| Monash home | About Monash | Faculties | Campuses | Contact Monash |
| Staff directory | A-Z index | Site map |
| Monash home | About Monash | Faculties | Campuses | Contact Monash |
| Staff directory | A-Z index | Site map |
Committee of Deans Meeting 15-1996Meeting No. 15/96 of the Committee of Deans was held between 2.15 and 5.05 pm on Tuesday, 26 November 1996 in the Sir George Lush Room, Ground Floor, University Offices 3a, Clayton Campus. Janice H Newham Secretary 96/1050 There were present: Professor M I Logan, AC, Vice-Chancellor Professor R J Pargetter, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor P LeP Darvall, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor J A Rickard, Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean, Faculty of Business and Economics Professor L H T West, Pro Vice-Chancellor Professor M Quartly, Dean, Faculty of Arts Professor R J Willis, Acting Dean, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology Professor A Bishop, for Dean, Faculty of Education Professor M L Brisk, Dean, Faculty of Engineering Professor C R Williams, Dean, Faculty of Law Professor R Porter, Dean, Faculty of Medicine Professor C B Chapman, Dean and Director, Victorian College of Pharmacy Professor R W Davies, Dean, Faculty of Science In attendance were: Mr P B Wade, General Manager Ms O Cornelius, Academic Registrar Professor G Smith, Campus Director, Caulfield Ms J H Newham, Secretary to the Committee of Deans Present by invitation for presentation were: Ms J Chandler, Director, University Development Mr R Burnett, Director, Student Services Division Present by invitation as observer was: Dr J Redman, Senior Women's Advancement Scheme Apologies were received from: Professor R T White, Dean, Faculty of Education Dr S Matchett, Executive Director, Marketing and Communications Ms C E Anderson, Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor Professor B Dunstan, Campus Director, Gippsland Professor J Anderson, Campus Director, Berwick Professor J Northfield, Campus Director, Peninsula MINUTES1. Minutes The Minutes of Meeting No. 14/96 were confirmed and signed. 2. Matters arising from the Minutes not dealt with elsewhere in the Agenda 2.1 1997 Budget Planning, and Services to International Students At the previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to a proposal from the General Manager that the amount listed for LLSU in 1997 be brought up from $400,000 to $600,000 by using $100,000 of surplus LLSU funds not able to be spent in 1996, plus $100,000 representing a mix of contributions from Monash International and the Faculties of Business and Economics and Computing and Information Technology (Minutes of Meeting 14/96, item 2.2). The Committee noted that the above amounts would be varied as follows: the $200,000 additional funding for LLSU would be made up of $90,000 of surplus LLSU funds and $110,000 of contributions from Monash International and the two faculties. The Vice-Chancellor reminded the Committee that the 1997 budget was to be considered by the Academic Board on 27 November. Members noted the General Manager's advice that a matter raised by some students about Community Services funding was in hand. MIL 2.2 Supervision/Evaluation of Staff JHN At the previous meeting (Meeting 14/96, item 3.2), the Vice-Chancellor had referred to the Report of the Review of the Professional Development Centre and Council's interest in staff development and performance appraisal within faculties. Professor Logan wrote to Deans and the General Manager on 11 November requesting responses on this matter by 22 November 1996. The Committee received and noted the following documents:
The General Manager, Mr P B Wade, agreed to provide to the Vice-Chancellor similar information pertaining to performance appraisal in the Divisions. After a short discussion and advice from the Academic Registrar about an appropriate response to Council's query, the Vice-Chancellor agreed to forward a brief statement to Council indicating that satisfactory arrangements were in place in each Faculty for performance appraisal and that these arrangements, quite properly, varied across the Faculties. With the agreement of the Dean of Medicine, the Secretary undertook to send copies of the appraisal proformas and other attachments provided to the Vice-Chancellor by Professor Porter. 3. Vice-Chancellor's Report 3.1 Environment Issues in the APEC Region: A Regional Business Perspective The Committee was provided with background information about the group of regional business leaders, known as the Monash Group, formed to consider the importance of environmental issues. A kit, circulated with the Agenda, containing a statement by the Monash Group together with a review by Regional Business Centres, was received and noted. 3.2 Report on AVCC Meeting The Vice-Chancellor gave a brief report on a meeting of the AVCC held during the previous week, and also spoke about the Group of 8. 3.3 Admissions 1997 Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor R J Pargetter briefed the Committee on the results of the recent VTAC preference poll in relation to Monash courses by campus. He also advised Deans that the VCE results were to be released late on a Friday night, and suggested that some Faculties might wish to consider making arrangements to take enquiries from prospective students over that weekend. The information provided by Professor Pargetter was noted. 