Skip to content | Change text size
Assets | Includes | header.shtml
 

Education Committee Meeting 7-2008

Education Committee Meeting 7-2008 was held on 3 December 2008 in the Sir George Lush Room, Building 3a, Clayton campus.

MINUTES

Part A     Procedural Matters

1.   Attendance and Apologies

In attendance:  Ms Jo Becker, Manager, Educational Services, Faculty of Law (on behalf of Dr Melissa de Zwart); Mr Michael Fenaughty (Executive Officer); Ms Glen Wilson, Team Leader, Industry and Community Relationships, Employment and Career Development (on behalf of Ms Jo Tyler).

Mr Nathan Bailey, Associate Director, eEducation Centre (for item 4.1); Mr Renn Wortley, University Special Counsel (for item 6.1).

Apologies:  Dr Angela Carbone, Professors Barbara Caine, Rod Devenish, Max King and Peter Schelluch; Ms Kate Roth; Dr Melissa de Zwart.

Observers:  Mr Vern Garth, Manager, Examinations (for item 10.2.1); Ms Natalie Mitchell, Manager, Policy, University Planning and Statistics; Mr Gerard Toohey, Director, Student Administration and Systems.

The Chair welcomed Dr Helen Nesadurai attending via teleconference at Sunway campus, Malaysia and student members Ms Bracha Rafael (incoming Education, Community and Welfare Officer, MONSU Peninsula), Mr Corey Jacobson, Ms Lauren O’Dwyer, alternates attending for members, and Messrs Nathan Bailey and Renn Wortley.

The Chair informed members that this was the last Education Committee meeting for Ms Jayasuriya and members acknowledged her contribution and committed representation on behalf of students at Education Committee with acclaim. The Chair further informed members that Professor Tony Luff was stepping down as Associate Dean (Teaching), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, and that Professor Luff was attending his last meeting of Education Committee. The Chair informed members that Professor Luff had been an Education Committee member for eight years and members joined with Professor Shoemaker in acknowledging with acclaim Professor Luff’s extensive contribution to Education Committee during that time.

2.   Arrangement of Agenda and Starring of Items

The Chair invited members to star for discussion any items and to raise any other items for discussion under other business. Members requested that the following items be starred for discussion: 9.2.1; 9.2.2; 10.2.2.

Resolution:

Education Committee adopted the unstarred items on the agenda without discussion and resolved that the actions recommended be taken or the information therein noted.

3.   Minutes

The unconfirmed minutes of meeting 6/2008, held on Wednesday 15 October were confirmed.

4.   Chair’s Report

Commencing his report, the Chair informed members that Professor Stephen Barkoczy of the Faculty of Law had been awarded the 2008 Prime Minister's University Teacher of the Year Award. The award recognises excellence in learning and teaching and was a significant and highly visible acknowledgement of Professor Barkoczy as an exceptional teacher and scholar at Monash.

4.1  Learning Spaces Taskforce

Mr Bailey provided an update on the work of the Learning Spaces Taskforce and an overview of progress in relation to learning spaces during 2008, noting in particular that:

  • The Taskforce had placed an emphasis on delivering spaces that allow group work, flexible configurations and freedom of movement within the ambit for academic staff during lectures and tutorials.
  • A challenge for the Taskforce was to provide a space that staff could both teach in and manage the available technologies at the same time.
  • A range of innovative technologies are currently under trial. They include interactive screens (in place of blackboards) that support a narrative teaching format and a project that is exploring the use of tablets.
  • The S15 lecture theatre at Clayton campus will be available in Semester 2, 2009 as an unscheduled space for staff across the University community to explore the features of new spaces and associated technologies. Feedback from users will inform the work of the Taskforce.
  • The expertise of Faculty of Art and Design staff has been drawn upon in designing innovative spaces for Building N2 at Caulfield campus.
  • Further projects that the Taskforce had initiated include a Library space at Gippsland campus and two projects for the Faculty of Business and Economics at Caulfield campus:
    • in Building N2, a suite of tutorial rooms that will bring together staff and first-year students in one central location for the first time, increasing the interaction and communal spirit amongst first-year students and assisting in their transition to tertiary study; and
    • a large, flexible space that will permit an exploration of the features that are vital for learning and teaching in flexible spaces.

