Meeting No. 4/2003 of the Education Committee was held on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 in the Sir George Lush Room, Administration Building 3A, Clayton Campus, between 2:15pm and 4:15pm.

Ms K Wilson-Reid

Executive Officer

Professor A Lindsay (Chair), Dr P Maddock, Associate Professor A Farley, Dr D Corrigan, Dr P Richardson, Associate Professor I Prince, Professor W Young, Associate Professor J Hurst, Mr C Avram, Dr G Ives, Associate Professor M Page, Dr T Patti, Dr D Taylor, Professor M King, Professor M Evans, Professor J Harris, Professor G Webb, Mr C Hurley, Ms B Anderson, Mr Lim Jian An.

Mr D Secomb, Ms B Jacoby (for Ms C Harboe-Ree), Mr N Hiscox (for Mr P Yates), Associate Professor V Clifford, Dr J Weir and Ms K Wilson-Reid (Executive Officer).

Associate Professor L Roller, Ms S Joy, Professor C Browne, Dr H Kreutz, Mr L Morris and Mr E Keegel.

Members noted that Associate Professor Yoni Ryan, Deputy Director & Head of Educational Design Group, Centre for Learning and Teaching Support (CeLTS) had been invited to attend Education Committee on a regular basis.

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

Members noted that the Academic Board had noted all matters that were reported for information from Meeting 3/2003 of the Education Committee and approved the following matters:

Amended Education Committee Terms of Reference, located at:

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

Establishment of the new Education Committee Structure, including subcommittees and working parties of the Education Committee, to support implementation of the LTP. Details of the new structure are accessible on the Education Committee web page above.

Amendment to the Exclusion for Unsatisfactory Progress Regulations, regarding timing for notice of hearing. Academic Board has submitted the Regulations to Council for approval.

A report from Professor C Browne was tabled providing an update on progress against targets for the LTP, changes to membership of the new Education Committee subcommittees and working parties, and amendments to some LTP timelines. The report is attached (Attachment A).

The Chair, Professor A Lindsay, highlighted the importance of initiating the work of these groups. Professor Lindsay advised that the issue of support for the groups would be resolved shortly with the subcommittees as the primary focus. Support for the working parties would also be considered. However, noting the limitation on resources and that working parties in recent years had largely been self-supporting, the working parties will need to be self-supporting.

The Chairs of the subcommittees and working parties provided brief reports on progress. Noting that formal establishment of the groups had just been finalised, members noted that the groups had not yet formally met. Establishment of support and finalisation of membership matters was underway. Groups would initially give detailed consideration to their roles / terms of reference.

The Committee noted issues of particular relevance to the Academic Policy Subcommittee, including the need for greater administrative support due to its policy review role, the ongoing maintenance of the Academic Policy Bank (within the broader Policy Bank) that would continue to be done by the University Secretariat, and clarification of the position of Policy Bank Manager.

Professor Lindsay advised that there had been consideration of extending the Graduate Attributes Working Party. Professor Browne would liaise with Dr Patti about this issue.

The following general issues relevant to all groups were raised and discussed:

• Submission of items: During initial stages, items may be submitted via Education Committee. When groups were underway, matters might be submitted directly to the relevant group. Issues with policy implications may still be considered by Education Committee in the first instance. The office of the DVC, with Professor Browne, would be the clearing house for item allocation.

• Communication between the groups: It was noted that the groups would need to consider appropriate methods of cross-communication about issues with relevance to more than one group. Responsibilities with overlap would be clarified through this process.

• Membership: Current membership focussed on specific people rather than structured references to positions or areas. The Chair advised that groups could look at forwarding proposals for membership structures that included a balanced mix of core and flexible membership positions.

• Monitoring progress: A meeting between the office of the DVC and the chairs of these groups would be the appropriate avenue for monitoring progress against targets. Discussion about any funding proposals could also be considered at this meeting.

Documentation was circulated (p1-18). Additional documentation was tabled that is attached: ‘Teaching-Research Nexus Benchmarking Project’ (Attachment B); ‘Faculty Working Groups to Achieve the Nexus’ (Attachment C); and ‘Extract from RGSC Minutes 6/2003’ (Attachment D).

