Monash University

Education Committee Meeting 6-2004


Meeting 6/2004 of the Education Committee was held on Wednesday, 27 October 2004, in the Sir George Lush Room, Building 3A, Clayton campus, between at 2:20 pm and 4.40 pm.

There were present:

Professor A Lindsay (chair), Associate Professor A Farley, Associate Professor S Joy, Dr G Hildebrand, Associate Professor I Snyder, Professor W Young, Associate Professor J Hurst, Professor J Waincymer, Associate Professor T Luff, Dr L McCall, Associate Professor M Page, Dr D Taylor, Professor D Kirkpatrick, Professor C Browne, Professor G Webb, Ms M Aldred, Ms A Wong, Professor S Parker and Professor L Piterman.

In attendance were:

Mr C Vernon, Mr D Secomb, Associate Professor V Clifford, Associate Professor Y Ryan, Mr T Hogan, Associate Professor M Lindorff, Ms S Stafford, Ms S Chong (Secretary), Dr G McBurnie and Ms S Smith.

MINUTES OF MEETING

Part A Procedural and Policy Matters

*1. APOLOGIES, ATTENDANCE AND MEMBERSHIP:

Apologies were received from Dr T Patti, Mr C Avram, Professor M King, Associate Professor L Roller and Professor R Alfredson.

The Committee welcomed Professor Jeff Waincymer, Faculty of Law, Professor Leon Piterman, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Professor Stephen Parker, chair, International Self-Review Panel, who were invited to attend this meeting.

On behalf of the Committee, the chair farewelled and thanked retiring members, Associate Professor Michael Page and Mr David Secomb, for their notable efforts and contributions as members of the Committee. The Committee thanked the student members for 2004 for their valuable involvement and noted it was a good year of student participation.

Members were asked to advise the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) of any changes to the appointment of Associate Deans Teaching in their faculty for 2005. The chair advised that meetings would be scheduled before the end of 2004 with the chairs of the Education Committee subcommittees and its working parties to discuss terms of reference and membership issues for their respective groups, in order to present a consolidated revision of these groups to Education Committee at its meeting 1/2005.

The chair signalled a change of role for Mr Clive Vernon in the Office of International Development and Mr Vernon agreed to forward an item on mapping the offshore structural framework to the Committee in 2005.

Action/Information: members, Professor A Lindsay, Mr D Secomb, Professor D Kirkpatrick,
Professor L Piterman, Associate Professor M Page, Associate Professor G Oppy,
Associate Professor J Hurst, Mr C Vernon

*2. STARRED ITEMS:

Action: The Committee noted that all items had been starred as requiring discussion.

*3. MINUTES:

Documentation was previously circulated.

Action: The minutes of Education Committee Meeting 5/2004, held Wednesday, 8 September 2004, were approved.

Action/Information: Ms S Chong

4. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES:

5. ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM ACADEMIC BOARD MEETING 5/2004:

Members noted that the Academic Board had approved and noted all matters that were submitted via the Report of Meeting 5/2004 of the Education Committee.

*6. INTERNATIONAL SELF-REVIEW PANEL:

The following Panel members of the International Self-Review Panel took part in the roundtable discussion of this item: Professors Stephen Parker (chair), Graham Webb and Chris Browne. Dr Grant McBurnie, Office of International Development, was in attendance.

The International Self-Review Panel was invited to attend the meeting to engage with the Committee as part of the Panel’s review of the University’s international activities. The chair introduced the discussion and the Panel noted input from the Committee’s focus on the following areas in relation to internationalisation:

6.1 REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF THE CURRICULUM PROJECT AND HEDU:

The International Self-Review Panel and Education Committee received the report on the Internationalisation of the Curriculum (IoC) Project. Associate Professor Val Clifford, Head, HEDU, reported on progress of the project activities. The Committee noted that the project aimed to engage academic staff in the development and dissemination of IoC policy and practices.

The project had concentrated on data collection and dissemination activities involving various debates, seminars and interviews conducted at the ‘grassroots’ level and Associate Professor Clifford noted that the interviews conducted have produced a heartened response from participants to disseminate ideas. Members were also informed of a forthcoming HEPCIT forum on "Internationalisation of the Symposium", including a guest speaker from South Africa, being held on 23 November 2004. The Panel further noted the development of IoC policy and action plans for 2005, including the focus on staff development and training. Associate Professor Clifford acknowledged the work of Ms Jan Schapper, on secondment from the Faculty of Business and Economics, to the project.

6.2 REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF THE CURRICULUM SUBCOMMITTEE:

The report of the Internationalisation of the Curriculum Subcommittee (IoCSC) was circulated. Professor Leon Piterman, chair, Internationalisation of the Curriculum Subcommittee of Education Committee, was invited to speak to this item.

