Monash University

Education Committee Meeting 5-2001

The Chair welcomed those who had been invited to the meeting for particular items and those in attendance as observers. A teleconference link was established with Mr P Yates who was away from the university at that time.

Apologies were received for this meeting from Dr P Richardson, Associate Professor J Hurst, Mr C Avram, Associate Professors T Luff and M Sim, Dr T Patti, Associate Professor L Roller, Mr S Szewach, Ms D Brown and Mr C Vernon.

The Committee noted that certain items had been starred as requiring discussion. No further items were starred at the meeting.

The committee endorsed the recommendations for all items other than those starred.

The Committee approved the Minutes of Meeting 4/2001.

The Committee noted that the item that was forwarded to the Academic Board from the last meeting, the proposal for establishment of the Bachelor of Biomedical Science (Honours), was approved. All other matters forwarded by the Committee were noted by the Board. It was also noted that the proposal for establishment of university procedures in relation to standard course titling and abbreviation had been forwarded to the Research Graduate School Committee for endorsement prior to lodgement of the procedures on the web.

RMO2000/0611

At Meeting 3/2001, members noted that following Council’s consideration of this course portfolio overview paper (at its Meeting 2/2001), a further report would be provided to Council about initiatives in this area later in the year.

A paper was circulated that included responses provided by faculties to update and expand the original information contained in the first course overview paper entitled ‘Development of the Curriculum: Engagement with Stakeholders’ (p 1-10). The course portfolio overview paper, as presented to Council Meeting 2/001, was also circulated for reference. A further paper containing the response from the Faculty of Engineering was tabled at the meeting (Attachment A to the minutes).

The Education Committee noted the faculty responses provided and noted that Professor Lindsay would prepare a summary paper from the responses to be forwarded to Council.

RMO2001/1012

At its Meeting 4/2001, the Education Committee considered reports from each faculty regarding implementation of the university's principles and procedures for special consideration. As agreed, a small working group convened by Professor M Evans, Director, Planning and Academic Affairs, met and drafted revised university principles and procedures, together with a revised application form, for consideration by the Committee. These were circulated (p 11-16).

Professor Evans introduced this item and noted that the working party had tried to incorporate the faculty feedback and suggestions noted at the last meeting. Discussion ensued and the following clarification and suggestions were noted:

• Alternative Arrangements for Assessment (AAA) involved physical arrangements to assist with assessment that normally involved students with disabilities or ongoing conditions. These did not prevent students from applying for special consideration where required;

• the requirement that applications be submitted within ’48 hours’ should be changed to ‘two working days’. In exceptional circumstances, students could consult with the Associate Dean Teaching;

• a list of factors taken into account by the Board of Examiners was included in the form to inform students that several factors were taken into account. This did not rule out other factors;

• in relation to the application form (and other relevant references) where providing the name of the professional practitioner, ‘Medical Practitioner’ should be changed to ‘Practitioner’; and

• the form should include greater space for previous applications.

Mr Hogan foreshadowed consideration of the issue of timing for deferred examinations. Brief discussion occurred regarding the need to resolve results prior to the conduct of the exclusion process, the potential for introduction of deferred exams at times other than January and the impact for international students of the ESOS legislation. The Committee noted that formal advice and direction would be required if the timing of these exams were to be varied from current practice. It was agreed that a meeting would be held to consider this issue further that would involve Professors A Farley and S Campbell, Mr T Hogan and Mr V Garth.

Taking into consideration the suggested amendments, the Education Committee endorsed the revised principles and procedures and application form for special consideration for submission to the Academic Board.

RMO1998/0221

At Meeting 3/2001, the Committee endorsed some of the recommendations that were put to that meeting about information to be included on the university’s student academic transcripts. The Committee formed a working party to consider issues that arose from discussion at that meeting. A paper from the working party including further recommendations was presented to this meeting of the Committee (p 17-22)

Mr P Yates, Director, Services and Systems, introduced this item and noted the detailed consideration that had been given to academic transcript issues by the working party. The Committee was advised that Recommendation 7 addressed an issue raised by the Vice-Chancellor on behalf of the student associations that consideration be given to the possibility of including other student achievements eg. prizes, class ranking, sporting awards etc. on an addendum to the transcript. Members noted that budget considerations and feasibility in relation to the recommendation would need to be taken into account. A further report on this matter would be brought to the Education Committee by the end of 2001.

