top of page

Course and Unit Review Policy


This policy governs the systematic monitoring and review of courses and units offered at Global Leadership Institute (GLI).



Course: program of study consisting of a combination of units and other requirements, whether leading to a specific higher education award or not.

Unit: is an academic module which forms part of a course;

Quality Assurance: all policies, measures, planned processes and actions through which the quality of higher education is maintained and developed.

Graduate Attributes: qualities, skills, and disciplinary expertise that each student of GLI should develop during their studies.

Assessment: process of evaluating the extent to which students have understood course materials and achieved the objectives of a course, including formative and summative assessment



GLI adheres to the following principles:

  • Course reviews support ongoing academic quality and continuous improvement of academic processes and outcomes at GLI;

  • Course and unit reviews align to the mission, values, and Strategic Plan of GLI;

  • Each course is comprehensively reviewed as part of reaccreditation processes;

  • Each unit taught is reviewed annually;

  • Reviews provide opportunities to reflect on course achievements against course goals;

  • Reviews identify both strengths to be built on as well as opportunities for improvement;

  • Academic Board has general oversight of the academic review processes.



Each accredited course will be reviewed in the following ways:


1. Annual Course Review

An Annual Course Review of each course will be submitted by the relevant Program Director to the Academic Dean. This review reports on the performance of the previous year and will generally include information such as:

  • Enrolment data;

  • Student participation, progression, attrition, and completion data;

  • Effectiveness of support for underrepresented and disadvantaged subgroups;

  • Student feedback;

  • Staff feedback;

  • Industry feedback;

  • Improvement plan for the upcoming year;

  • Evidence of implementation of previous improvement plans.


The Annual Course Review will be included in the Annual Academic Report prepared by the Academic Dean and reviewed by Academic Board and Governing Board. This allows for the ongoing monitoring of performance and improvement of courses. The implementation of any recommendations for improvement to a course arising from this annual review will be overseen by the relevant Program Director.


2. Comprehensive Review

A comprehensive review will be conducted as part of a course reaccreditation application. This will be overseen by Course Advisory Committee in accordance with the procedures outlined below.


3. Additional Review

An additional course review may be undertaken in response to stakeholder feedback. In this case, a proposal for a course review outside the regular cycle must be submitted to Course Advisory Committee. This proposal should include a clear rationale for the additional review of the course. If accepted by Course Advisory Committee, this additional review will then be overseen by Course Advisory Committee in accordance with the procedures outlined below.


4. Minor Review

A minor review to a course (e.g. progression rules, minor changes to structure) may be undertaken if required. In the case of a minor review, a proposal is tabled to Course Advisory Committee for consideration and recommendation to Academic Board. The procedures below are not required.



At the conclusion of each semester, each Unit Coordinator provides a Unit Coordinator Report to the Program Director, with proposed improvements of the unit. These reports are tabled to Learning, Teaching and Curriculum Committee and include analysis of:

  • Student Feedback Forms;

  • Student engagement, attrition, and completion data;

  • Effectiveness of support for underrepresented and disadvantaged subgroups;

  • Student learning data;

  • Grade distribution;

  • Formative and summative assessments.


The implementation of any recommendations for improvement to a unit outline is overseen by the Program Director and reported to Learning, Teaching and Curriculum Committee.



All courses and units



Course and unit reviews take into considered stakeholder feedback as noted in the Academic Quality Assurance Policy.

Completed annual course and unit reviews will:

  • Identify unit or course improvements required;

  • Include a reflection on the effectiveness of the assessment regimes to assure unit or course learning outcomes including moderation activities;

  • Include an action plan of the revisions/actions to be implemented to address the results of the analysed data and make evidence-based improvements to the units or courses.


To support the validity of annual review data it is required that:

  • Learning resources for units and courses must be reviewed at least once every two years to ensure relevance;

  • Gradings within each unit are externally moderated at least once every two years and revised in response to student learning and student experience data to ensure equivalency and equity.




1. Appointment of Course Advisory Committee

When a course is schedule for review or reaccreditation, Academic Board appoints a Course Advisory Committee. Members of Course Advisory Committee will usually include the Academic Dean, Program Director, other relevant academic staff and at least one external member from a relevant field (or two external members, one academic and one practitioner, for a reaccreditation review). The purpose of Course Advisory Committee is to review the course according to the guidelines of the policy. Academic Board nominates the Chair of Course Advisory Committee.


2. Comprehensive Review

Course Advisory Committee will conduct a comprehensive review of the course, including consideration of the following as relevant:

  • Continuing alignment with the GLI mission, values and Strategic Plan;

  • Annual Academic Reports, including student enrolment, participation, progression, attrition, and completion data;

  • Unit Coordinator reports;

  • Program Director reports;

  • Other performance data, including internal monitoring and external moderation;

  • Stakeholder feedback, including student experience and graduate outcomes surveys;

  • Internal monitoring and external moderation of grades;

  • Feedback from professional accreditation bodies (if applicable);

  • National and international external benchmarking, including admission criteria, pre-requisites, course structure and content, learning outcomes; and assessments;

  • Nested courses.


From this review, Course Advisory Committee tables a report to Academic Board regarding improvements to the structure, delivery, learning outcomes and course management. If these recommendations require a substantial change to the course, Course Advisory Committee will be tasked with overseeing the development of Material Change Notification to TEQSA as relevant. For a course reaccreditation, Course Advisory Committee will be tasked with drafting a Reaccreditation Application.


3. External Review of Draft Application

In the case of reaccreditation, the Chair of Course Advisory Committee may commission at least one external expert to review the full application, including all the unit outlines. The external reviewer(s) have extensive academic and professional expertise in the field of education of the course. The role of the external reviewer(s) is to provide external scrutiny of the courses, ensure consistency of standards with other Institutes of Higher Education offering a comparable course, ensure it continues to meet industry needs, and advise Course Advisory Committee of improvements for the reaccreditation application.


4. Commendation by Course Advisory Committee

The completed Course Review Report or Reaccreditation Application is tabled to Academic Board for approval.


5. Approval by Academic Board

Academic Board will review the Course Review Report or Reaccreditation Application and, once satisfied, submits a Material Change Notification (if required) or Reaccreditation Application to the relevant Agency. Students will be informed in writing of improvements to the reviewed course based on feedback from their predecessors.



If a Unit Coordinator Report proposes minor amendments to a unit outline (e.g. changing due dates, textbooks, assessment tasks, or broad content), this can be approved by the Program Director. Major amendments (e.g. prerequisites, learning outcomes, or assessment weightings) must be externally peer reviewed and tabled to Learning, Teaching and Curriculum Committee, along with a rationale for the change. Recommendations for revision will be tabled to Academic Board for approval. Students will be informed in writing of previous improvements to a unit based on feedback from their predecessors.




Annual Unit Reviews

The Program Director will ensure that there are two review periods for Annual Unit Reviews:

  • Mid- Year (July) Review Period – units in semester one only must be reviewed during the mid-year review period; and

  • End of year (December/January) Review period – units offered in semester two and full year units, must be reviewed during the end Annual Unit reviews once the relevant review period is open and for approximately for a period of up to six weeks.


Annual Course Reviews

The Program Directors will commence that Annual Course Reviews commencing in February and may review for an approximate period of up to 12 weeks.


Policy Owner

Academic Dean

Approval Date

2 May 2023

Approving Body

Academic Board

Reviewal Date

2 May 2028

Endorsing Body

Academic Board



bottom of page