4. Urgent Matters 4.1 Monash Package A memorandum from the Director, Personnel Services dated 25 November 1996 was received (D144/96, tabled). This item was presented by Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor P LeP Darvall and Mr P B Wade, General Manager. Professor Darvall informed members that agreement to the Package had been given by the NTEU. The Committee noted the provisions of the Monash Package in relation to those offered by the Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme which was to close on 14 December 1996. There was some discussion about the closing date of 31 March 1997 for eligibility for the Package. The availability of loans at favourable interest rates to assist Faculties to fund redundancies was noted. The Committee endorsed the proposed Monash Package and the associated process, as presented in the tabled document. 5. Research Matters There were no matters raised. 6. International Matters Pro Vice-Chancellor Professor L H T West spoke about a recent review of off-shore programs, the possible need for an ELICOS course for entrants to courses in Hong Kong, the desirability of considering teaching mediums other than print based in off-shore distance education programs, and the progress with a campus in Malaysia. The Vice-Chancellor, Professor M I Logan, advised the Committee that Open Learning enrolments for the current quarter had again held at the level of 25,000. The Committee noted this information. 7. Special Items There were no special items. 8. Matters Raised by Deans 8.1 Restructure of the Faculty of Business and Economics JHN At Academic Board Meeting 7/96 held on 16 October (item 8.1) it was agreed that consideration of the name of the proposed Department of Business and Taxation Law be deferred until the Board Meeting 8/96 to be held on 27 November 1996. Correspondence from Professor J A Rickard, Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics, dated 18 November 1996 (D138/96) and dated 25 November (D146/96, tabled) regarding the proposed name of a new department, were received. A memorandum from Professor C R Williams, Dean of the Faculty of Law, dated 13 November on the same matter was received (D139/96). Introducing the item, the Vice-Chancellor, Professor M I Logan, reminded the Committee that in the event of no resolution being reached, Council had the authority to decide on a name of a department. He invited Professor Williams to speak, then Professor Rickard. After hearing the views of both Deans and other members of the Committee the Vice-Chancellor decided that the name of the department in the Faculty of Business and Economics should not contain the words "law" or "legal". He asked Professor Rickard to provide an alternative title for the department, if possible by the time of the Academic Board meeting to be held on the following afternoon. The Committee noted that the changes to the names of the Departments of
Econometrics and Business Management were also to be put to the Academic
Board and Council. Members also noted an objection
raised by Professor Davies, Dean of the faculty of Science, to the word
“Statistics” being used in the title of the proposed new name of the
Department of Econometrics. 9. Reports of Administrative Divisions / Departments 9.1 University Development A report dated 26 November from Ms J Chandler, Director, University Development, was received (D140/96). Ms Chandler had been invited to the Meeting to give a brief presentation to the Committee. The Committee noted with interest Ms Chandler's presentation, which covered the matters of fundraising and the management of donors. Ms Chandler emphasised the need for such exercises to be driven by academic planning in the Faculties. Ms Chandler was asked to keep the Committee informed of fundraising issues and activities. 9.2 CASMAC A report on CASMAC dated 26 November 1996 prepared by the Deputy General Manager, Mr J S White, was received and noted. (D141/96) 9.3 A report dated November 1996 from Research Services Division by Dr T Stokes, Director, Research Services Division, and Mr R Burnet, Acting Director, Research Services Division, was received. (D142/96) Mr Burnet had been invited to the Meeting to speak to the report. Mr Burnet conveyed the apologies of Dr Stokes who had not been able to attend. He spoke briefly, identifying matters of particular interest. Members noted the report. With reference to results of the DEETYA / KPMG research publications audit discussed on page 34 of the Agenda, Professor P LeP Darvall said he would be working to find the reasons for the apparently high error rate at Monash. The Committee noted that the date "1996" in the third last line of the paragraph titled "Publications audit" should have read "1995". 10. General Business 10.1 Principal Dates for 1997 The Committee noted that the principal dates for 1997 were accessible on the World Wide Web at: "http://www.monash.edu.au/unisec/prindates/index97.htm" 10.2 The Future of Computer Teaching Laboratories A paper prepared by Mr P R Annal, Director, Computer Centre dated 19 November 1996, tabled by Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor PLeP Darvall, was received. (D145/96 - attached) Professor Darvall foreshadowed discussion at the following meeting on this paper, and on the paper on Internet Charging (D132/96) which had received preliminary consideration at Meeting 14/96. 