Meeting No. 5/2002 of the Education Committee was held on 18 September 2002 in the Sir George Lush Room, Administration Building 3A, Clayton Campus, between 2.15pm and 3:55pm.

Apologies: Please telephone: 9905 9003; or e-mail to: Kerri.Wilson-Reid@adm.monash.edu.au

Ms K Wilson-Reid

Executive Officer

Professor C Browne (Acting Chair), Mr K Bensley, Professor S Joy, Dr D Corrigan, Associate Professor I Prince, Professor W Young, Associate Professor J Hurst, Mr C Avram, Professor S Campbell, Ms G Ives, Associate Professor M Page, Dr T Patti, Professors M Evans, J Harris and G Webb, Mr C Brooks, Ms S Narayanasamy, and Ms N Lo’Ngok.

Dr K Macrae, Mr P Yates, Associate Professor V Clifford, Associate Professor M Lindorff, Ms A Lazar, Ms I DiTrocchio, Ms J Vero, Ms K Wilson-Reid (Executive Officer), Mr G Nagtzaam and Ms J Trigg.

Apologies were received from Professor A Lindsay, Dr H Kreutz, Professor A Farley, Dr P Richardson, Associate Professors T Luff and L Roller, Professor M King, Mr M Josem, and Mr R Morgan.

The Committee farewelled and thanked Mr P Lawford, who had regularly attended Education Committee meetings since 2000 as the representative of the Faculty Managers. The Committee welcomed Dr K Macrae, as the new representative of the Faculty Managers, invited to attend meetings on a regular basis.

The Chair welcomed the following people who were invited to this meeting: Ms A Lazar, Deputy University Solicitor; Ms I DiTrocchio, Committee Services Officer, University Secretariat; Mr G Nagtzaam, Student Rights Officer; and Ms J Trigg, Student Rights Officer.

Action/Information: Executive Officer

An extract from the unconfirmed minutes of Academic Board Meeting 4/2002 was circulated for reference (p1-2).

Members noted that further consideration of the item under minute 7.3 - ‘Characterising Graduate Courses and Students’, was required prior to this matter being returned to the Academic Board. A progress report on this matter was provided at the Education Committee by Professor M Evans, Director, Planning and Academic Affairs. A paper on this issue was tabled at the meeting.

Professor Evans advised that the group that gave further consideration to this issue following the Academic Board had agreed on revised recommendations, as set out in the tabled paper, that included the adoption of the term ‘Graduate / Postgraduate (GPG)’ rather than ‘Other Postgraduate (OPG)’, and the use of four categories to distinguish between courses for academic, communication and marketing purposes: undergraduate, graduate coursework, postgraduate coursework and higher degree by research. It was anticipated that the full paper that provided supporting information for the recommendations would be agreed by all members of the working group prior to the matter being submitted to the Academic Board.

Discussion occurred regarding this matter and members noted that there had been a need to retain both the terms graduate and postgraduate for different purposes. A comment was also noted that, whilst the recommendations about nomenclature and categorisation for these students were beneficial, it was important for the university to focus on the value of its postgraduate students and their student experience.

[Secretarial Note: A copy of the full revised paper that was submitted to the Academic Board, as agreed by the working group and Professor Lindsay, is attached for information – Attachment A.]

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

A proposal was circulated from Ms J Vero, Student Systems, for minor administrative amendments to be made to the University’s Special Consideration Application Form (p3-8).

These changes were recommended to assist data entry into the special consideration module in student system, Callista, and to obviate the need for general staff to read, assess and interpret applications for special consideration, as was previously required.

Action/Information: Ms J Vero; Executive Officer; Ms K Garland-Gobbi; Faculty Managers

The draft "Functions and Procedures for Faculty Academic Progress Committees", and the draft "Functions and Procedures for the Exclusion Appeals Committee", were circulated for consideration and approval (p9-24).

Members noted the Chair’s advice that that these procedures had been drafted by the University Secretariat, in accordance with the original exclusion review working party report, approved at Academic Board Meeting 2/2000, and the new legislative framework, that was endorsed by Academic Board, approved by Council in 2001 and signed of by the Minister. (It was noted that further administrative detail eg. proformas, would be prepared in the Secretariat in the near future.)

The Committee noted that consultation about the procedures had occurred with the Solicitor’s Office, and feedback had been invited from Associate Deans Teaching, Faculty Managers, Faculty Academic Progress Committee chairs and secretaries, Student Rights Officers and University Counselling. A number of responses with requests for clarification and suggestions for amendment had been received. It was noted that, wherever practicable and in accordance with the legislation and the original working party report, suggestions had been taken into account in the procedures.

