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

Education Committee Meeting 3-2009

Meeting No. 3/2009 of the Education Committee was held on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 in the Sir George Lush Room, Building 3a, Clayton campus.

Minutes

Part A     Procedural Matters

1.      Attendance and Apologies

There were present: Professor Merran Evans (Chair), Professor Stephen Barkoczy, Ms Jodie Burgess, Dr Lorraine Bennett, Professor Rob Brooks, Associate Professors Jonathan Clough and Gary Codner, Ms Melissa Dibben, Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Dr Cecilia Hewlett, Professors Owen Hughes, Max King and Guojun Lu, Ms Samantha Lipscombe, Mr Terry Masocco, Dr Helen Nesadurai, Ms Lauren O'Dwyer, Ms Bracha Rafael, Dr Geoff Romeo, Mr Greg Roughsedge, Professors Peter Schelluch, Phillip Steele and Peter Stewart, Dr David Squire, Associate Professor David Taylor, Mr Gerard Toohey, Ms Joanne Tyler, Associate Professor Cristina Varsavsky.

Apologies: Professors Jayne Godfrey, Bernard Hoffert and Adam Shoemaker, Ms Glenda Key, Mr Peter Yates.

Membership: Sunway Campus Education Committee Representative

Resolution:

Education Committee received and noted the nomination of Dr Glenda Crosling as the Sunway Campus Education Committee representative to Education Committee and Dr Helen Nesadurai as alternate member.

2.       Arrangement of Agenda and starring of items

Professor Evans welcomed members and guests to the meeting and invited members to star items for discussion. Item 4.2.4 was starred and the Chair informed members that a paper in relation to the recommendations of the Review of Education Committee would be tabled at item 17.

Resolution:

The recommendations were adopted without discussion for all items other than those starred.

3.      Minutes

Resolution:

The minutes of Education Committee Meeting 2/2009, held on 29 April, were confirmed.

Part B      Policy and Committee Matters

4.      Education Policy and Programs Committee (EPPC)

4.1    Receipt of Report

Resolution:

Education Committee received and noted the report of the Education Policy and Programs Committee meeting 3/2009, held on 12 May 2009.

4.2    Matters referred by EPPC to Education Committee

4.2.1   Amendment of Statute 6.2 - Exclusion for unsatisfactory progress or inability to progress

Resolutions:

Education Committee endorsed for transmission to Academic Board:

  • the amendments to Statute 6.2 providing Academic Progress Committees with the ability to impose terms and conditions on a student’s enrolment without a formal hearing; and
  • the amendment to the Regulations pursuant to Statute 6.2 whereby for the purposes of imposing terms and conditions, the membership of the Academic Progress Committee is made up of teaching staff of the faculty only.

For action/information: Professor M Evans, Ms R Hinds, Mr K Williamson

4.2.2   Final Report of the Assessment Policy Working Party

The Chair informed members that Associate Professor Varsavsky and her colleagues on the Working Party had made a huge effort during their deliberations to review the legislation governing assessment and related policy and procedures. Professor Evans joined with members in congratulating Associate Professor Varsavsky with acclaim.

During discussion, the following points were made:

  • the delegation to faculty boards of the development of guidelines setting the parameters for approval of supplementary unit assessment for a student who will experience ‘significant impact’ on their overall academic progress (refer Appendix 4, sub-section 6) could be highlighted. It was noted that detailed discussion of the development of such guidelines was also discussed under the sub-heading “Further Work”;
  • as Johannesburg will host the FIFA Soccer World Cup in 2010, the Vice-Chancellor’s Group had approved a one-off variation in the structure of the 2010 academic calendar at Monash South Africa. The variation was unrelated to the procedures for examinations for a unit offered on campuses in different time zones (refer Appendix 6, part D, sub-section 1.3);
  • in regard to reporting requirements for suspected breaches of security, it was noted that delegations to the “Head of School or the Associate Dean (Education)” could be amended to include reference to faculties that do not have schools and that in such circumstances breaches would be reported to the Associate Dean (Education);
  • in relation to the scheduling of assessment tasks (refer Appendix 6, part B, sub-section 4.4), members agreed that the fourth dot point “where there are several assessment tasks due during the final week of the semester, their collective weight must be less than 30%”, would be deleted, and a new dot point advising that all other assessment tasks must be set within the first 12 weeks of semester would be included;
  • it was the responsibility of chief examiners to ensure that detailed descriptions of electronic devices that were approved for use in examinations were included in unit guides (refer Appendix 6, section D, sub-section 6.3); and
  • if only specific models of a permitted electronic device can be used and a security sticker system is used to identify it as a permitted device, the unit guide must include instructions about the place and timeframe for obtaining the sticker.