In response to a question from a member, Mr Bailey informed the meeting that consultation with students and ongoing feedback from them was an important element of the work of the Taskforce. Professor Shoemaker noted that the new spaces also offer the opportunity to bring together staff and students across campuses, particularly those in outer suburban and regional areas. In the context of a current application to the Higher Education Endowment Fund for funding of $90 million to create a New Horizons Centre for Science and Engineering in conjunction with the CSIRO. If the bid were to be successful the Taskforce will undertake consultation with students regarding the facilities that will be provided.

It was agreed that a meeting of Education Committee in 2009 would be held in S15 lecture theatre at Clayton campus.

For Action/Information: Mr Fenaughty, Mr Bailey

Part B     Policy And Committee Matters

5.   Matters Arising from the Minutes

There were no matters arising.

6.   Academic Board Matters – Meeting 6/2008

Items referred by Academic Board 6/2008

6.1  Freedom of Information and Surveying the Use of Assessment Question Banks throughout the University

Academic Board meeting 6/2008 delegated responsibility for the conduct of a survey on the use of assessment question banks throughout the University to Education Committee. The Board had also requested that the findings of this survey be reported to a future Board meeting.

Members had before them an extract of the unconfirmed minutes of Academic Board meeting 6/2008 pertaining to this item, accompanied by the briefing paper for the item. Commencing his briefing, Mr Wortley reminded members that the link to the website containing the full text of the judgement by Justice Kyrou of the Victorian Supreme Court in the appeal brought by the University of Melbourne in the McKean case could be viewed at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2008/325.html

Mr Wortley advised members that in University of Melbourne v. McKean, the core issue centred around whether whether an examination paper that students had sat, and its related marking guide, could be classified as completed documents if, in future semesters, the exam questions were used again. Justice Kyrou had subsequently ruled in favour of the applicant. When he briefed members of the Vice-Chancellor’s Group on the case, members had expressed a diverse range of views in relation to the recycling of assessment questions.

During discussion, the following points were made:

  • The decision by Justice Kyrou could have a strong impact on the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, particularly in relation to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, where a significant proportion of exam questions were recycled.
  • As preparation of exam questions for MB BS students required significant development and validation, there would be major resource issues.
  • A strong case for originality in exam questions could be argued, with recycling discouraged unless there was a compelling pedagogical justification for doing so.
  • Outside of the Faculty of Law, it appeared that the awareness of the judgement by Justice Kyrou amongst students was not particularly high.

It was agreed that Education Committee Faculty representatives would report on the use of assessment question banks in their respective faculties by Friday, 23 January 2009, in time for submission of a consolidated document prepared by the Secretary for the consideration of Academic Board.

For Action/Information: Professors Hughes, Lu, and Stewart; Associate Professors Codner, de Wilde, McCall, and Nelson; Drs Romeo and Varsavsky; Ms Jo Becker.

7.   Sunway campus Education Committee

No meeting held.

8.   Board of Studies, Monash South Africa

No meeting held.

9.   Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQC)

9.1  Receipt of Report

Resolution:

Education Committee received and noted the report of the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee meeting 6/2008 held on 30 October 2008.

9.2  Matters referred by LTQC to Education Committee

9.2.1  Unit Evaluation Reporting Template

Introducing the item, Professor Evans informed members that pre-populated data sets consisting of graphs and tables will be supplied to the faculties by the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) and that a two page report was ideal. A report to Education Committee on an annual basis was the preferred option.

In response to a question from a member, Professor Evans noted that in “Section Eight. Summary of Multi-Campus Units”, reporting should be limited to unit evaluation results of operational significance e.g. a campus where only ten per cent of students passed a unit.