11. Next Meeting The next meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held at 2.15 pm on Tuesday, 17 December 1996 in The Sir George Lush Room, Ground Floor, University Offices 3a, Clayton Campus. Distribution Vice-Chancellor Deputy Vice-Chancellors Pro Vice-Chancellors Deans General Manager Executive Director, Marketing & Communications Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor Academic Registrar Campus Director, Gippsland Campus Director, Berwick Campus Director, Caulfield Campus Director, Peninsula Agenda and Minutes for the current meeting are available on the web at: http://www.monash.edu.au/unisec/notice.htm Agenda and Minutes for previous meetings available on the web at: http://www.monash.edu.au/unisec/ctees/ag-min.htm a:(Deans96)Minutes/15mins96.doc Committee of Deans 15/96 The Future of Computer Teaching Laboratories19 November, 1996P. R. Annal 1 IntroductionThe Monash computer teaching laboratories, since opening in 1987 with 50 microcomputers, evolved into an extensive and important teaching and learning resource serving approximately 28,000 students. Today the university has at least 113 teaching laboratories housing 1,941 client computers [1] with a replacement value of approximately $5.5M. The equipment in the laboratories has a useful lifetime somewhere between two and four years depending upon the particular teaching requirements. The expense of continually updating the equipment increases according to the number of laboratories, consequently reducing the money available for other IT projects. Demand for additional laboratories is limited by both available funding and by the absence of suitable physical space that costs more than the equipment held within them. The cost of regularly replacing computing equipment in the laboratories, combined with a need to examine the future role of the laboratories when many students own suitable computers bring into question whether other suitable means exist for achieving the same or more ambitious teaching and learning goals. This document is concerned with the future direction the laboratories should take. Pressures exist for changing the traditional role of, and funding for, laboratories, but the consequence of change requires careful consideration because of its potential to impact teaching. Undue haste should be avoided, yet the future circumstances of the laboratories should be defined before the end of 1997. In the meantime faculties should be advised of the University's stance on laboratories for the 1997 academic year. The developing climate for change is encapsulated in Directions for the Future however historical evidence and trends also forecast the need to review and reconsider the University's priorities in the provision of laboratories and their fitness for achieving the University's strategic plan. Several recommendations [2] from the Review of Telecommunications & Computing Infrastructure are particularly relevant to this discussion. It is unreasonable to propose significant changes to the role of laboratories before the formation of a Strategy for Information Technology and the formulation of a University Information Technology Advisory Committee where the proposals should be discussed vigorously. The laboratories represent only the visible part of a larger system. Not so apparent is the extensive network infrastructure, the server hardware and software necessary for the laboratories to operate, and the support people. While this document looks at only the equipment in the laboratories, the cost of providing the rest of the environment is high and should not be overlooked. Changes to the current mechanisms for operating laboratories potentially will impact where support is obtained and who provides it. The technical support of the network and servers requires a small number of highly skilled technical people. The support of end users either in teaching laboratories or working from home requires people attuned to customer service or Helpdesk operations who are aware of the applications and software in use as well as being informed of the technical status of servers and so on. Section 2 lists for discussion proposed recommendations informing faculties of what could be expected to happen especially during 1997, without pre-empting a full discussion of the role of the laboratories. The recommendations aim for deliberate but progressive change preserving the status quo over the immediate future, but also allowing some change that will not undermine the traditional importance of the laboratories. They offer faculties the option to take more control of some laboratories, and they place no new immediate financial commitments on the University. Section 3 provides commentary for each recommendation. 2 The recommendationsThese short term recommendations are offered in consideration of the conflicting tensions between Directions for the Future - Volume 2, ongoing demands to upgrade the computing equipment in the laboratories, and anticipated budget limitations for 1997.
