View Current

Course Monitoring and Review Procedures

This is the current version of this document. You can provide feedback on this document to the document author - refer to the Status and Details on the document's navigation bar.

Section 1 - Introduction and Scope

(1) These Procedures apply to all award courses approved by the University of Wollongong under its self-accrediting authority as a higher education provider.

(2) These Procedures do not apply to:

  1. courses offered by and accredited by UOW College;
  2. courses offered by UOW in Dubai that are not tradeable; or
  3. non-award and short-courses (requirements outlined in the Short Course and Microcredential Management Procedure).
  4. courses offered as a joint or dual award with one or more partner institutions (requirements outlined in the Joint and Dual Awards Policy).
Top of Page

Section 2 - Purpose

(3) These Procedures govern the systematic monitoring and review of courses, ensuring a continuous cycle of evaluation and improvement. This involves, among other things, evaluation and reflection by academic staff on course design and, approaches to teaching and assessment quality to evaluate the impact on student learning.

(4) The monitoring and review process is a fundamental element of maintaining academic quality and standards.

(5) These Procedures are aligned to and support the implementation of:

  1. The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021;
  2. The UOW Quality and Standards Framework for Learning & Teaching; and
  3. The Course Policy and the Course Design Procedures.
Top of Page

Section 3 - Course Monitoring and Review Framework

Course Monitoring and Review Principles

(6) The course monitoring and review process is designed to:

  1. support a reflective learning and teaching culture;
  2. recognise and disseminate good practice in learning and teaching;
  3. provide an opportunity to refresh a course in relation to contemporary concerns and contexts;
  4. demonstrate maintenance of standards and adherence to regulatory requirements;
  5. provide actionable feedback and insights to those involved in course delivery for use in improving design and delivery of teaching and learning;
  6. include external input, benchmarking and use of external reference points;
  7. meaningfully engage with relevant stakeholders;
  8. consider multiple sources of information and data, including feedback from students; and
  9. be conducted in a coordinated, collegial and transparent manner.

UOW College Australia (UOWCA) Course Reviews

(7) UOWCA course reviews for courses accredited by UOW are to be conducted based on approved UOWCA Curriculum Review Guidelines that conform to the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 in their application to all Australian Qualifications Framework awards.

(8) Changes to the UOWCA Curriculum Review Guidelines will be made in consultation with the Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS) and be approved by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) (DVCA).

(9) UOWCA will report to UOW via the University Education Committee (UEC) on their approved schedule including progress against the schedule and any changes to the schedule. This schedule should provide for the review of each UOW accredited UOWCA course every five years.

(10) UOW may suspend the UOW accreditation of a UOWCA course, and therefore suspend the course, where any course has not undergone a comprehensive review for seven years.

(11) UOWCA will submit to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) (DVCA) via the Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS) a completed Course Review Report and recommend one of the following outcomes in relation to the continuation or otherwise of the course(s) under review, this allows students to continue to enroll in the course, while UOWCA develops the replacement offering and arranges the discontinuation of the existing course(s):

  1. Re-approval for a further period of five years in order that students may continue to enroll in the course.
  2. Interim re-approval for the purpose of course redevelopment, where proposed course changes would require the establishment of a replacement course. This approval would see:
    1. re-approval for a further period of no more than three (3) years followed by;
    2. suspension of the course thereafter.

(12) Approval to progress to a course discontinuation, consisting of:

  1. up to one year for UOWCA to complete, submit and secure approval for the discontinuation of the course; and
  2. immediate suspension of the course for all future intakes; or
  3. re-approval for a further period of one year and suspension of the course for all further intakes thereafter, in order to allow students with existing offers for the following year to enroll in the course.

(13) The DVCA will respond to the report by:

  1. approving the Report, the Course Review recommendations and the outcome sought by UOWCA, in full or in part; or
  2. approving the Report, the Course Review recommendations and the outcome sought by UOWCA, in full or in part, and adding additional recommendations; or
  3. referring the Course Review Report back to UOWCA with a request to consider new matters or to reconsider specific matters.