Resolution:

Education Committee received and gave in principle support to the revised Unit Evaluation Reporting Template, subject to an explicit articulation within “Section 1. Overall Statistics” of the template that overall statistics are required for question eight only.

For Action/Information: Professor Evans, Dr Macrae

9.2.2  Review of the Survey Framework at Monash

Opening discussion, Professors Shoemaker and Evans informed members that, in addition to the range of survey instruments that were administered by departments such as CHEQ, there were a number of further surveys of Monash students administered by various divisions of the University. The issue of survey frequency and associated survey fatigue was pivotal to the review and it was anticipated that by ascertaining the full extent of the number of survey instruments administered at Monash during 2009, it would then be possible to streamline both the number of reviews and their content.

A member noted that it was important that students were advised how survey results would be used to bring about improvements to learning and teaching. Professor Evans commented that a strategy for reporting results and improvements arising from survey results to surveyed populations was an important element of the quality cycle. Future quality audits by the Australian Universities Quality Agency will place an emphasis on the quality of surveys undertaken, rather than the number of surveys undertaken.

During discussion, members requested that Professor Shoemaker ascertain whether the results of teaching evaluations that identified staff, such as MonQueST, would be made available to Associate Deans (Education/Teaching) and whether this issue had been raised during the current round of enterprise bargaining.

Resolution:

Education Committee:

  • Received and gave in-principle support to the Review of the Survey Framework at Monash, subject to the opportunity for further rationalisation of the range of survey instruments being considered by Professor Evans.
  • Requested that Professor Shoemaker ascertain whether the results of teaching evaluations that identified staff, such as MonQueST, would be made available to Associate Deans (Education/Teaching).
  • Resolved that Education Committee members would advise Professor Evans of survey instruments currently employed within their Faculties/Schools/Departments/Administrative Divisions.

For Action/Information: Education Committee Members, Professor Evans, Dr Macrae

10.   Education Policy and Programs Committee (EPPC)

10.1  Receipt of Report

Resolution:

Education Committee received and noted the report of the Education Policy and Programs Committee meeting 7/2008 held on 4 November 2008.

10.2  Matters referred by EPPC to Education Committee

10.2.1  Length of Semesters

Professor Evans thanked Messrs Garth and Toohey, and Ms Mitchell for the significant work they had done on the issue of length of semesters. She informed members that the context for the proposal to change the length of semesters was based upon a need to alleviate the constraints created by the short lead time in the middle of the year, with Semester 1 results released on a Friday and Semester 2 commencing on the following Monday. Extensive discussion and debate of two options had taken place at EPPC, leading to the development of a third option that had received in-principle support at EPPC meeting 7-2008. In summary, it was proposed that an academic semester would comprise:

  1. 12 weeks of teaching; followed by;
  2. One week for review and revision; followed by;
  3. A three week examination period (consisting of 15 University working days, conducted between Monday – Friday), followed by;
  4. A two week period (10 University working days) for marking, meeting of Boards of Examiners, and upload of results into the student information system, followed by;
  5. Results released on the final night of the two week period mentioned in point 4 above.

Semester 1 would commence as is currently the practice. Semester 2 would commence one week later than is current practice, but end at the same date as is current practice.

During discussion, the following points were made:

  • A two year lead time would be required for implementation to ensure that the new structure would be reflected in publications, calendars, Callista, and other fora;
  • A meeting of the Sunway campus Education Committee would be held during the week of Monday 8 December and views would be canvassed at this meeting;
  • The role of week 13 should be clarified within the document, within the context of whether it was intended for this week to be SWOT Vac or a review and revision period;
  • Under the proposal before the meeting, there would be four week mid-year break. The text of the document should be further refined to reflect this;
  • The ten day marking period would only apply to examinations that were held on the last day of the examination period. The document should reflect that staff whose examinations are conducted earlier in the examination period will have more time for marking;
  • Further consultation with students should be undertaken;
  • Extensive discussion of the role of week 13 had already taken place at meetings of the Length of Semesters Working Party;
  • Week 13 should be kept for review and revision, as it was the point of the semester when the work of weeks one to 12 came together;
  • It was important to resolve this matter because it does impact on student perceptions of the professionalism of the University’s procedures;
  • Discussion of the pedagogical implications of the proposal should take place at Academic Board; and
  • Professor Shoemaker could Chair a consultation with student associations representatives.