3 Information guiding the recommendations3.1 The status of equipment for 1997Expenditure mostly by the Computer Centre over the last 4 years in upgrading and replacing laboratory equipment exceeded $3.7M, with some faculties contributing additional money. Although the DITS project in 1994 reduced the amount of money available that year, there has been a steady decline in expenditure from the Centre's operating funds as a consequence of bringing back into balance the conflicting needs of infrastructure, computing laboratories and support services within a budget that remained relatively static. In 1996 only $200k was available from the Centre's operating budget. It was supplemented by $335k from Quality Round 2 money. Generally matching funds from faculties supplemented the Centre's funds.
The indicative 1997 budget for the Computer Centre has no money available for upgrading laboratories to current expectations, estimated to cost over $900k. Faculties also could have difficulty contributing 50% or more to the cost of (joint) laboratory enhancements. About half (900) of the computers in laboratories will be due for replacement within one year or two at the most. Only 300 of the 1,900 computers in laboratories are under 12 months old. The decision to selectively upgrade computing equipment or replace it always is difficult because the technology changes so rapidly that replacement often is the more attractive option, but the cost is high. The recommendation presumes it is wise to:
The suggested process for change is intended to minimise the immediate disruption to teaching thus allowing faculties more time to adapt to change than existed in alternatives suggested previously [3]. It does require, however, the University to announce an alternative to the current environment before the laboratories become obsolete through the normal aging of equipment. As a separate matter, staff from the Computer Centre and some faculties are engaged in discussions that will see Microsoft Windows 95 in use in selected teaching laboratories for 1997. This will be done explicitly at the request of those faculties. A moratorium should apply to the provision of new laboratories and the upgrade or other enhancement of the client computing equipment in existing laboratories. 3.2 Computing laboratories beyond 1997All faculties use computer teaching laboratories and they request further expansion and improvement. Over time faculties contributed anywhere from zero to fifty percent of the cost of acquiring the computer equipment used in laboratories, with the balance coming from the Computer Centre which also paid most of the cost of providing server capacity, networking and support. An inequity or cross-subsidisation effectively has arisen among faculties. Some faculties have never contributed to the cost of the equipment in public laboratories they use while other faculties have generously contributed to the provision of those facilities. Faculties that contributed funds to establish public computer teaching laboratories could rightfully expect to be recognised in some fashion for their prior investment, especially should consideration be given to the distribution of public laboratories among faculties. Such a distribution could disrupt teaching, especially should the historical pattern of use by faculties of computer teaching laboratories be altered too quickly. The alternative offered here would allow present usage to continue for the existing stock of computer teaching laboratories for as long as they remain viable teaching resources. This approach allows time for the University to establish new future-looking plans for the teaching and learning environment and it removes any outstanding concerns over previously recognised equity since the equipment ultimately will have the same zero value to all faculties. At that future time the computer teaching environment may consist of:
Changing the role of computer teaching laboratories will have direct and indirect impact on all faculties of the University. Consideration should be given to extending the moratorium beyond 1997 to allow time to prepare for a new paradigm and as a means of extinguishing the remaining equity some faculties might have in the equipment in public laboratories. 3.3 Special consideration for Joint teaching laboratoriesA faculty may ask to take over its joint laboratories knowing that any funds it invests in them will benefit it exclusively. Should a faculty not wish to own its joint laboratories, it may continue to use them in the traditional way, while its equity in the aging equipment depreciates to the stage where the equipment will have to be replaced or the laboratories will be closed. "Joint" laboratories are quite distinct from "public" ones. Generally they are located within a faculty, and they are quite amenable to being transferred to faculties. In a sense joint laboratories operate as faculty laboratories which the Centre jointly funded.