Comprehensive Course Review

(14) A comprehensive course review must be conducted at least once every five years in accordance with the Course Review Schedule (outlined in Section 4) and the stages outlined in Section 5 of these Procedures.

(15) A comprehensive course review may be initiated prior to a scheduled review in accordance with clause 33.

(16) AQS will report annually on implementation and monitoring activities under these Procedures to the University Education Committee (UEC)and Academic Senate.

Annual Course Monitoring Cycle

(17) In accordance with the provisions in the Teaching and Assessment:Code of Practice – Teaching, the Academic Program Director is responsible for providing strategic leadership for one or more UOW coursework programs, in collaboration with the teaching team. In terms of ongoing course monitoring, this responsibility requires:

  1. considering, at least annually, available course performance data and other relevant information, in order to reflect on the course and identify actions to maintain and enhance the quality of the course.
  2. documenting these reflections and implementing any related improvement actions, and making this information available to relevant staff, to ensure an ongoing cycle of review and improvement.
  3. ensuring that subjects which assure the course learning outcomes within their course, engage in external peer review of assessment in accordance with the External Referencing: Peer Review of Assessment Standards Procedure, to provide evidence that assessment methods and student grading are appropriate, aligned to the subject and course learning outcomes and are broadly comparable with those occurring in similar courses offered by other institutions.

(18) Performance data and other relevant information to be considered includes:

  1. Courses of Interest Reports;
  2. Comprehensive Course Review Tableau Dataset;
  3. previous reflections on the course;
  4. previous course and/or school review reports;
  5. surveys and other relevant student experience data;
  6. other feedback from teaching team members and students;
  7. available benchmarking data.

(19) AQS will present key reflections and actions identified by the Academic Program Directors to an annual Faculty meeting in accordance with the processes outlined in the Procedure for Interim Monitoring of Courses and Comparative Student Outcomes.

Top of Page

Section 4 - Course Review Schedule

(20) In accordance with the status of the University as a self-accrediting higher education provider, and consistent with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021, each UOW course is deemed to be approved by the University so that it may be offered for a specified period as provided in the Course Review Schedule.

(21) The Course Review Schedule is developed by the Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS) in consultation with Associate Deans and approved by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) (DVCA).

(22) The Course Review Schedule, as far as practicable and where relevant, will align with the schedule for external accreditation.

(23) Related courses, majors and specialisations may be grouped together in clusters and each cluster is then scheduled for review. Reference to a course review will be taken to refer to all courses under review in a single cluster.

(24) Related courses include:

  1. double degrees;
  2. nested courses;
  3. courses in the same or related disciplines;
  4. major studies or specialisations in the same or related disciplines;
  5. UOW accredited pathway programs; and
  6. cognate courses (for example, Scholar and/or Honours courses).

(25) A review will be scheduled for a calendar year and it is expected to be submitted by the second Friday in December of that year. A review that is expected to take longer than 12 months to complete should commence the year prior to when the course is scheduled to be reviewed.

(26) AQS maintains the Course Review Schedule for each Faculty.

(27) Any Faculty seeking to make changes to the schedule will submit a request to AQS. The request should clearly identify the proposed changes to the schedule, along with a rationale for the amendment.

(28) AQS will seek approval from the DVCA to make changes to the schedule provided that doing so does not contravene the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021, which mandates seven yearly comprehensive reviews.

Overdue Reviews

(29) If a course review is not completed within the period specified in the Course Review Schedule, the Delegated Authority may grant an interim re-approval for one year, subject to clause 29 and clause 32.

(30) If a course review is not complete within the one year interim re-approval period, the Delegated Authority may grant an additional interim re-approval for another one year, subject to clause 29.

(31) Granting of an interim re-approval will result in the course(s) being immediately suspended from the end of the seven year period to prevent enrolments beyond the period permitted.

Unscheduled Course Reviews

(32) A comprehensive course review may be initiated prior to a scheduled review by the DVCA, Executive Dean and/or Associate Dean, Education in consultation with AQS in response to issues identified through course monitoring and review such as:

  1. significant concerns about the performance of a course, including those arising from course performance data; or
  2. a recommendation from another course review or other quality assurance process.

