further information.
The Combined Course Review process is designed to streamline the review of combined and/or vertically integrated award courses, building on the full Comprehensive Course Reviews (CCR) of each component course. Noting that the Combined Course Reviews are not a requirement to comprehensively review combined and/or vertically integrated courses.
Light-touch review focused on the experience of the students enrolled in the combined/vertically integrated course, inclusive of:
AQC submission to include:
Owning faculty:
Partner faculty:
The examples below provide guidance on how the faculty could structure their Combined Course Reviews:
1. Overarching panel with concurrent CCR for each component degree
2. Overarching panel with previous CCR or professional accreditation
Alternatively, the faculty might wish to form one panel with members from both the standalone degrees, plus external experts to develop recommendations specific to the combined degree.
Note: the panel is not required to make any recommendations unless these are specific to the combined course and are necessitated by the data specific to the combined course.
Panel membership requirements are as per Comprehensive Course Review panels:
The overarching panel might be chaired by the combined degree Program Director or the Associate Dean (Education). Where the combined degree is an interfaculty degree and/or does not have a dedicated Program Director, Program Directors from both component courses are expected to be on the panel.
For the appropriate panel composition and further information on combined course reviews, contact [email protected].
Overview: The Academic Quality Committee may approve a faculty to align their professional re-accreditation cycle alongside their Comprehensive Course Review cycle. This integration can streamline processes while maintaining academic standards.
Using the Accreditation Report in the Review: Faculties may use their professional re-accreditation report to support the course review, provided that:
Mapping and Gap Analysis: Faculties must:
Panel Formation and Data Requirements
Responsibilities of the Course Review Panel: The panel must:
Submission Requirements:
Policy and Procedures
Comprehensive Course Review Templates
Comprehensive Course Review Data
Comprehensive Course Review Panels
Comprehensive Course Review Schedule and Recommendations Dashboards
Overview: Following a Comprehensive Course Review, faculties are required to propose recommendations and an implementation plan. Once approved by the Academic Quality Committee (AQC), faculties are expected to act on these recommendations within the agreed timelines and provide frequent updates on recommendations.
Data entry and Dashboard Monitoring:
Recommendation Status Categories: Faculties must assign one of the following statuses to each recommendation:
| Status | Description |
|---|---|
| Due to commence | the recommendation is planned and associated work due to commence. |
| In progress | the recommendation is in progress or partially implemented. |
| Paused | the recommendation has been paused but may be resumed within a 12-month period. For recommendations that have been marked as ‘Paused’ for over 12 months, faculties are expected to provide their plan to progress or resolve them in their narrative update. |
| Closed | there is an impediment to implementation, recommendation is no longer strategically or financially viable for faculties, and/or requires advice from the AQC. Recommendations that the faculty deems unachievable or strategically undesirable must be signed off by the Dean (email signoff is sufficient). Once signed off, these recommendations are marked as ‘Closed’ and no longer actively monitored |
| Completed | the recommendation has been implemented |
Narrative Updates: For each recommendation, faculties must:
Annual Reporting: The Division of the Academic Registrar compiles an annual report for the Academic Board and Senate. This report summarises the implementation progress across faculties and helps inform institutional oversight and decision-making. It also provides the Academic Board and Senate with the opportunity to monitor and assess faculties’ progress, and to raise any issues or concerns to be relayed back to faculties.
The Curriculum and Quality team, Education Portfolio, reports on course reviews to the Academic Quality Committee of the Academic Board. Reports include:
For more information about Comprehensive Course Reviews contact [email protected]
Curriculum and Quality Team,
Division of the Academic Registrar,
DVC (Education and Students)
Curriculum and Quality Team,
Division of the Academic Registrar,
DVC (Education and Students)