The Committee accepted an amendment to Recommendation 9, as reflected in the minute below, that was tabled by the convenor of the working party.

Professor Evans, working party convenor, advised that it was intended that transcript issues with academic implications should in future be submitted to the Education Committee for consideration as a matter of procedure.

The Chair, Professor A Lindsay, foreshadowed that the Education Committee terms of reference would shortly be revised for currency and would take into account the decision of Academic Board and Council to devolve and localise decision making processes. It was anticipated that the Academic Board would continue to approve academic policy. However, the Education Committee terms of reference would be amended to include responsibility for approval of relevant academic procedures. Consideration of academic implications in relation to academic transcripts and examination matters would be built into the Committee’s terms of reference. The Committee supported these changes.

The Executive Chair of the Research Graduate School Committee (RGSC), Professor M King, supported the notion that transcript matters with academic implications should come before the Education Committee and noted that, as a member of the Education Committee, he would also be able to scrutinise proposals on behalf of the RGSC. (Secretarial Note: Subsequent to the meeting, it was agreed that Professor King and Ms P Herman would regularly peruse the Education Committee papers and identify any matters of potential interest or concern to the RGSC that would need to be noted at Education Committee.)

Brief discussion occurred about confirmation of the Committee’s previous decision regarding the timing for inclusion of discontinuations on transcripts, and clarification that Recommendation 11 differed from the current practice of always representing a student’s entire history that may include more than one course record. It was noted that some lead time would be required in order to implement these decisions.

The Education Committee considered and endorsed the directions set out below regarding academic transcripts noting that detail about these decisions would be forwarded to the Academic Board for noting. (Points 3, 4, 5 and 8 were approved at Meeting 3/2001.)

Action/Information: Mr P Yates; Professor M King; Ms P Herman

A third course portfolio overview paper is being prepared by the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Planning). The paper, that would proceed to Academic Board and Council, would be on the ‘Use of On-line Technologies to Support Flexible Learning’. Information for the paper would be derived from the following sources.

RMO1999/1266

A paper from Professor J Harris, Director, CeLTS, was circulated that provided the outcomes of the survey of electronic supplementation of unit delivery (p 23-32).

Professor Harris informed members about the dual purposes of the survey for Monash use and DETYA requirements, responses, accuracy of data and results. Members noted that despite strong efforts, the unit data lists in Callista still contained much duplicate information and the results of the survey were underestimated due to this factor. Professor Harris advised that the figures were encouraging in relation to electronic support for flexible learning. Members noted that the survey would be refined over the coming years.

The Chair highlighted the usefulness of the survey results and invited members to comment. The Committee discussed aspects of the survey outcomes including:

• the need to include equipment and web access in admission requirements where web based and other electronically supported study was compulsory;

• current and expected future trends in relation to the category data;

• the high quality of the electronic support in the units in categories five and six;

• whether it would be possible to breakdown the category results between undergraduate and postgraduate units. Professor Harris advised that efforts were underway to make this distinction;

• that further work was required on data integrity for the appropriate number of units recorded in Callista and the difference between expectations and data; and

• interest in reviewing the outcomes of such survey data over the next two to three years following implementation of WebCT.

The Chair advised that there would be further discussion of this report with interested parties and faculties and at the Steering Committee on Electronically Supported Teaching and Learning (ESTL). The survey results would also be taken into account during preparation of the course overview paper ‘Use of On-Line Technologies to Support Flexible Learning’. The Committee noted thanks to Professor Harris, faculty staff and ITS for their significant efforts in relation to the survey to date.

Education Committee noted the document distributed and the advice of Professor Harris regarding the outcome of the survey.