(33) Where a course review is initiated in advance of the next scheduled course review, this should be reflected in the course review schedule and approved by the DVCA.

(34) Where significant issues with the performance of a course are identified, the Faculty may also decide to suspend or discontinue a course. This decision should be implemented through the course and subject management processes.

Top of Page

Section 5 - Comprehensive Course Review Stages

Stage 1 – Determining the Terms of Reference and Course Review Panel Membership

(35) The Terms of Reference and Course Review Panel Membership will be determined in accordance with Appendix 1 – Section 7.

(36) The Associate Dean, Education (ADE) and Director, Academic Quality and Standards will jointly approve the Terms of Reference and Course Review Panel Membership.

(37) Where the ADE and Director, Academic Quality and Standards cannot agree on the scope of Terms of Reference and Course Review Panel Membership the points of contention will be escalated to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) (DVCA) for a final determination.

(38) Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS) and the Faculty will jointly establish the Faculty Course Review Panel to oversee the course review in line with the agreed Course Review Panel Membership.

(39) The Chair of the Faculty Course Review Panel will be drawn from among the group members and will be appointed by the Associate Dean, Education.

(40) AQS is responsible for providing executive support to the Committee and will maintain appropriate governance records in respect of its deliberations.

(41) Where the course(s) being reviewed are delivered collaboratively, a Collaborative Delivery Working Group must also be convened.

(42) The Collaborative Delivery Working Group must meet at least twice:

  1. during the initial phases of the review to discuss issues specific to the collaborative delivery locations that will need to be addressed as part of the review, and
  2. just prior to the review being finalised to discuss implications for any proposed review recommendations.

(43) Membership of the Collaborative Delivery Working Group is specified in Appendix 1 – Section 7.

(44) AQS or the Faculty may opt to establish additional working group(s) or review team(s) to support the Course Review Panel.

Stage 2 – Conducting the Review

(45) The Course Review Panel will evaluate the course against the agreed Terms of Reference.

(46) The Course Review Panel may consider any relevant data available. A list of available data is provide in Appendix 4 – Section 10.

(47) The Course Review Panel will review the subject offering in the course (core, capstones and available electives). A list of matters for consideration are provided in Appendix 3 – Section 9.

(48) The Faculty, supported by AQS, will actively seek input and consult as widely as it considers necessary. Consultation is of particular value for obtaining more qualitative information about the course that cannot be obtained from other data sources. A variety of consultation methods and tools may be employed as appropriate, including surveys/questionnaires, focus groups, forums and/or interviews.

(49) Specifically, feedback should be sought from:

  1. all schools that own core subjects, majors or minors within the course;
  2. other faculties where the course review includes:
    1. double degrees where a strand is owned by another faculty;
    2. core subjects, minors or majors owned by another faculty;
  3. where the course is offered at other campuses, staff involved in the delivery of the course at that or those locations;
  4. professional and/or industry representatives, which may be addressed through Course Review Panel Membership;
  5. currently enrolled students;
  6. alumni;
  7. Faculty based or centrally based marketing and/or recruitment staff;
  8. a UOW Librarian.

(50) Feedback gathered and outcomes from consultation should be made available to the panel for consideration during their deliberations.

(51) If, at any stage during the course review process, the course is assessed as being unviable, the Faculty may terminate the review of the course and instead submit a discontinuation of the course.

Stage 3 - Documenting the Review and Recommendations

(52) Minutes of Course Review Panel Meetings are to be written by the Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS).

(53) AQS is required to attach the data gathered to the Course Review Minutes and capture in the minutes how these sources have been considered during the course review.

(54) Where an external accreditation process is relied upon as part of the review, the accreditation report submitted, and any response to this from the accreditation body, should be provided.

(55) The minutes should include:

  1. analysis of the performance of the course taking account of the evaluation criteria; and
  2. recommendations of the review; including:
    1. accreditation body recommendations;
    2. recommendations for collaborative delivery instances; and
  3.  Review recommendations may include recommendations to:
    1. discontinue or suspend the course(s) under review;
    2. amend the course (including its structure, learning outcomes, admission requirements etc.);
    3. develop of a new course or major study;
    4. review another related course;
    5. change University rules or policies;
    6. a review of a School;
    7. alter the timing of the next scheduled review (if earlier than in five years’ time).