The teaching-research nexus was identified in the Still Learning as an important issue for the university to address. Actions below relevant to ‘LTP 2003-2005’ Strategy A:4 focused on identifying how Monash defined and implemented the nexus:

Members noted advice from Professor King regarding issues raised about the discussion paper at the Research Graduate School Committee, including the previous characterisation of the nexus in the 1992 ‘Research Review Committee Report’, the relevance of the nexus in laboratory work, encouragement of tutoring to link undergraduate and research students and the importance of strengthening research activity and input into teaching at offshore campuses and locations.

Processor Lindsay noted that the issue of strengthening the nexus at the university’s offshore campuses and locations should also be considered by the Internationalisation Subcommittee.

Members discussed the paper and a number of issues were raised including:

consideration of rewards in faculties for research on teaching;

• achieving a balance between research and teaching efforts;

• clarification of the objectives and advantages of conducting research;

• existing and emerging funding methods for teaching and research;

• the need for consideration of the basis on which the university balances teaching and research support funding through the strategic cost management process;

• economic benefits of teaching and research being mutually supportive;

• identification of the benefits of teaching for research;

• the significance of honours and postgraduate students flowing on to research; and

• further consideration of teaching during the promotion process.

The paper was positively received by the Committee, in particular the way that it drew attention to the two-way relationship by which research informs teaching, and teaching informs research.

The Committee endorsed the proposal that Professor Webb would proceed to negotiate and finalise a memorandum of understanding about the benchmarking project with the University of Sydney. Members noted that the project report would be produced by June 2004. The Chair noted that if appropriate, an update on progress with the project could be put to the next meeting.

Action 3: Professor Webb suggested approaches for faculties to appoint working groups to report on how Monash would achieve a teaching-research nexus in their courses. Members noted suggestions about who might be involved in the faculty group, tasks, activities and objectives, and the possibility of clustering faculties to reduce the number of groups, duplication of effort and support requirements from CeLTS and CHEQ.

The Committee discussed and agreed on directions for faculty groups:

• ADTs from similar groups of faculties would: meet together with relevant staff from CeLTS and CHEQ; take plans for action back to the faculties; draw faculty efforts back into the faculty cluster groups; and provide a report from each group to Education Committee;

• the two groups of faculties included: a) Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Pharmacy, Science, Engineering and Information Technology; and b) Arts, Business and Economics, Education, Law and Art and Design;

• ADTs should invite ADRs to be members of the groups;

• noting the need for feedback between the benchmarking project and the work of the faculty groups, the Committee agreed on further adjustment of LTP timelines for the reports from faculty groups to come back to Education Committee between January - March 2004;

• accordingly, the Education Committee progress report to the QDC on implementation of the nexus would be changed to July-August 2004.

Documentation was circulated (p19-24).

In response to Recommendation 18(i) of Still Learning, a working group of the Faculty Quality Coordinators’ Network (FQCN) prepared a report on key quality indicators used by faculties in course monitoring and review. The QDC agreed that CHEQ, in conjunction with the Quality Subcommittee and at least two faculties, would undertake a trial of the Key Quality Indicators.

Professor Webb briefed the Committee on a proposal to be presented to the Quality Subcommittee and faculties on how the trial should be run. Members noted that the Quality Subcommittee would have further input into the proposal. Professor Webb advised that Information Technology and Law had committed to the trail and an expression of interest had been received from Business and Economics. Members noted that there were no limits on other faculties becoming involved.

The proposal outlined for progressing the trail included the following aspects:

• selection of a course by each faculty involved in the trial;

• obtain the data indicated;

• note any technical or measurement issues that arise and bring these back to the Quality Subcommittee to find a common position;

• report on data availability, the time taken to obtain it and any improvements to the process;

• report on the ease of making trend comparisons, the ease of making comparisons with other organisations, and on which of the comparisons were meaningful;

• report on how useful the measures were, how they were interpreted, and how the course management system was used for considering them and effecting improvement; and

• consider and establish timelines for the trial and for reporting.