RMO1999/1266

Faculty strategy papers on electronically supported teaching and learning that had been forwarded to the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Planning), were circulated (p 33-52). These papers provided information for the preparation of the third course overview paper ‘Use of On-Line Technologies to Support Flexible Learning’. They would also form the basis of continuing dialogue between the ESTL Steering Committee and the Faculty Consultative Panel. Additional papers from the Faculties of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences and Science, were emailed to members prior to the meeting (Attachment B).

Professor Lindsay introduced this item and noted how helpful it had been to include the ESTL Faculty Consultative Panel in this process. The Chair invited comments about directions from these statements. Discussion occurred regarding:

• future action including bringing together common strategies to inform university directions whilst acknowledging the diverse needs and natures of the faculties, consideration of how the strategies could be used in faculties and thought about how the technology interface with students (on and off campus) could be made more consist at the student group and course levels;

• a suggestion that teaching staff may become more involved with electronic supplementation if greater assurances were provided about availability and support for the technology. Professor Lindsay noted that realistic strategies for five years and beyond were required so as to appropriately inform the directions and priorities in IT and the relevant support areas of the university;

• the requirement for greater knowledge about activity based costing and funding in order to look further into feasibility and directions suggested by faculties; and

• the quality of electronic support for flexible learning, the importance of student feedback and the influence of the shift towards greater use of technology on outcomes such as graduate attributes.

The Chair noted that the Steering Committee on ESTL would give further consideration to these reports. The Committee noted that an informative three to four page indicative paper would be put to the Academic Board.

The Committee noted the faculty strategy papers and the advice of Professor Lindsay and discussed directions in relation to the use of on-line technologies to support flexible learning.

RMO2001/1114

A paper regarding plagiarism, prepared by Professor M Evans and Ms A Lazar, Deputy University Solicitor, was circulated (p 53-56).

This item originated at Committee of Deans Meeting 6/2001 where a set of recommendations were approved that had been forwarded by Professor Evans. (The same paper was emailed to ADTs who provided information about faculty policies and procedures in relation to plagiarism). Ms Lazar was invited to attend the meeting for this item.

Professor Evans and Ms Lazar highlighted the key aspects of the recommendations including the need to adhere to a single definition of plagiarism, use of a coversheet for non-examination assessment, appropriate uniform processes to be followed and use of Statute 4.1 – Discipline, where appropriate.

The Committee discussed the proposal and the following points were raised:

• that a case would only be put to the faculty discipline committee where all the appropriate checks had been made;

• the suggestion that faculties should expand on information about plagiarism and the importance of not plagiarising in information for students. It was recommended that the coversheet include reference to a faculty web site for policy and further information;

• the wording for plagiarism being ‘unintentional’ should read ‘accidental or unintentional’;

• the onus of proof under point 1 of recommendation 3 should be reversed. (It was noted that the phrase ‘strong evidence’ would be changed to ‘substantial factors’.);

• that more detailed information about the definition of collusion within units could be disseminated to students at the faculty level (eg. by lecturers in unit handouts);

• an extra step could be included within recommendation 3, providing that it did not conflict with the statute, to allow the Chief Examiner to determine whether to pass the matter the Faculty Manager in the first instance rather than immediately passing the case to the faculty discipline committee;

• that disallowed work should be kept by the faculty until expiration of the appeal period. (A copy of any relevant web sites should also be kept.); and

• it was noted that Professor Evans was currently investigating software for electronic checking.

The Education Committee endorsed the directions in the paper presented noting that the recommendations and coversheet would be amended for submission to the Academic Board in light of the suggestions made at the meeting. Based on those suggestions, the following recommendations were forwarded to the Board:

Action/Information: Professor M Evans; Ms A Lazar; Executive Officer

RMO1998/2085

A range of issues had been raised by staff in relation to examinations. These issues were discussed in the first instance by a working group and a report from the group was circulated (p 57-60). Mr T Hogan, Manager Student Administration, and Mr V Garth, Manager Examinations, were invited to attend.

Professor M Evans introduced this item noting that these recommendations had been formulated by the same working group that had worked on academic transcript matters.