(56) An action plan for implementation of the recommendations should be appended to the Minutes.

(57) The Course Review Panel will review the minutes and any supporting evidence and, if necessary, make changes, and approve the documentation for submission to the Faculty Education Committee (FEC).

Stage 4 – Assessment and Approval

(58) The FEC approval will clearly articulate which of the following outcomes is being sought in relation to the continuation or otherwise of the course(s) under review:

  1. Re-approval for a further period of five years in order that students may continue to enroll in the course;
  2. Interim re-approval for the purpose of course redevelopment, where proposed course changes would require the establishment of a replacement course. This allows students to continue to enroll in the course, while the faculty develop the replacement offering and arrange the discontinuation of the existing course(s.This approval would see:
    1. re-approval for a further period of no more than three (3) years followed by;
    2. suspension of the course thereafter.
  3. Approval to progress to a course discontinuation, consisting of:
    1. up to one year for the faculty to complete, submit and secure approval for the discontinuation of the course; and
    2. immediate suspension of the course for all future intakes; or
    3. re-approval for a further period of one year and suspension of the course for all further intakes thereafter, in order to allow students with existing offers for the following year to enroll in the course;

(59) Where the FEC proposes changes to the recommendations, the Course Review Panel will be advised of the changes and be able to provide feedback.

(60) Once endorsed by the FEC, a copy of the minutes, including recommendations, and the implementation plan will be forwarded to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) (DVCA).

(61) The DVCA will assess the Faculty Course Review and may seek advice prior to responding.

(62) The DVCA will respond to the review by:

  1. approving the Course Review recommendations and the outcome sought by the faculty outlined in clause 59, in full or in part; or
  2. approving the Course Review recommendations and the outcome sought by the faculty outlined in clause 59, in full or in part, and adding additional recommendations; or
  3. referring the Course Review back to the Associate Dean, Education of the Faculty and Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS) with a request to consider new matters or to reconsider specific matters;
  4. at the request of the Faculty through the Associate Dean, Education or of his own initiative, in exceptional circumstances, direct the review recommendations and outcome be forwarded to Academic Senate for final approval.

(63) The Associate Dean, Education of the Faculty, supported by AQS, will respond to any referral by the DVCA by addressing the matters raised and submitting a memorandum with the response, at which point the DVCA will respond as provided in clause 63.

Stage 5 – Monitoring and Reporting of Action Items

(64) On finalisation of a course review, the approved recommendations of the review will be implemented as follows:

  1. amendments to a course (including amendment or suspension) or discontinuation of a course will be implemented by the Faculty and the University as required using the relevant course management process;
  2. AQS will act on any approved recommendation to amend University policy arising from a course review; and
  3. the University will act on any approved recommendation to carry out a School Review, as provided in the relevant University policy documents.

(65) Faculties do not have to wait until the review is approved to commence implementing amendments to courses or subjects. It may be appropriate for the Faculty to commence course and/or subject approval processes as soon as an issue is identified, if a clear solution is available.

(66) AQS will update the Course Review Schedule once the course review has been finalised, by recording the outcome of the course review on the Course Review Schedule.

(67) On re-approval of a course, AQS will advise the Faculty of the next scheduled review date for the course.

(68) The Faculty will implement recommendations and report to their FEC and AQS at least twice per year on progress.

(69) Should the Faculty’s intention to progress a course redevelopment or discontinuation change, they will be required to submit a memorandum to AQS outlining the rationale for the change in approach.

(70) AQS will submit the request to the DVCA for consideration.

(71) The DVCA may approve an extension to re-approval, however, the extension must not extend beyond the five year period that could have been requested when the original course review was submitted.

Top of Page

Section 6 - Roles and Responsibilities

(72) Faculty staff named in these Procedures are responsible for contributing to the timely and effective review of courses in accordance with the Course Review Schedule and these Procedures.

