• Section 1 - Summary
• Section 2 - Scope
• Section 3 - Policy/Regulation
• Section 4 - Procedures
• Part A - Roles and Responsibilities
• Part C - Unit Health Monitoring
• Part D - ACM Stages
• Stage One – College ACM Data Summary Report
• Stage Two – Monitoring by Course Teams
• Stage Three - College Endorsement and Approval
• Stage Four - ACM Implementation and Action
• Part E - ACM Reports 
• Section 5 - HESF/ASQA/ESOS Alignment
• Section 6 - Definitions

Section 1 - Summary

(1) This Procedure specifies the key stages and responsibilities involved in the annual monitoring of Higher Education (HE) courses at Victoria University (VU).

(2) This Procedure should be read in conjunction with the Courses Lifecycle - Comprehensive Course Review (HE) Procedure and the Courses Lifecycle - External Referencing Procedure .

Section 2 - Scope

(3) This Procedure applies to all:

1. HE Award coursework courses offered by, or on behalf of, VU in all domestic and off-shore locations.
2. HE Award Course units offered by, or on behalf of, VU in all domestic and off-shore locations.
3. HE ELICOS, Foundations and Bridging courses. 
4. HE Non-Award courses that are offered to international students both on and off shore.

(4) This Procedure does not apply to:

1. Higher Degrees by Research Award courses.
2. Vocational Education and Training Award courses.

Section 3 - Policy/Regulation

(5) Courses Lifecycle Policy.

Section 4 - Procedures

Part A - Roles and Responsibilities

(6) The ACM process ensures continuous improvement and quality assurance of HE courses and units and informs the CCR process. 

(7) Additionally, ACM supports and informs the annual monitoring and reporting requirements of professional accreditation bodies.

(8) In addition to being a key feature of VU course lifecycle management, ACM also aligns with and supports:

1. VU Learning and Teaching Quality Framework. 
2. Current VU strategic directions and curriculum requirements.
3. VU Third Party Arrangements Policy. 
4. External Referencing and Benchmarking.
5. External requirements of professional accreditation and registration bodies.

(9) The purpose of ACM is to provide a formal platform for Colleges to:

1. Undertake a systematic and regular assessment and critically review the performance of their courses and units with respect to student outcomes.
2. Develop actions that will improve course and unit performance to enhance student experience, outcomes and satisfaction.
3. Trigger continual quality improvement strategies and indicate learning and teaching support requirements. 

(10) ACM is evidence-based and draws on five years of trend data to enable professional assessment and judgement at a point in time: 

1. Course level data, by fund source and delivery location (not limited to these): 
   1. Admission categories
   2. Application type
   3. Enrolment and progression rates
   4. Retention and Attrition rates
   5. Completion rates and timeframes
   6. Student Experience Survey (SES)
   7. Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS).
2. Unit level data, by delivery location:
   1. Pass Rates
   2. Multiple Fails
   3. Student Evaluation of Unit (SEU).

(11) HE coursework courses undertake a formal ACM cycle approximately every 12 months. The formal ACM cycle is generally 6-8 weeks long and is conducted in the second half of the academic year to ensure that course data is stable.

(12) Generally Bachelor, Master and Non-Award courses will be monitored as a single entity and data for nested and exit courses will be included.  

(13) Diploma, Associate Degree, Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma courses will be monitored as a separate entity when they are not part of a nested, or exit course, arrangement.

(14) Where more than one college contributes to the design and delivery of the course the administering college is responsible for the oversight of ACM.

(15) Courses are not required to undertake the formal ACM process when:

1. The course is undergoing a Comprehensive Course Review (CCR).
2. The course is brand new and there is insufficient data available.
3. The course is in teach out and has less than 25 enrolments.

Part C - Unit Health Monitoring

(16) The Unit Health monitoring process has been designed to alert Senior Executives and College management to issues that may require future investigation through the formal ACM process.

(17) VU’s Unit Health Monitoring includes:

1. The College review of units after each delivery under VU’s Block model,
2. The regular evaluation of units under the SEU and the Unit Dashboard,
3. Annual target setting by the SDVC and College Executive Dean’s for minimum enrolments in each HE unit under the following categories:
   1. Undergraduate first year units
   2. Undergraduate second and further years (as applicable) units
   3. Postgraduate units

(18) Any change to the units is approved through the usual governance process for major and minor amendments to course/units (as applicable), which involves validation by Academic Board's Courses Committee.