Professor Piterman advised the Committee that the structure of the subcommittee had been revised to incorporate both a Management Group and a Reference Group. The Management Group, consisting of five members, was referred to as the ‘workhorse’ of the Subcommittee. The Reference Group consisted of representatives from all faculties and support services. Members noted that the Management Group had met four times, including one combined meeting with the Reference Group and another scheduled for November 2004.

Members noted that the Subcommittee had been developing IoC policy, procedures and guidelines. It is envisioned that the faculty rollout process will begin next year. Professor Piterman informed members that this would be carried out through presentations to faculties’ executive structures by members of the Management and Reference Groups. The faculty executives would then provide training to their course coordinators. The Subcommittee anticipated that each Faculty would differ in how they implemented the process and Professor Piterman noted that the Subcommittee expected that Internationalisation of the Curriculum would be implemented progressively over a three-year period, to introduce changes during new course development or course review processes.

Professor Piterman, in acknowledging the input from the Self-Review Panel, extended an invitation to members from the Panel to attend its meeting scheduled for 17 November 2004.

Members noted that the Subcommittee had drawn on a document produced by Deakin University (Gough, Noel (2002) International and Culturally Inclusive Curricula – Procedure) in creating the policy document. Although the Deakin document had been used as a foundation, the Subcommittee took care in selecting guidelines that would be functional at Monash. Members noted the Subcommittee’s acknowledgment and gratitude to Deakin University.

The chair then referred discussion to the Panel. Professor Parker, chair of the Panel, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to grant the forum as part of its interviews being conducted in the self-review. Members noted that this was the 21st meeting of the Panel and indicators of the issues about internationalisation had gradually emerged as a result of the Panel’s University-wide consultation.

Professor Parker referred the Committee to the recommendations from the 2001 Still Learning self-review that identified internationalisation as an area to focus on improvement in preparation for the AUQA audit, noting this was to be undertaken in 2006, and highlighted the following areas for discussion:

  • issues surrounding the international student experience; and
  • issues in relation to the University’s offshore campuses and partnerships.

The Committee discussed and provided comment on the suggested areas for input to the International Self-Review:

  • addressing the disparities between the perceptions created by marketing and the realities of on-campus study at Monash;
  • encouraging interaction of the diverse student groups on campus;
  • developing strategies to meet the special needs of international students in the teaching environment;
  • noting the changing cohorts of the student population as a result of the strategic reorientation of the University from a one-campus institution, multi-campus to a globally recognised university;
  • introducing initiatives to assist students’ transition into Australian culture;
  • fostering communication and understanding between staff from local and offshore campuses at faculty level, including OSP programs, and Professor Parker foreshadowed a review of the Monash Abroad program;
  • examining scope for guidelines or compliance agreements as part of the contractual partnership arrangements in relation to staff-student communications;
  • incorporating internationalisation as part of the overarching University-policy on admissions;
  • implementing support structures for staff and students as part of a review of the University’s Language and Learning Services;
  • developing University-wide policies and procedures for units taught in different modes and at different campuses to promote equivalence of assessment;
  • identifying internationalisation of the curriculum in the documentation for faculty course and unit approvals (Professor Lindsay advised that this and the teaching-research nexus had been incorporated in the updated forms); and
  • addressing the issues associated with the hierarchy of campuses according to size.
  • The International Self-Review would circulate its draft report in early 2005 and Professor Parker foreshadowed more than 30 recommendations to emerge from that report.

    Action: The Education Committee provided its observations about the international student experience and the performance of Monash in relation to its offshore activities during the course of the roundtable discussion with the International Self-Review Panel.

    The Panel received and noted the reports of the Internationalisation of the Curriculum project and the Internationalisation of the Curriculum Subcommittee. The Panel and the Committee noted that the draft IoC definition and a set of guidelines were being prepared by the Internationalisation of the Curriculum Subcommittee for CADeT 4/2004 and Education Committee 1/2005, for approval by the Academic Board in 2005. Members of the Panel and the Committee noted that the implementation of IoC policy, guidelines and procedures by faculties would occur over a three-year period in order to allow faculties to develop plans to support its introduction.

    Action/Information: Professor S Parker, Dr G McBurnie, Associate Professor V Clifford,
    Professor L Piterman, Ms S Smith

    *7. TEACHING-RESEARCH NEXUS BENCHMARKING PROJECT: THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY AND MONASH UNIVERSITY

    The report on the project was circulated and Professor Graham Webb spoke to this item. The teaching-research nexus benchmarking project arose from the Learning and Teaching Plan 2003-2005, with its methodology based on The Teaching-Research Nexus: A Discussion Paper (approved by Academic Board 6/2003). Professor Webb informed members that the University’s action plan to embed the nexus in planning documentation and related policies was recently endorsed, as noted by Academic Board 4/2004. Members noted that the recommendations contained in the project report had significant impact for implementation and the documentation provided a blueprint for planning purposes.