Members were invited to comment on the procedures for Faculty Academic Progress Committees (APCs) and the Exclusion Appeals Committee (EAC). Extensive discussion ensued and the following amendments (or points of clarification) were agreed:

• under sections 3.2 and 4.1, the student’s enrolment included all resultable semesters commencing December of the previous year;

• under section 3.2, a student’s enrolment would be determined based on credit point value;

• under section 3.2, failure of the same compulsory subject twice was in the current award for which the student was under consideration for unsatisfactory progress;

• this process was relevant to university (not faculty) awards;

• amendment of section 4.1 to delete the unnecessary last line;

• amendment to section 4.8 to reflect that the student may request information about the reasons for the decision of the APC, provided that the request is made by the student within 3 days from the letter of outcome of the hearing;

• amendment of section 6.13 to state that a student would "normally" be told the outcome at the hearing;

• amendment to section 6.4 to delete "(but not as an advocate)";

• amendment to section 4.5, regarding teleconferences, to read "time and/or place";

• clarification in section 4.6 that, where a student wishes to receive written information about the hearing but cannot collect it, the faculty will provide the information to the student by other means (on request by the student). Refer also to EAC procedures section 4.2;

• clarification under section 4.11.1 that the role of the representative of the non-managing faculty is to provide advice to the relevant APC about that faculty’s position in relation to the student’s enrolment and progress, and not to be a member of that faculty’s APC;

• section 6.10, regarding ‘de novo’ hearings, should be amended to read "as if it were a first hearing";

• clarification that "service" for notices done by mail should allow extra time for standard mail delivery, normally being 2 working days for local mail and 5 days for international mail (refer APC and EAC procedures). (It was noted that the average time for international mail delivery would be checked after the meeting.);

• under section 6.6, regarding the requirement for an APC hearing an appeal based on new evidence to have the same membership, this should be "as far as is practicable". (Members noted that sections 2.4 and 2.5 addressed this issue.) Ms Lazar advised that in this instance, the committee considering the appeal was to hear the full case to be fair to the student. In order to allow for extra members to be available for this purpose, faculties could appoint more members to an APC than actually required. However, a quorum of two thirds of the APC would always be required. The relevant section would make clear that all material, including original and new evidence, would be considered in appeals for new evidence;

Functions and Procedures for the EAC (in addition to comments above about APCs that are also relevant for the EAC):

• amend section 9.1 to include the staff title and not the name;

• incorporation of wording, to be prepared and provided by Ms Lazar and Mr Nagtzaam, regarding when new evidence was considered to have not been "reasonably available";

The Committee noted that the University Secretariat would incorporate recommendations for amendment agreed at this meeting in the procedures, and lodge the final version of the procedures on the policy site on the Secretariat website. It was also agreed that it would be appropriate to review the procedures following completion of the first implementation cycle in 2003.

Action/Information: Ms I DiTrocchio; Ms A Lazar; Mr G Nagtzaam; Executive Officer; Professor C Browne; Faculty Managers; Student Rights Officers; University Counselling

A memorandum from Associate Professor M Lindorff, Deputy Associate Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics, and a response from Ms A Lazar, Deputy University Solicitor, were circulated (p25-28).

Ms Lazar, Deputy University Solicitor, informed the Committee that Faculty Boards could, under Statute 2.3, delegate authority for matters such as imposing conditions on students’ enrolments to Academic Progress Committees or other persons/bodies. (In this instance, such a body would not include the student member of the regular APC, as the student being excluded had the ability to not have that person involved with the hearing.) The Committee noted that, where a faculty wished to take up this option, the Faculty Board would be required to pass a formal resolution to delegate such authority.

A comment was noted that letters to students regarding conditional enrolments should make clear the gravity and consequences of not fulfilling these conditions.

Action/Information: Ms I DiTrocchio; Associate Professor M Lindorff; Faculty Managers

Biannual reports of approved course and unit developments were circulated as submitted from each of the ten faculties (p29-178).

Discussion occurred and the Committee noted that:

• an amendment was required to the Report from the Faculty of Science (page 170 of the agenda), to change ESC2032 to become ESC3232, with a level of 3;

• further cross-faculty consultation should have occurred with the Faculty of Science in relation to the approved Biostatistics courses in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences. Professor Browne agreed to write to the relevant Head of Department regarding this matter, with a cc to the Associate Dean Postgraduate Studies;

• further cross-faculty consultation would occur between the Deans of the Faculties of Business and Economics and Education, about the titling of the ‘Organisational Leadership’ courses in the Faculty of Education.

Associate Deans Teaching were encouraged to ensure that consistent attention was given to cross-faculty consultation required during, and prior to finalisation of, the course and unit approval process. It was noted that where matters of concern were identified during this biannual reporting process, post-approval consultation would be strongly encouraged. The Acting Chair noted that it might be appropriate to raise this matter generally at the next meeting of the Committee of Associate Deans Teaching.

Action/Information: Executive Officer; Dr K Macrae; Faculty Managers; Associate Deans Teaching; Professor C Browne; Ms G Ives; Professor S Joy

Proposals were circulated for the setting of quotas on particular units from the Faculties of Law and Science (p 179-182).

The next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee (Meeting 6/2002) will be held at 2:15 pm on Wednesday, 23 October 2002.