Part D - ACM Stages

(19) AQS facilitates the formal ACM cycle and collaborates with central service units to develop and update the ACM documentation and the online Course Review Power Platform App. AQS develops support materials on an annual basis, including: 

1. Course Review and Monitoring Data Snapshot; 
2. Course and Unit Performance Data Report; and 
3. ACM User Guides. 

Stage One – College ACM Data Summary Report

(20) ACM commences with the provision of a Data Summary Report to the Executive Dean. This report outlines the differences in data performance from the previous to current ACM cycle in the following areas:

1. Applications
2. Enrolments
3. Student Progress, including pass rates by unit
4. Retention and Attrition rates
5. Completion rates and timeframes 
6. Student Evaluation of Unit results 

(21) The report is provided by the SDVC to the Executive Dean (or equivalent) four weeks before the commencement of the formal ACM cycle. 

Stage Two – Monitoring by Course Teams

(22) The second stage of the ACM process is a collegial and consultative process that is designed to enable all staff associated with the course, including the First Year College, to critically review the performance of the course. The VU Learning and Teaching Quality and Standards Framework is the underpinning quality management tool used in ACM. 

(23) Course teams analyse the Course Review and Monitoring Data Snapshot, referencing negative trends at course and unit levels.  

(24) Proposals for course improvement are detailed as Course Improvement Actions in the action tab of the online Course Review Power Platform App. Previously identified ACM and CCR actions are reported on.

(25) Where a negative difference is noted in a specific area, and/or progress is below the average pass rates for the year level in the preceding year, a Course Improvement Action must be included in the action tab of the online Course Review Power Platform App.

(26) Course Improvement Actions must be developed using the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-framed) principles and should be targeted at the particular areas indicated by the data.

(27) Course Improvement Actions may include both immediate and longer-term strategies to address particular areas of negative trends, as well as stable or improving areas where the Course team identifies that further improvement is achievable.

(28) External Referencing and Benchmarking activities and tasks are recorded and kept up to date.

(29) The ACM is completed by the ACM Leader on behalf of the course team in the online Course Review Power Platform App. 

(30) Stage Two is completed within eight weeks of the commencement of the formal ACM cycle.

Stage Three - College Endorsement and Approval

(31) The ACM analysis and proposed Course Improvement Actions are endorsed by the Program
Head and Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching (or equivalent). 

(32) The Associate Dean of Learning and Teaching prepares an ACM College Report, including College/course priorities for the following year. Priorities will be reported on in the following year’s ACM.

(33) The consolidated ACM College Report is approved by the Executive Dean (or equivalent).  

(34) The ACM Endorsement and Approval process is completed within four weeks of the conclusion of Stage Two.

Stage Four - ACM Implementation and Action

(35) Following the completion of the ACM process, it is expected that Colleges will ensure that Course Improvement Actions and College priorities are implemented throughout the following year. 

(36) An analysis of previous Course Improvement Actions is conducted in the following round of ACM. A report on whether the action has been completed and the impact achieved is provided to the Associate Dean Learning and Teaching, as part of the new ACM report. 

(37) Colleges must also conduct a progress review of ACM actions, and their effectiveness, six months after the completion of the ACM cycle and identification of the actions and provide a status update. AQS provides a status report to the Learning and Teaching Quality Committee.

Part E - ACM Reports 

(38) The SDVC reports on an annual basis to the Learning and Teaching Quality Committee and Academic Board on ACM outcomes and actions.   

(39) The Academic Board refers the annual ACM Report to its Standing Committees as appropriate.

Section 5 - HESF/ASQA/ESOS Alignment

(40) HESF: Standards 1.4 Learning Outcomes and Assessment; 2.1 Facilities and Infrastructure; 3.1 Course Design; 5.3 Monitoring, Review and Improvement, Clauses 5.3.3; 5.3.4 and 5.3.7; 6.3.2 Academic Governance.

Section 6 - Definitions

(41) Nil.