It was agreed that:

  • the executive summary would be amended to highlight the delegation to faculty boards responsibility for the development of guidelines setting the parameters for approval of supplementary unit assessment for a student who will experience ‘significant impact’ on their overall academic progress;
  • in regard to reporting requirements for suspected breaches of security (refer Appendix 6, part H, sub-section 5.4), delegations to the “Head of School or the Associate Dean (Education)” would be amended to include reference to faculties that do not have schools and that in such circumstances breaches would be reported to the Associate Dean (Education);
  • the dot point “where there are several assessment tasks due during the final week of the semester, their collective weight must be less than 30%” (refer Appendix 6, part B, sub-section 4.4) would be deleted and a new dot point stating that all other assessment tasks must be set within the first 12 weeks of the semester would be included; and
  • Appendix 6, section D, sub-section 6.3 would be amended to articulate the delegation to Chief Examiners the responsibility for deciding whether a particular type of electronic device is permitted in an examination and clarify the procedures where only specific models of the permitted type of electronic devices can be used.

Education Committee endorsed the recommendations with acclaim and Associate Professor Varsavsky thanked members of the Working Party, all staff who provided feedback during the consultation process, and in particular Ms Natalie Mitchell and Mr David Eckstein for their significant and sustained contribution in supporting the work of the Assessment Policy Working Party.

Resolutions:

1. Education Committee:

A.   Endorsed the draft Statute (Appendix 3) and regulations (Appendix 4) for transmission to Academic Board.
B. Endorsed the draft Assessment in Coursework Policy (see Appendix 5) for transmission to Academic Board.
C. Approved the draft Unit Assessment Procedures (see Appendix 6), effective 15 February 2010.
D. Endorsed the amendment of the Grading Policy to remove the NP grade from the standard unit grading schema as of 15 February 2010.
E. Approved amendments to the Special Consideration Procedures to reflect terminology in the draft regulations, i.e. end-of-semester special consideration be referred to as “deferred final assessment” and that in-semester special consideration be referred to as “special consideration”.
F. Requested that the South African campus draft external moderation procedures and provide these to Education Policy and Programs Committee for comment and endorsement.
G. Endorsed a two-stage approval process of the examinations regulations, where the regulations in Appendix 4 be transmitted to University Council for approval and once the Statute is approved by the Minister, that the regulations be amended (as per Appendix 7) to ensure there is no overlap between the statute and regulations.
H. Endorsed the proposed policy and procedures as replacements for the following policies and procedures currently in place:

  • Alternative Arrangements for Assessment Policy and Procedures.
  • Assessment of Coursework Policy and Procedures.
  • Blind Marking of Examinations Policy and Procedures.
  • Examinations Policy and Procedures.Extra Exam Time For NESB Students Policy.
  • Graduate/Postgraduate Assessment Policy.Result Upload & Amendment Policy and Procedures.

2.    Education Committee noted that:

A. following the completion of the work of the Honours Taskforce, that it will be necessary to ensure that recommendations relating to assessment of thesis units are linked to the Assessment Policy and Procedures and, if necessary, that any consequential changes are made to existing policy, procedures and regulations. In addition, this material will need to be reviewed to assess whether it should be adopted with regards to thesis units in postgraduate coursework programs.
B. further work will be undertaken on remarking of assessment tasks and the alternation of grades in exceptional circumstances. (This will be presented to the July EPPC meeting).
C. the policy on Units and Courses Offered from More than One Campus will require review to reflect changes made to assessment procedures.

For action/information: Associate Professor C Varsavsky, Ms N Mitchell,
Mr D Eckstein, Professor P Schelluch, Ms R Hinds

4.2.3     Progress Report of the Discipline Statute Review Working Party

Introducing the item, Associate Professor Clough informed members that the Working Party had undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness and fitness for purpose of Statute 4.1 Discipline, accompanied by extensive consultation across the University community. He noted that a number of the recommendations were unanimous and the cooperative spirit of the Working Party.

Associate Professor Clough noted that:

  • faculty managers would perform a key role in the administration of the Statute, particularly in relation to general misconduct;
  • the reforms would improve the consistency of reporting and accountability, while not sacrificing principles of procedural fairness;
  • a number of other policies have a direct relationship with the Statute, in particular, the Plagiarism Policy;
    in relation to the imposition of penalties for misconduct, a targeted approach had been applied; and
  • a mechanism should be enacted allowing summary exclusion of a student where reasonably necessary for the protection of students, staff or property.

Members concurred with the draft recommendations of the Discipline Statute Review Working Party and the Chair thanked Associate Professor Clough for the Report.