Professor Lindsay noted that the Quality Subcommittee would need to ensure links with appropriate areas to support faculties in the trial. The Chair noted that once the project brief had been finalised with relevant faculties, the Subcommittee should forward the information to other ADTs to see if further faculties were interested.

A request was noted from Professor Evans to align, where possible, the measures used for the Key Quality Indicators with those used for the annual Key Performance Indicators presented to Council (also reflected in Faculty Operational Plans). Examples included pre-Monash experience indicators such as clearly in enter scores, the proportion of students who had Monash as first preference and the proportion of top 5% students. It was also noted that it would be beneficial to align the measures used in relation to other surveys eg. CEQ, GDS and PREQ with the summary measures used in the KPIs.

Associate Professor Page noted that liaison would occur between the relevant groups and areas and that the issue of alignment with Council KPIs would be taken into consideration.

The Deputy University Solicitor submitted a proposal (p25-34) for amendment to the university’s ‘Student Academic and Administrative Grievance Procedures’ in response to difficulties reported by faculties with procedural implementation. (The Policy and Procedures were circulated.)

These amendments were proposed as relevant issues were raised for attention. As discussed previously at Education Committee, a detailed review of the Grievance Policy/Procedures’ would be conducted by the Deputy University Solicitor in consultation with the Student Rights Officers and Faculty Managers. The re-drafted Policy/Procedures would be submitted in due course.

Ms Lazar was unable this meeting. Associate Professor Hurst, ADT, Information Technology, spoke to this item and noted examples in faculties including Information Technology, Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences and Arts where students had wanted to continue a grievance beyond the capacity of the faculty to do so (eg. overriding university or faculty policy).

A student member raised a concern regarding ‘Step 4’ that the decision should be made by a committee rather than one person. Following clarification from different members, it was noted that the decision under ‘Step 4’ had always been made by one person rather than a committee under these procedures and that this proposal had not involved a change to that process. The proposal intended an addition to the existing list of reasons why an enquiry might not be made.

A student member queried the decision process for ‘Step 8’. The Committee noted that the amended step would read: "A grievance case would be considered closed upon receipt by the senior member of staff nominated by the Dean of a written withdrawal of the grievance by the complainant or of a written agreement between the parties, or when a faculty grievance committee determines that there is nothing further that the faculty can offer in order to settle the matter".

The Chair queried the issue of student consultation. Associate Professor Hurst advised that the proposal from the Deputy University Solicitor was based on faculty input. Members noted that consultation with Student Rights prior to the Education Committee would have been appropriate.

[Note: Following consultation with the Student Rights office subsequent to the meeting, Ms Lazar will forward a revised submission to the next Education Committee for consideration.]

No items were submitted under this section for this meeting.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee (Meeting 5/2003) would be held at 2:15 pm on Wednesday, 10 September 2003.

Professor Alan Lindsay (Chair)

Dr Peter Maddock

Dr Heinz Kreutz

Associate Professor Alan Farley

Ms Sally Joy

Dr Debbie Corrigan & Dr Paul Richardson

Associate Professor Ian Prince

Professor William Young

Associate Professor John Hurst

Mr Chris Avram

Mr Leighton Morris

Associate Professor Tony Luff

Dr Glenice Ives

Associate Professor Michael Page

Dr Tony Patti

Associate Professor Louis Roller

Dr David Taylor

Professor Max King

Professor Chris Browne

Professor Merran Evans

Professor John Harris

Professor Graham Webb

Ms Mary Aldred (MONSU – Caulfield)

Mr Anthony Hillen (MONSU – Peninsula)

Mr Chris Hurley (MSA – Clayton)

Ms Brooke Anderson (MUBS – Berwick)

Mr Terry Pritchard (MUGSU - Gippsland)

(Pharmacy Students Association) – position vacant

Mr Lim Jian An (MPA – masters by coursework)

Mr Earle Keegel (MPA – graduate/postgraduate diploma

Mr Clive Vernon

Mr David Secomb

Mr P Marshall (alternate-Mr P Yates)

Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree

Associate Professor Valerie Clifford

Associate Professor Yoni Ryan

Associate Professor Marg 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