Critical incident 22/09/21
Berwick campus is closed under current Victorian Government lockdown restrictions. Click here for more information.

Review of Established Programs

Review of Established Sealed Award Programs (Higher Education) Policy

Policy Code: LT1828


This policy describes the academic governance framework within which the Academic Board on behalf of Federation University Australia will oversee the review of the University's Established Sealed Award Higher Education Programs not conducted solely by research.

This review process quality assures the content, teaching, academic integrity, academic standards, student experience and outcomes of Higher Education Award Programs at Federation University Australia and facilitates timely and purposeful improvement in a planned and systematic manner.


This policy applies to all Established Sealed Award Higher Education programs not completed solely through research. This policy and related procedure for reviewing the Established Sealed Award Higher Education programs forms part of University's quality assurance framework.


Term Definition
Established Sealed Award Program A Higher Education Program which has been approved by the University's Academic Board for delivery
Program (HE): Refers to an award program, non-award program, enabling program bridging for overseas trained professionals or cross-provider program undertaken at the University that is listed on Schedule 5.1
Course (HE): Refers to a subsidiary set of elements (previously referred to as units) that form a program
Review (HE): Refers to program reviews, which will commence within a 5 year cycle in Higher Education

Policy Statement

1. The review of Established Sealed Award Programs is intended to enable the University to:

  • Assess the overall quality of the teaching and learning, and determine whether educational aims and learning outcomes have been achieved;
  • Assess that academic learning support, student services and access assistance is sufficient;
  • Identify areas where performance needs to be improved and strategies for improving performance in these areas; and monitor improvement over a given period of time;
  • Consider the ongoing value and relevance of a program within the University’s academic profile.

2. The review of programs are conducted with reference to:

  • The strategic directions and policies of the University identified in the Purpose, Objectives and Values statement, the Learning and Teaching Policy and School strategic directions;
  • The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) as published by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency;
  • Data derived from program performance data and the results and analysis of student survey results;
  • The application of School processes, as they apply to learning outcomes for students;
  • The views of academic and teaching staff peers, students, graduates, employers and other relevant stakeholders;
  • External professional, industry and accreditation requirements.

3. The Review of Established Sealed Award Programs are conducted using the following methodology:

  • Schedule 5.1 will be updated and maintained to show the next review date of all Programs. Typically Established Sealed Award Programs are reviewed every 5 years;
  • Collection of information, analysis and evaluation of this information through completion of a Self-Review Template will be conducted by the Schools;
  • A Review Panel will consider the information contained within the Self-Review Template and upon completion of its review and analysis, make affirmations, commendations and recommendations regarding the Programs performance;
  • Set time frames will apply for the above processes. Improvement opportunities will reported on 12 months after the initial review.

4. A consistent approach to the review of programs will be implemented through the use of a:

  • Standard terms of reference for the Review Panel
  • Program Review and Re-Accreditation (Higher Education) Template (Self-Assessment)
  • Review Panel Report Template
  • Progress Report Template

5. The Review Panel Report and Progress Report will be sent to the Curriculum Committee for review and approval and for reporting to the Academic Board.


Academic Board is responsible for the review and maintenance of this document.

Academic Board and the relevant Standing Committees, along with the Schools/Centres have responsibility to ensure this Policy is executed.


The "Review of Established Sealed Award Courses (Higher Education)" Procedure is to be implemented throughout the University in the form of notices via:

  1. An announcement on the FedNews webpage;
  2. The 'What's New' page on the Policy Central Website;
  3. Inclusion in the University's Policy Library;
  4. Advice to School Boards.