If laboratories are transferred, the faculty or department:
Requests from faculties for the transfer of joint laboratories should be accepted. Such laboratories would become faculty laboratories. 3.4 Laboratories fully operated by facultiesAny equipment in joint laboratories, when transferred to faculties, will belong to them. They are entitled to make all appropriate decisions about the equipment. Care is required however since the computer equipment in the laboratories must operate through the University's communications network, inter-operate with the servers managed by the Computer Centre, and abide with any policies or standards applicable to laboratories. Eventually such standards presumably will be set by the University Information Technology Advisory Committee. Faculties may replace or upgrade the equipment in faculty laboratories provided such changes are coordinated through the Computer Centre so as to conform to requirements for the equipment to operate with the central server equipment and the network. 3.5 Use of computers at homeIn the eight years since the first computer teaching laboratory opened, microcomputers and the software to operate them changed enormously. The nature of the equipment was transformed from being specialist equipment into a range of consumer items. Today some of the most capable equipment resides in homes for computer games and access to the Internet. Recent surveys of home ownership of computers report the growing prevalence of computers suitable for teaching purposes in the home. Various universities are exploring ways in which advantage might be taken of this equipment in the home for teaching purposes. The Bureau of Statistics reported 2.5 million computers in Australian households as at February 1996 [4]. This somewhat pessimistic figure considered the whole population rather than selecting people specifically participating in tertiary education. The University would gain added advantage when learning materials intended for use at home are prepared bearing in mind the prevalent equipment configurations and capabilities. Any investment in computer teaching laboratories offers no direct benefit to learners outside the normal catchment area who may rarely if ever attend campus in the future. The idea of orienting teaching and learning to students working with their home based computers is compatible with the prevalence of appropriate computer equipment in homes and the move toward a borderless or virtual university mode of operation for the University. At times a suggestion is made that students should be urged to purchase notebook computers which can be brought onto campus, connected into the university network, for students to work on campus. This presents only a partial solution, it still requires space for accommodating the notebook computers, the network connection and other infrastructure support facilities. A greater benefit is achieved when students use their own computers at home, regardless of whether they are notebook or the cheaper desktop devices. They may even have a printer at home and often access to the Internet. Home-based computer usage will benefit from faculties and perhaps central IT finding ways in which use of the home-based machine is convenient, attractive and preferred by learners. Among the challenges posed are these.
Faculties and the University should develop strategies encouraging a change from the use of computer teaching laboratories to the use of home-based computers in teaching and learning 3.6 Preparing a new strategy for computer teaching laboratoriesChanges for teaching laboratories have important ramifications. On the one hand the ability of academics and academic teaching programs to tolerate rapid change associated with teaching and learning assisted through information technology is presently unknown. On the other hand, the University could promote and market top quality laboratories as an important attractor of campus based students as one part of its differentiated niche offerings. Besides satisfying their traditional role in formal teaching, the laboratories offer students access to the University's own information resources, eg. the Library or the University's Web information. Students of Monash presently are granted use of email and access to the Internet which have not been available to students of some other Australian Universities. The student operated Yoyo system is another example welcomed by students. New laboratories might be created for specialised purposes such as teaching and learning through interactive video delivered through individual computers in the laboratories, exploiting facilities beyond those normally available in the home presently. This might change in the near future should some of the potential of cable TV be realised. Revisiting the role of teaching laboratories in 1997 synchronises well with other developments. The Federal Government requires Universities to enunciate clearly their visions for their futures. It also announced it will review the use of information technology within universities. The recently completed review of Telecommunications & Computing Infrastructure noted the importance of
These are particularly relevant precursors for the necessary changes ahead in reorienting information technology to the University's future teaching and learning programs. Should the decision be made to further develop some roles for teaching laboratories, suitable funding arrangements must be established. Among them should be a careful investigation of the advantages of leasing equipment so that the attractiveness of the facilities are perpetuated through a matched funding arrangement. Faculties should be advised of what will confront them before the end of 1997. Sufficient lead time will be required allowing for discussion and negotiation between central IT and the faculties to minimise the disruption and the pain of working through the transition. 1997 should be a time to reflect on and plan for the future role of computer teaching laboratories taking account of changes expected following the implementation of the recommendations from the Telecommunications & Computing Infrastructure Review. Recommendations from Directions for the Future - Volume 2 should be considered in the discussion and planning process during 1997. The future purpose of laboratories should be determined allowing sufficient time for funding the outcomes and implementing them in time for the 1998 academic year. Footnotes[1] Most are Intel based microcomputers, but Apple computers and the Unix operating system are offered. [2] See recommendations 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 & 4.7 [3] See for example:
[4] A summary is available at URL http://www.statistics.gov.au/D3110125/22de.htm |