Resolution:

Education Committee resolved that:

  • Professor Shoemaker would meet and consult with representatives of student organisations in regard to the length of semesters issue;
  • The Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) would prepare a further iteration of the briefing paper and circulate it to Education Committee members for comment;
  • The revised draft would be in Word format and Education Committee members would be able to insert comments using ‘Track Changes’; and
  • Following circulation, a revised copy of the briefing paper would be forwarded to Academic Board 1-2008 for discussion and comment.

For Action/Information: Professors Shoemaker and Evans, Ms Mitchell

10.2.2  Non-Award Study Policy and Procedures

EPPC 6/2008 considered the management of audit units and single unit enrolments and established a working party to draft an integrated set of policy and procedures for non-award study at Monash. The policy and procedures before Education Committee were endorsed by EPPC 7/2008 and were the outcomes of the working party.

During discussion, the following points were made:

  • The forms of study that are not covered by the draft policy and procedures should be clarified within the document;
  • On page 50 of the agenda, under the third sub-heading Issues, the following amendments should be made (deletions struckthrough, additions in italic):

“Assessed and non-assessed non-award study

Under definitions used by DEEWR for a range of administrative purposes, non-award study is treated differently depending on whether it is assessed or non-assessed. In assessed non-award study, non-award students must complete formal assessment equivalent comparable to that required of students who might undertake the unit on an award basis. Because in such cases student learning is assessed, credit may be granted for this non-award study towards a higher education award at some future date.”

  • On page 54 of the agenda, under the third sub-heading, the following amendments should be made (deletions struckthrough, additions in italic):

“Approval and quality assurance

Faculties shall determine whether or not they will offer non-award study, taking into account probable resource requirements.

Faculties shall maintain formal approval processes, including final approval by Faculty Board, for all non-award study activities.

Faculties shall provide an annual report for information to Education Committee covering offerings of non-assessed non-award units, other non-award study activities and non-award study revenue. Faculties shall certify that these offerings comply with all relevant Monash University policies.”

Resolution:

Education Committee resolved that:

  • The Office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality) will prepare a further iteration of the document incorporating the amendments listed above;
  • The Office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Quality) will consult with Faculties with regard to the scale and scope of non-award study at Monash;
  • Faculty members will consider Faculty priorities in relation to non-award study;
  • The revised draft policy and procedures include consideration of the scope and scale of non-award study at Monash; and
  • The revised draft policy and procedures will be considered by Education Committee.

For Action/Information: Messrs Ford and Toohey, Ms Mitchell

11.   Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee (CASC)

11.1  Receipt of Report

Resolution:

Education Committee received and noted the report of the Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee meeting 4/2008 held on 30 October 2008.

11.2  Matters referred by CASC to Education Committee

11.2.1  Selection Procedures for Admission into Commonwealth Supported and Full-Fee Places

Resolution:

Education Committee received and approved the Selection Procedures for Admission into Commonwealth Supported and Fee-Paying Places.

For Action/Information: Mr Hatwell

11.2.2  Revised English Language Entry Requirements for Coursework Programs Procedures

Resolution:

Education Committee received and approved the revised English Language Entry Requirements for Coursework Programs Procedures.

For Action/Information: Mr Hatwell

12.   Educational Technology Committee

No meeting held.

Part C     Other Items

Part D     Next Meeting

13.   Next Meeting

Meeting 1/2009 will be held on Wednesday 18 February commencing at 3.15pm in the Sir George Lush Room, Building 3a, Clayton Campus. Final submissions for the agenda for this meeting are due by close of business on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 to michael.fenaughty@adm.monash.edu.au