Monash University

Education Committee Meeting 5-2004

Meeting 5/2004 of the Education Committee was held on Wednesday, 8 September 2004, in the
Sir George Lush Room, Building 3A, Clayton campus, between at 2:20 pm and 4.40 pm.

Professor A Lindsay (chair), Associate Professor K Bensley, Dr H Kreutz, Associate Professor A Farley (acting chair for items 6, 7 and 8), Associate Professor S Joy, Professor M King, Dr G Hildebrand, Associate Professor I Snyder, Professor R Alfredson, Associate Professor J Hurst,
Mr C Avram, Dr L McCall, Associate Professor M Page, Associate Professor L Roller, Professor D Kirkpatrick, Professor G Webb, Ms A Healey, Mr T Szalek, Ms A Wong and Mr T Stephens.

Mr D Secomb, Associate Professor V Clifford, Ms A Lazar, Mr T Hogan, Mr V Garth, Ms S Chong (Secretary), Ms B Jacoby, Associate Professor K Jones and Ms A Matchett.

MINUTES OF MEETING

Agenda items were addressed in the following order: 6, 7, 10, 8, 9, 11 and 12.1. Associate Professor Farley was acting chair for items 6, 7 and 10 until Professor Lindsay arrived at the meeting and chaired the meeting from item 8 onwards.

Apologies were received from Associate Professor Y Ryan, Dr T Patti, Professor W Young, Associate Professor T Luff and Professor M Evans.

Documentation was previously circulated.

Members were reminded to forward written comments to Associate Professor Michael Page on the updated values document and suggested examplars.

Members noted that the Academic Board had noted all matters that were submitted via the Report of Meeting 4/2004 of the Education Committee.

Documentation was circulated. Professor Graham Webb, CHEQ, outlined the progress of the university’s preparation for an audit by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) in 2006 or 2007. The establishment of CHEQ in 2000, the institutional self-review undertaken in 2001, and the recommendations from Still Learning (2002) and their implementation were some of the initiatives undertaken in readiness for the university to achieve:

• an agreed approach to quality;
• compliance with existing university policy concerning review; and
• an institutional review upon which to base future improvements.

The Committee noted that the recommendations from Still Learning continued to influence existing areas of quality development, including the Values for High-Quality Teaching and Learning, the teaching-research nexus and MEQ.

Current and planned activities for 2004 and 2005 in the lead up to the audit included:

• formation of an Audit Reference Group;
• faculty reviews;
• development of the Monash Portfolio; and
• investigation of priority areas.

Professor Webb stated it was likely that Monash would be audited in 2006 but the date would be confirmed in February 2005. It was anticipated that the AUQA panel would conduct interviews at Clayton campus for four or five days and visits to transnational sites would be coordinated, in collaboration with CHEQ. Following this process AUQA would release its audit report on Monash, with follow-up reports monitoring Monash’s progress on the implementation of the audit recommendations. Further information on the AUQA commendations and recommendations is located at: http://www.adm.monash.edu/cheq/audit/index.html.

Documentation was circulated.

Professor Graham Webb, CHEQ, spoke to the report and acknowledged the input of Ms Jill Dixon, CHEQ, to the survey. He informed the Committee that responses from 319 employers were collated to provide ratings of Monash graduates on the extent to which they demonstrated desired attributes in order of importance and satisfaction levels. Professor Webb noted the attributes in the higher rankings and the gaps that were established, including:

• Oral communication skills ranked 7 in satisfaction (rated by employers as the most important attribute for graduates);
• Capacity to learn new skills ranked 1 in satisfaction (rated 2 by importance); and
• Written communication skills ranked 12 in satisfaction (rated 5 by importance).

Faculty reports were being prepared for distribution for further analysis and planning, based on the outcomes of individual quantitative and qualitative responses. Members noted that some faculties had incorporated changes to the curriculum, based on the report. Members further noted that the report would be discussed at a meeting of the Graduate Attributes Working Party of Education Committee, chaired by Associate Professor Graham Oppy, Faculty of Arts, and proposed that Working Party consider incorporating the outcomes of the report into its recommendations.

Professor Webb indicated that the survey would be conducted every five years to create a time series and benchmark with other organisations and discussion ensued on suggested areas for further focus to the report. One proposal put forward was a broader, cross-institutional approach to the analysis of the survey, with reference to the outcomes of other university surveys, such as MEQ, and addressed by both faculties and central committees including the English Language and Admissions Working Group reporting to the Admissions Committee and the Graduate Attributes Working Party.

Documentation was circulated. Professor Lindsay introduced the discussion, noting that the discussion paper from the University Academic Projects and Services and the Examinations Branch recommended introducing the practice of marking examination papers where the Student ID number was the only form of identification appearing on the examination script, noting its key advantage was the adequate level of protection from bias provided within reasonable cost.

Following the introduction of this issue at Education Committee Meeting 4/2004, members were requested to seek advice from their faculties and provide feedback on this issue. In the course of discussion members emphasised that appropriate resources be allocated to ensure sufficient support for academic and administrative staff. Members noted that Deakin had allocated significant resources to its implementation of blind marking procedures and the case study cited increases in workloads of administrative staff and examination invigilators.