(73) Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS) is responsible for:

  1. monitoring the overall implementation of the Course Review Schedule;
  2. maintaining appropriate templates to facilitate the Course Review process;
  3. ensuring that courses are reviewed in accordance with University policy and the University’s obligations under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021;
  4. managing records from course review activities as provided in the Records Management Policy; and
  5. reporting on implementation and monitoring activities under these Procedures as required to the University Education Committee (UEC) and Academic Senate annually.

(74) Learning, Teaching and Curriculum is responsible for:

  1. supporting the implementation of strategic UOW learning and teaching initiatives through the course review process.

(75) The University Education Committee (UEC) and Academic Senate are responsible for:

  1. overseeing the implementation of the Course Review Schedule; and
  2. monitoring the effectiveness of these Procedures to support the quality assurance and quality enhancement of UOW courses.
Top of Page

Section 7 - Appendix 1 – Term of Reference and Membership

Membership

Core Members:

  1. The Associate Dean Education (ADE);
  2. At least one Academic Program Director of a course in the course cluster under review;
  3. An Associate Dean, Head of School, Discipline Leader or Academic Program Director from another faculty;
  4. Learning, Teaching and Curriculum representative;
  5. An Academic Quality and Standards Division (AQS) representative; and
  6. A student representative nominated by the Faculty.

Additional Members:

  1. Associate Dean Research or nominee, where a course under review is delivered offshore;
  2. At least one representative from UOWGE, where a course under review is taught at a campus operated by UOWGE;
  3. Associate Dean Research or nominee, where a course under review is a higher degree research course;
  4. UOWC Australia General Manager or nominee, where a course under review has a nested course delivered and/or owned by UOWCA;
  5. External representatives - prominent person(s) held in high esteem in their field of relevant expertise (external to the University, including relevant professional bodies, government or industry), where there is no external oversight during the annual course monitoring cycle (g. external accreditation or industry advisory boards) or other plans to incorporate external feedback in the data gathering process;
  6. Other staff and/or students as required.

Membership of the Collaborative Delivery Working Group: 

  1. The Chair of the Course Review Panel;
  2. The Associate Dean International or nominee;
  3. An academic representative from each collaborative delivery campus that delivers the course(s) being reviewed;
  4. Relevant Academic Program Directors;
  5. A representative from TNE; and
  6. At least one student representative from a collaborative delivery location, nominated by the Faculty.

Terms of Reference

The Course Review Panel will:

  1. assess the quality of the course(s) under review including all core evaluation criteria and agreed additional criteria;
  2. review the course review documentation, including a suggested outcome regarding the continuation of the course(s);
  3. provide recommendations for improvements required to the course(s), together with plan for further action required to realise those improvements;
  4. constitute and fulfil the role of an External Course Advisory Committee, where proposed changes arising from the course review comprise recommendations to establish new courses or discontinue existing courses.

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria
Basis for Inclusion of Evaluation Criteria
Core Criteria
Impact of recently implemented changes to the courses under review.
  1. Academic Quality Policy;
  2. Course Policy.
Course design and content, including:
  1. learning outcomes;
  2. assessment design, including academic integrity;
  3. assurance of learning;
  4. Australian Qualifications Framework compliance.
  1. Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021;
  2. Course Design Procedures;
  3. Academic Integrity Policy.
Admission criteria, including pathways and credit.
  1. Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021;
  2. Coursework Rules;
  3. Higher Degree Research (HDR) Award Rules;
  4. Credit for Prior Learning Policy.
Teaching / supervision quality
  1. Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021;
  2. Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite.
Learning and academic support, including:
  1. academic and English language support; and
  2. transition support.
  1. Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021;
  2. Course Design Procedures;
  3. English Language Policy.
Emerging developments and future risks to course quality, including:
  1. incorporation of recent developments in the field of education;
  2. ongoing appropriateness of modes of delivery; 
  3. the changing needs of students; and
  4. changing community needs.
  1. Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021;
  2. Course Design Procedures.
Take-up of strategic UOW learning and teaching initiatives.
  1. UOW Education Strategy
 
 
Additional Criteria
Outcomes of previous reviews.
  1. Academic Quality Policy
  2. Course Policy
  3. Required if there are any outstanding course review, school review or collaborative delivery actions related to the course(s) under review.
Student performance, including analyses of:
  1. progression rates;
  2. attrition rates;
  3. completion times and rates; and
  4. where applicable, comparing different locations of delivery.
 