Professor King highlighted that point 8, that recommended a policy on no new lecture material for week 13, was incompatible with some teaching practices in the honours year. Members raised further concerns about the recommendation that other circumstances during the teaching semester may lead to a requirement for teaching in week 13 and that restricting teaching in that week would effectively reduce the content being taught within the unit. The Committee agreed that it would be generally educationally advantageous for students if a policy was implemented to enable students to have proper time for reflection and preparation in the week immediately prior to the commencement of the exam period.

The Committee noted that the working group had canvassed a range of alternative options for extending or delaying the examination period to allow for a swot vac period. However, for logistical reasons (eg. marking time and the impact on summer semester) it considered that it would not be in the best interests of students or staff to proceed along these lines.

It was agreed that the recommendation to the Board would be amended so that this policy would normally apply to undergraduate students and may not always be appropriate for the honours year.

The Committee endorsed the following directions in relation to examinations:

Action/Information: Mr V Garth; Associate Deans Teaching; Faculty Managers; Executive Officer

RMO2001/0447

A briefing paper was distributed regarding the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme (PELS) (p 61-62). The paper has been jointly prepared by Professor M Evans, Director, Planning and Academic Affairs, and Professor S Joy, Associate Dean (Graduate Studies), Faculty of Business and Economics.

Professors M Evans and S Joy spoke to this item. Members noted that prompt action was required at the faculty and university levels in order to highlight Monash’s competitive advantage in relation to PELS and its postgraduate offerings.

Professor Joy noted that various aspects would require attention for marketing purposes such as numbers of female students, possible increases in honours enrolments leading to postgraduate study and information nights/sessions. Professor Harris highlighted also that faculties would need to take into account marketing for distributed learning programs.

The Committee agreed that the briefing paper should be circulated electronically to Faculty Managers and ADTs and that these two positions should work closely together to determine appropriate faculty information distribution for existing students, and marketing for prospective postgraduate students, further to the introduction of PELS. It was noted that at the university level, a link would be established from the Monash home page to a Monash / PELS information page. A portal message would also be sent to existing students.

Members noted the Chair’s advice that in addition to prompt thought and action, the university would need to monitor DETYA directions in this area and overall postgraduate directions.

The Committee noted the briefing paper and the advice of Professors M Evans and S Joy regarding implications of PELS.

RMO2001/1246

A paper titled ‘Student Profile: Past and Future’, prepared by the office of Planning and Academic Affairs, was circulated (p 63-74).

The Chair emphasised the usefulness of this information for the Education Committee for increasing understanding about the student population and to be informed about students’ requirements for curriculum development and resources. Professor Lindsay advised that the paper would also be presented to the Academic Board and Council.

Professor Evans highlighted the key features of the paper about the nature of Monash students and their characteristics. Members noted that the report, the first of this type since amalgamation, looked at Monash and higher education trends and a forecast for Monash to 2020. Professor Evans invited comment from members about the statistics provided and the usefulness of the report.

Brief discussion occurred and it was noted that faculties could do further analysis at the faculty level. The Chair commented that a similar report could be produced in a couple of years for monitoring and it was noted that further faculty efforts, in conjunction with Statistical Services, could be incorporated. A suggestion was also made that an alternative description for ‘OPG’ be considered in light of the increasing cohort of post graduate coursework students.

Education Committee noted the advice of Professor Evans and the paper presented titled ‘Student Profile: Past and Present’.

RMO2000/0611

Biannual reports were noted at the last meeting from the Faculties of Arts, Business and Economics and Law. Pharmacy had advised that no matters had been approved during that time for report.

The following faculties submitted their biannual reports for noting at this meeting: Art and Design, Engineering, Information Technology, Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, and Science. These were circulated (p 75-112).

The Committee noted that the Faculty of Education would forward a report to the next meeting.

The Education Committee received and noted the biannual reports of course and unit developments presented by the Faculties of Art and Design, Engineering, Information Technology, Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, and Science.

The next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee, Meeting 1/2002, will be held at 2:15pm on Wednesday, 30 January 2002. (The deadline for submissions is 16 January.)

Further information regarding the Education Committee can be found at:

http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/com/ec/index.html