The reasons provided by members for apprehension against the idea included:

• faculties with clear records against no claims about deliberate bias in exam marking in this faculty;
• costs seem to outweigh the benefits;
• the lower cost systems would introduce the possibility of additional error, a far more serious concern than bias;
• units involving non-examination assessment, and blind exam marking would not address this and would greatly complicate the collation of results; and
• the costs being borne by the faculties.

The Committee agreed that the creation of a separate examination number and other possible blind marking methods listed in the discussion paper would impose a great deal of administrative burden on staff for little added benefit or protection from bias. Members noted that the School of Mathematical Sciences in the Faculty of Science had successfully implemented blind marking using the student ID and desk number as identifiers.

Following consideration of these issues and noting the objective of eliminating allegations of deliberate bias, the members agreed to support the overarching principle of blind marking examination papers and endorsed the recommendation of its introduction at Monash, in the context of exploring appropriate means of implementation. Members recommended that both the Student ID and Student Desk Number be used to verify identification in blind marking examinations. It was noted that further consideration be given to blind examination procedures for distance education students.

The Chair advised that blind marking would apply to examinations only and not any other assessment pieces due to practicality and cost constraints. Assignments and other non-examination assessments were often feedback oriented and, therefore, it was important to note the identity of the student in those instances.

The Chair advised that faculties consult the Examinations Branch in the development of their implementation plans prior to its introduction. These plans would then be brought back to Education Committee for further consideration. The development of the implementation plans should take into consideration the administrative issues, as discussed, and determine an appropriate transition period for the introduction of blind marking.

Ms Amanda Lazar, Deputy University Solicitor, was invited to attend for this item.

The proposed amendments under this item related to name changes due to restructuring or improvements in drafting and handling of cases of misconduct by double degree students. The changes had already been approved by the Committee at Meeting 2/2004.

Ms Lazar advised the Committee that following submission of the proposed amendments, other modifications had been suggested, for example, in respect to general misconduct committed by a group of students resulting in property damage. An amendment relating to group offences would be incorporated in a subsequent submission to Education Committee.

In addition, Ms Lazar and the Committee agreed to the removal of the proposed new section 8A under which a group cheating incident would be reported to the faculty which offered the subject. Ms Lazar confirmed that ss9.6 contained provision for double degree matters.

In response to a member’s query as to why the qualification that a breach of policy had to result in ‘damage to people or property’ should be removed from the definition of general misconduct, Ms Lazar said that a breach of policy might not always result in damage but was, nonetheless, misconduct. The University’s Information Technology Use Policy was cited as an example of such a policy.

In relation to another query about ss2.2, that the

Regulations made under this statute must be promulgated by being exhibited on an official notice board provided for the purpose at the university and after being promulgated must remain so exhibited for at least fourteen days not counting any day on which the university is on vacation,

Ms Lazar agreed to explore options of an electronic notice board in order to provide wider circulation to all staff and students of the date of effect of new and updated portions of university statutes and regulations.

Documentation was circulated. Associate Professor Ken Jones, chair, Transition Policy and Planning Committee (TPPC), reported on the university’s transition and orientation activities during 2004 and forecasts for 2005. Recommendations from the 2002 review had gradually been implemented to amalgamate the activities and budget of the TPPC and the University Orientation Committee into a single program, and had prompted changes to staffing. Mrs Bernadette O’Grady was appointed as an administrator and Associate Professor Jones noted that the new position had enabled Ms Tanya Kantanis to focus on the academic and data collection activities as transition and orientation coordinator.

Associate Professor Jones outlined two forthcoming surveys that would require input from Associate Dean Teaching staff, being, the project on transition-enhancing strategies and first-year units of study, and the Student Exit Questionnaire. Members noted the initiatives for 2005 included:

• formation of separate Orientation and Transition plans to be developed by a reference group in accordance with the Learning and Teaching plan;
• development of a Transition Advisers in Schools Project to place student "life advisers" in the top schools of intake into Monash;
• updates to the transition and orientation web pages to ensure consistency with the endorsed MAPA branding guidelines; and
• development of a "What’s On" database containing information about Orientation activities and programs.

Members offered comments and suggestions for improvement, including:

• the ability to provide anonymous responses on the survey form;
• allowing faculties adequate time to provide input to the survey, noting that Week 8 of semester was a peak time for academic staff workloads; and
• consideration of involving lower ranked schools in the Transition Advisers in Schools Project, in the interests of equity and diversity.

In response to a query, Associate Professor Jones confirmed that the Student Exit Questionnaire effectively targeted students discontinuing from their course and may include students who withdrew from one course to another course within the university and members noted that this was a drawback of using crude attrition rates.

Associate Professor John Hurst, chair, Working Party on Review of Exclusion Procedures, spoke to this item. The Committee received and noted the report of the Working Party for the 2003 academic year. Associate Professor Hurst informed the Committee that the report effectively "tied up loose ends" on:

• the mooted issue of double degree procedures;
• provision of interpreters at Academic Progress Committees (APC) hearings;
• composition of APC membership; and

incorporated issues that arose from the biannual Exclusion Forum:

• mid-year review of results; and
• draft guidelines for the conduct of APC hearings.