Consideration to be given to identified student subgroups, which may be under-represented or disadvantaged.
  1. Academic Quality Policy;
  2. Procedure for the Interim Monitoring of Courses and Comparative Student Outcomes;
  3. Required if one or more of the following risk factors were identified:
     – Inadequate evidence of interim monitoring of student performance (e.g. yearly reflections);
     – Serious unresolved issues in student performance;
     – Additional unresolved concerns based on available data.
Student/graduate satisfaction and feedback.
Required if one or more of the following risk factors were identified:
  1. Inadequate evidence of interim monitoring of student/graduate satisfaction and feedback (e.g. yearly reflections);
  2. Serious unresolved issues in student/graduate satisfaction and feedback;
  3. Additional unresolved concerns based on available data.
Outcomes of benchmarking and external referencing, including assessment methods and grading of students’ achievement of learning outcomes for selected units of study within courses of study.
  1. External Referencing: Peer Review of Assessment Standards Procedure;
  2. Required if the following risk factor is identified;
     – External peer review of assessment incomplete: must include review of assessment design and marking of assessment sample within core subject (ideally capstone subject) in the course(s) under review.
Any particular issues or risks to course quality related to collaborative delivery
  1. Collaborative Delivery of a UOW Course Policy;
  2. Required where the course is taught through a collaborative delivery arrangement.
Top of Page

Section 8 - Appendix 2 – Process Map – Comprehensive Course Review Stages

(76) Process Map – Comprehensive Course Review Stages

Top of Page

Section 9 - Appendix 3 – Subject Evaluation Criteria

(77) When conducting a course review the faculty may consider the following points in relation to the subject offering:

Design

  1. Appropriateness of the subject learning outcomes;
  2. In the case of core subjects, alignment to or inclusion of the learning outcomes of any course and/or major study/specialisation into which the subject is taught;
  3. Suitability of subject content having regard to:
    1. the relevant discipline;
    2. contemporary developments, including contemporary research;
    3. accreditation requirements (if any).
  4. Suitability of assessment tasks having regard to:
    1. the learning outcomes (including ensuring all learning outcomes are assessed), and,
    2. the Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy;
  5. Suitability of subject name;
  6. Where the subject is at 100 level how it contributes to first year transition;
  7. Viability of the subject having regard to enrolments and attrition;
  8. Suitability of subject pre-requisites and co-requisites (if any); and
  9. What relevant elements of the UOW Curriculum Model should be incorporated into the design of the subject.

Delivery

  1. Appropriateness of delivery methods;
  2. Subject resources (including the Subject Outline, the Moodle site and other resources) and teaching materials are contemporary and relevant;
  3. Where relevant, arrangements for delivery at other delivery locations including by third parties.

Support

  1. Range of student support available to students (including via the Library, through Learning Analytics and/or other technology enhanced learning channels);
  2. How effectively academic integrity is supported in the subject;
  3. Academic and English language support.

Performance

  1. Course performance data;
  2. Subject evaluation survey data;
  3. Data on the measurement of attainment of subject learning outcomes;
  4. External benchmarking data;
  5. Other feedback from students and staff.
Top of Page

Section 10 - Appendix 4 – Data Sources

(78) Data sources that can be utilised during the annual course monitoring or comprehensive course review include:

  1. Outcomes of course monitoring activities, including actions identified and the impact of implementation activities.
  2. The Comprehensive Course Review Tableau Dataset;
  3. Courses of Interest Report;
  4. Subjects of Interest Reports;
  5. Yearly Subject Data Reports;
  6. Subject Reflections;
  7. Assessment Committee Reports and Minutes;
  8. Available survey results;
  9. Other data sets available on the Faculty Quality Assurance Moodle Site;
  10. Outcomes of benchmarking activities;
  11. Outcomes of external referencing; and
  12. Outcomes of collaborative delivery annual reviews.
Top of Page

Section 11 - Definitions

(79) The key terms used in this Procedure are defined in the Course Policy.