Professor Alan Lindsay (Chair)

Mr Karen Bensley

Dr Heinz Kreutz

Dr Denise Cuthbert

Professor Alan Farley

Professor Sally Joy

Dr Debbie Corrigan & Dr Paul Richardson

Associate Professor Ian Prince

Professor William Young

Associate Professor John Hurst

Mr Chris Avram

Professor Susan Campbell

Associate Professor Tony Luff

Ms Glenice Ives

Associate Professor Michael Page

Dr Tony Patti

Associate Professor Louis Roller

Professor Peter Stewart

Professor Max King

Professor Chris Browne

Professor Merran Evans

Professor John Harris

Professor Graham Webb

Mr Michael Josem (MONSU-Caulfield)

Mr Chad Brooks (MONSU – Peninsula)

Ms Shen Narayanasamy (MSA - Clayton)

Ms Natalie Lo’Ngok (MUBS - Berwick)

Mr Terry Pritchard (MUGSU - Gippsland)

(Pharmacy Students Association) – position vacant

Mr Richard Morgan (MPA – masters by coursework)

(MPA – Masters) – position vacant

Mr Clive Vernon

Dr Kristina Macrae

Mr Peter Marshall (alternate - Mr Peter Yates)

Associate Professor Valerie Clifford

Associate Professor M Lindorff

Ms Kerri Wilson-Reid (Executive Officer)

Faculty Managers/Registrars (*9)

Mr T Calder

Mr D Mernagh

Ms P Williams

Ms P Herman

Ms S Stafford

Ms B Le Grand

Courses currently are divided into three major categories: Undergraduate (UG); Other Post Graduate (OPG); Higher Degree by Research (HDR). This terminology is used to report student numbers or load to the Department of Education, Science & Training (DEST) and for internal Monash planning purposes.

Students enrolled in undergraduate courses are referred to as ‘undergraduates’, and those in HDR courses as ‘research students’. There is no clear characterisation for students in OPG courses. A clearer descriptor than "Other Postgraduate" is needed to enable an appropriate characterisation of students undertaking them.

The current term Other Postgraduate is not meaningful to many students and applicants. A definite, rather than an ‘other’, descriptor for this category is needed. Graduate and postgraduate coursework programs, most of which are offered on a full fee basis, are a significant area of expansion within the university. Full fee graduate and postgraduate coursework programs are in fact the only category with no externally imposed limits to growth.

There is a need to more appropriately acknowledge the status of these students and to give them greater recognition and support. The Monash Institutional Self-review team reported a plea for recognition from such students, who as mature professionals returning to study saw themselves as clearly different from undergraduate students.

The term graduate is in fairly common use globally, e.g. US ‘Graduate School’. However recent qualitative market research conducted through Monash Marketing and Public Affairs indicated that the term "postgraduate" is more commonly accepted and well understood by Victoria-based education consumers than "graduate". Focus group participants made up of Monash students (including prospective Monash postgraduates of both kinds, and some internationals), and students at other universities, expressed clear support for the term "postgraduate", though participants indicated that these descriptors had little relevance to them compared with the title of the award, e.g. Master of Business Administration.

There was clear dissatisfaction with the descriptors "other postgraduate" and "higher degree", which were seen to lack status. While there was some dissatisfaction with the term "coursework", this was somewhat less objectionable.

It is noted that the research was not quantitative, nor was the topic the sole focus of the group work.

The current ‘Other Postgraduate" category include Masters by Coursework, Professional Masters, Postgraduate Diplomas and Certificates, Graduate Diplomas and Certificates, and graduate level Faculty/Executive Certificates. These all involve coursework, with less than 2/3 research, and hence ‘Coursework’ is a clear and meaningful descriptor. The UK terminology ‘taught courses’ is not well known here.

A distinction between ‘graduate’ and ‘postgraduate’ has been used by Monash for some time and is increasingly being adopted nationally. The AVCC supports this distinction and the Australian Qualification Framework is currently considering the issue. Both ‘graduate’ and ‘postgraduate’ courses require graduate entry, or equivalent, but they can differ in academic level. Postgraduate Diplomas and Certificates build directly on previous undergraduate study in the discipline or field of study and are composed of graduate level units. For Graduate Diplomas and Certificates the focus can be, and often is, on retraining, and they may include undergraduate or graduate level units.

The term ‘graduate’ can embrace ‘postgraduate’ but not conversely. However, a clearer and more accurate description of Monash offerings would be to adopt four (rather than three) categories, which are distinguished particularly by their (minimum) entry requirements:

• Undergraduate coursework - year 12 or equivalent

• Graduate coursework - a bachelor degree or equivalent

• Postgraduate coursework - a relevant bachelor degree or equivalent

• Higher degree by research – a relevant honours bachelor degree at class IIA or above, or equivalent.

This classification is consistent with the Qualifications Categories Policy approved at Academic Board 1/2002.

See: http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/academicpolicies/policy/qualcategories.html.

These categories could be adopted for internal academic and external communication purposes. Graduate and Postgraduate coursework together would still be reported to DEST as Other Postgraduate (OPG), but for internal budget purposes would be referred to as Graduate/Postgraduate (GPG).