On the advice of the Solicitor’s office, Associate Professor Hurst outlined changes to the double degree procedures that have prompted amendments to ss11.2 of the Statute and that the Statute be revised to:

In relation to a double degree student -

where one or both faculties of enrolment is of the opinion under section 5 that the academic progress of the student is unsatisfactory, the faculty board of the managing faculty is the responsible faculty for the purposes of this statute;

the academic progress committee of the managing faculty shall, at the option of the non-managing faculty, be augmented by a member of the non-managing faculty.

Members noted that the changes to the statute streamlined the procedures for dealing with double degree students, irrespective of where the failures were derived from, in line with the recommendations of the Committee and Faculty Managers’ Group. It was noted that enrolment in a double degree was considered as a single award and following endorsement that this was to be handled by the managing faculty, ss11.2.3 was made redundant.

On the issue of mid-year reviews, the Committee noted that APCs could exercise the option of meeting to review a student’s case following the release of semester one results and offer enrolment advice to students who commenced mid-year and were failing units in courses <72 credit points, who normally did not come up for review until after three semesters of enrolment. The advice issued by the faculty could be a prima facie statement considered by the APC in its review of the student’s progress at the end of the year. The Chair suggested and members agreed that the Working Party monitor the progress of its implementation.

The Chair thanked the Working Party for its progress on these matters.

• the recommendation that an APC may seek advice from a non-voting participant from the faculty;
• the recommendation that it was appropriate for faculties were eligible to conduct a mid-year review for the purposes of providing advice to students enrolled commencing candidature mid-year in <72 credit point units and were not making progress following the release of results in semester 1 and this was subject to review by the Working Party;
• amendments to the Functions and Procedures on double degree procedures, that
  • It is the responsibility of the managing faculty to manage the candidatures of double degree students and this responsibility be extended to the conduct of academic progress reviews for double degree students, irrespective of which faculty the students' failures are derived from.
  • The academic progress committee of the managing faculty should co-opt a member from the non-managing faculty and seek the advice of the non-managing faculty on its willingness to accept the student's transfer to the non-managing faculty if the student makes that application; and
• the following recommendation, provisional to the following amendment:
  • That the Functions and Procedures be amended to clarify that the Academic Progress Committee hearings and the Exclusion Appeals Committee hearings are conducted in the English language. In cases where the student cannot be heard as a result of cultural, psychological or language difficulties, the committee may adjourn proceedings and seek advice and support for the student in order to allow them to be heard.

The Committee approved, for endorsement, to Academic Board the amendments to ss11 of Statute 6.2, Exclusion for unsatisfactory progress.

A proposal was submitted from Associate Professor Alan Farley, in relation to placing limits on WES enrolment in order to project accurate returning load forecasts. WES currently allowed students to enrol in less than the load they intended to take over the full year and imposed no minimum enrolment conditions on students. Members noted the Faculty of Business and Economics experienced an increase in returning load in July of 2003 of approximately 700 EFTSU.

The Committee agreed it was appropriate to refer the matter to a working group of Admissions Committee that looked at load planning issues to consider models of implementing limits on WES and recommended that a student member of the University Admissions Committee be included in the membership of that working group.

The next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee (Meeting 6/2004) will be held at 2:15 pm on Wednesday, 27 October 2004.

Professor Alan Lindsay (Chair)

Associate Professor Karen Bensley

Dr Heinz Kreutz

Associate Professor Alan Farley

Associate Professor Sally Joy

Dr Gaell Hildebrand

Associate Professor Ilana Snyder

Professor Robin Alfredson

Professor William Young

Associate Professor John Hurst

Mr Chris Avram

Mr Leighton Morris

Associate Professor Tony Luff

Dr Louise McCall

Associate Professor Michael Page

Dr Tony Patti

Associate Professor Louis Roller

Dr David Taylor

Professor Max King

Professor Chris Browne

Professor Merran Evans

Professor Denise Kirkpatrick

Professor Graham Webb

Ms Mary Aldred (MONSU – Caulfield)

Ms Taryn Macfarlane (MONSU – Peninsula)

Ms Angie Wong (MSA – Clayton)

Mr Timothy Szalek (MUBS – Berwick)

Mr Sean McLoughlin (MUGSU – Gippsland)

Pharmacy Students Association – position vacant

Mr Tim Stephens (MPA – masters by coursework)

Ms Ann Healey (MPA – graduate/postgraduate diploma)

Mr Clive Vernon

Mr David Secomb

Mr Peter Yates (alternate for Mr P Marshall)

Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree

Associate Professor Valerie Clifford

Associate Professor Yoni Ryan

Associate Professor Marg Lindorff

Ms Shana Chong (Secretary)

Faculty Managers/Registrars (*9)

Mr T Calder

Ms K Wilson-Reid

Ms P Williams

Ms P Herman

Ms S Stafford

Ms B Le Grand