For action/information: Associate Professor J Clough

4.2.4      Unit Guide Policy and Procedures

Ms Harboe-Ree informed members that the Copyright Office, Monash University Library, had requested that the Unit Guide Policy be amended to include information on copyright obligations and the use of information technology. During discussion, the following points were made:

  • as the Unit Guide Policy and Procedures detail the policy and procedures for the use of the Unit Guide Template, it would be appropriate for the Unit Guide Template to include information on policies, especially copyright obligations and the use of information technology;
  • if unit guides included detailed information on copyright, the guides would be voluminous, with a negative impact on the sustainability goals of Monash; and
  • a hyperlink to copyright information could be included in the Unit Guide Template.

The Chair requested that the Unit Guide Template be brought to Education Committee for noting.

Resolution:

Education Committee:

  • endorsed the Unit Guide Policy for transmission to Academic Board;
  • approved the Unit Guide Procedures; and
  • requested that the Education Policy and Programs Committee liaise with Dr Bennett and Ms Harboe-Ree to draft information on policies, especially copyright regulations and the Acceptable Use of Information Technology Facilities by Students Policy for the Unit Guide Template.

For action/information: Professor M Evans, Dr Bennett, Ms Harboe-Ree,
Ms R Hinds, Mr K Williamson

5.     Matters Arising from the Minutes

Review of Education Committee (refer item 8) – Proposed Membership of the Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee

The Chair advised members that, given the focus of the Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee on the administration of selection, the proposed membership of the Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee should include Mr Gerard Toohey, Director, Student Administration and Systems.

Resolution:

Education Committee endorsed the inclusion of the Director, Student Administration and Systems in the proposed membership of the Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee.

For action/information: Dr C Hewlett, Mr G Toohey

6.     Academic Board Matters – Meeting 2/2009

No items referred.

7.      Sunway Campus Education Committee

Resolution:

Education Committee received and noted the report of the Sunway Campus Education Committee meeting 2/2009 held on 10 April 2009.

8.     Board of Studies, Monash South Africa

No report.

9.      Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQC)

9.1      Receipt of Reports

Resolution:

Education Committee received and noted the reports of the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee Meetings 2/2009 and 3/2009.

9.2      Matters referred by LTQC to Education Committee

*9.2.1      Plagiarism at Monash: detection, prevention, and future directions

Commencing his presentation, Dr Squire informed members that the basic principle that defines plagiarism is that it is the “passing off of someone else’s words or ideas as one’s own”. Issues around plagiarism and the use of plagiarism detection software included:

  • the strategic role of plagiarism detection software, in the context of whether it was used in a punitive way or to educate students on best practice;
  • pressure on students to succeed, particularly full-fee paying students;
  • cultural differences. For example, high rates of plagiarism among students enrolled in masters degrees offered by the Faculty of Information Technology; and
  • evidence that when plagiarism detection software and measures to educate students about plagiarism were in place, three per cent of students would continue to plagiarise.

Demonstrating a Damocles staff user interface, Dr Squire informed members that staff would be able to access the following features:

  • an online colour-coded originality report, with sections in bold and colour indicative of content matches above the threshold of five consecutive words;
  • a function to sort content according to the number of words plagiarised, with a link to the webpages from which the content had been taken; and
  • a function to identify content matches amongst students enrolled in the same unit and also students enrolled in the unit in previous semesters.

With regard to the Damocles student user interface, Dr Squire noted that:

  • students would log into their account and click on the file name of the assessment; and
  • if Damocles had identified potential plagiarism in the work to be assessed, students would receive a warning before the due date for the assessment, allowing them to address the problems prior to final submission. It was noted that students could still override the system and submit the work for assessment.

Dr Squire informed members that the current agreement with an external provider has a capacity to scan up to a maximum of 100,000 words per day. Members expressed their congratulations to Dr Squire on his significant achievement in building Damocles and thanked him for his presentation.

Resolution:

Education Committee referred consideration of plagiarism at Monash and its detection, prevention and future directions to Academic Board.

9.2.2     Course Experience Questionnaire Optional Scales

Resolution:

Education Committee approved the proposal that Monash include the optional Graduate Qualities Scale in addition to the core scales in the administration of the next CEQ questionnaire.

For action/information: Dr K Macrae, Professor M Evans

10. Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee (CASC)

No report.

11. Educational Technology Committee (ETC)

No report.

Part C    Other Items

12.      Demonstration of the Business Intelligence Education Module

Commencing the presentation, Mr Roughsedge informed members that the Business Intelligence Education Phase Working Group is developing an integrated set of applications and technologies for gathering, storing, accessing and analysing information to assist University management to make timely and informed business decisions in relation to education activities.

Ms Dibben noted that the Business Intelligence Education Module would provide data across courses and units that would be refreshed daily and provide:

  • customised reports that examined trends in a range of contexts e.g. the module would enable detailed analyses of grade distributions in units, including by campus, department, age, and local/international students;
  • reports on grade distribution by teaching and managing faculty; and
  • the capacity to import a range of data from a number of sources.

During discussion, the following points were made:

  • as the next audit by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) would focus on academic standards and performance, the module would be an important tool for Monash to demonstrate its expertise in reporting, analysing and proactively responding to trends in education activities; and
  • the next step in the development of the module would be an application for reporting on unit evaluation results.

13.      Costing model for new courses offered at non-Australian campuses

Recommendation: Education Committee approved the Course Costing Model for non-Australian campuses for use with course proposals for new courses or course amendments from non-Australian campuses.

For action/information: Professor M Evans, Ms N Mitchell

14.     Education indicators for the Academic Performance Standards Framework

Introducing the item, Dr Hewlett informed members that the preliminary draft of indicators for the Academic Performance Standards Framework consisted of:

  • a quantitative framework to accommodate target metrics for teaching and research; and
  • a qualitative framework to be used as a guide by faculties and academic staff for expected achievements in education, research and service.

The key issues identified by the Academic Performance Standards Project were:

  1. The need to develop comprehensive and meaningful qualitative and metric indicators for achievement in Education.
  2. Whether the indicators should be organised in such a way as to demonstrate progression through the levels i.e. should there be a basic guide to what level of achievement should be expected in Levels A through to E?
  3. Should the education indicators be divided into themes (as per research indicators) and what would these be in the education context?

During a brief discussion, members noted that:

  • a number of indicators could be collapsed and redrafted in a generic format, including, but not limited to, indicators six and seven, 11 and 12, 15 and 16, and 20 and 21;
  • it may be difficult to aggregate the education indicators at a faculty or unit level; and
  • the education indicators were qualitative rather than quantitative.

Resolution:

That Education Committee members forward feedback on the draft Education Indicators and Metric Framework documents, and in regards to the particular issues outlined above at points one through to three, to Cecilia.Hewlett@adm.monash.edu.au by COB 3 June.

For action/information: Dr C Hewlett, Education Committee members

15.    Vice-Chancellor’s Awards for Teaching Excellence 2009

Education Committee noted a flyer calling for nominations for the Vice-Chancellor’s Awards for Teaching Excellence 2009 and the request to Faculty Representatives to implement a faculty process for identifying high performing staff.

16.     Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching 2009-2010 Operational Plan

Education Committee noted the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching Operational Plan 2009-2010, as detailed.

17.     Report of the Review of Education Committee

A document “Review of Education Committee” was tabled. Dr Hewlett informed members that, following consideration of the proposed terms of reference and membership of Education Committee (EC) at EC Meeting 2-2009 (refer item 8), she was advised by the University Solicitor’s Office and Ms Rhonda Hinds, Secretary, Academic Board, that Education Committee was not governed by University statutes.

Dr Hewlett informed members that references in recommendations 2A and 2B to several standing committees of Education Committee, namely the Central Discipline, Central Discipline (Appeals) an Exclusion Appeals committees, in a legislative context, were inappropriate and had been deleted.

In regard to recommendation 1B, it was noted that:

  • Faculty Education Committees would continue to report on routine items to Academic Board via Faculty Academic Boards; and
  • Faculty Education Committees would provide summaries of key emerging issues to Education Committee. Resolution: Education Committee endorsed the proposed amendments to recommendations 1B, 2A and 2B, as detailed.

For action/information: Dr Hewlett

18.    Variation to the Monash South Africa Semester Timetable in 2010

In response to a question from a member, Professor Schelluch advised members that advice on the one-off variation in the structure of the 2010 academic calendar at Monash South Africa had been forwarded to Deans and Associate Deans Teaching/Education.

19.     Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA)

The Chair informed members that AUQA had released a discussion paper on academic standards: "Setting and Monitoring Academic Standards for Australian Higher Education". She invited members to submit any feedback on any aspect of the paper, including the:

  • general argument;
  • definition of academic achievement standards;
  • proposed approach; and
  • balance between a disciplinary emphasis and generic outcomes.

Alternative proposals are also welcome. To inform an institutional response, please forward feedback to merran.evans@adm.monash.edu.au by Monday 15 June.

20.     Strengthening the Australian Qualifications Framework

The Chair encouraged members to reply to the request from the AQF Council for feedback on the proposal for a strengthened AQF (circulated in soft copy to Education Committee members by Executive Services on 26.05.09) and to forward responses to natalie.mitchell@adm.monash.edu.au by Friday 5 June.

Part D

Next Meeting

Meeting 4/2009 will be held on Wednesday 12 August 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, 29 July 2009 to mailto:michael.fenaughty@adm.monash.edu.au