    The report contained results of the self-assessment conducted by the University of Sydney and Monash at university-wide and faculty level and Professor Webb reported on these findings. Members noted varying results between the two institutions from the results of their self assessment, including:

  • Courses – comparing Monash and Sydney processes for teaching-research nexus in terms of course: approval, monitoring and review: Monash rated at low level and Sydney rated at medium level moving to high;
  • Staffing profile – comparing Monash and Sydney performance of staff in terms of teaching and research: both rated at medium; and
  • Bringing the teacher’s research findings into the classroom – comparing Sydney and Monash practices and mechanisms to improve the extent to which teachers bring research into the classrooms: Monash rated medium and Sydney rated high.
  • Professor Webb noted that the higher end scores were indicative of the University of Sydney’s advancement in having data on the link between teaching and research whereas Monash was to begin routinely collecting data in those areas.

    Members noted that some of the indicators used by Sydney in recognition of teaching-research nexus achievements would be useful for Monash in preparation for its application for the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund and the chair advised there was provision for funding of teaching-research nexus projects in the Learning and Teaching budget for 2005.

    Preliminary discussion occurred about the report. Members raised the issues of:

  • research in the context of undergraduate teaching;
  • acknowledging administrative responsibilities facing academic staff, in setting the teaching-research nexus criteria; and
  • developing strategies to embed the nexus as a commonplace term, noting its emphasis on projects, and away from the notion of the nexus as a benchmark item.
  • The chair proposed and members agreed that further consideration should be given to these issues at another forum in 2005.

    The Committee acknowledged the contribution of Dr Jennifer Weir, CHEQ, who co-wrote the report.

    Action: The Education Committee received the report of the benchmarking project between the University of Sydney and Monash in the teaching-research nexus and noted the advice of Professor Graham Webb. Members recommended an amendment to the section heading (8) ReAwards. Members noted the results of the self-assessment conducted by both universities at the institutional and faculty level and agreed to resume discourse about the recommendations in 2005.

    Action/Information: Professor G Webb, Dr J Weir

    *8. 2004 REPORT OF THE QUALITY SUBCOMMITTEE (QSEC) & VALUES FOR HIGH-QUALITY TEACHING AND LEARNING

    Documentation was circulated. The Committee noted that the Values for High-Quality Teaching and Learning paper was ready for endorsement by Academic Board. Associate Professor Michael Page, chair, QSEC, informed members that there were changes to the order of the values in the final draft, noting that the values on recognising student learning needs and staff teaching needs were elevated to third and fourth position. The Subcommittee sought feedback from the Committee in relation to its references to "Learning and Teaching" and "Teaching and Learning" throughout the documentation and the Committee approved the application of QSEC’s terminology in that context. In presenting the paper, Associate Professor Page requested comments from members to a proposal that the Values for High-Quality Teaching and Learning might effect the eventual replacement of the policy on Effective Teaching and Learning. The Committee endorsed its support of those changes and, on the chair’s advice, it was agreed that QSEC would re-draft a version of the paper in the revised format (refer agenda item 11) for submission to Academic Board.

    Associate Professor Page referred members to the 2004 report of the Quality Subcommittee and highlighted the exemplars for identifying and promoting high-quality teaching and learning, compiled by QSEC members, Associate Professor John Hurst and Ms Glenda Crosling. The documentation detailed the suggested areas of responsibility by central and faculty divisions and members noted some of the areas suggested could be cross-referenced with specific tasks already being undertaken. The Committee endorsed the exemplars identified, subject to some rearrangement of the suggested areas of responsibility, where appropriate.

    The Committee was also informed of QSEC’s review of its terms of reference in early 2005, following discussions with the Director, CHEQ, and in preparation for the AUQA audit in 2006, and foreshadowed any amendments to its terms of reference be brought back to Education Committee, for approval.

    Action: The Education Committee received and noted the report of the Quality Subcommittee for 2004, including the final draft of the Values for High-Quality Teaching and Learning and exemplars for identifying and promoting high-quality teaching, learning and assessment.

    The Education Committee:

  • approved the draft of the Values for High-Quality Teaching and Learning paper for submission to the Academic Board 1/2005, for endorsement as a policy statement and effect the replacement of the current policy on Effective Teaching and Learning; and
  • endorsed, subject to some rearrangement, the exemplars for identifying and promoting high-quality teaching and learning for implementation by areas of the University.
  • Action/Information: Associate Professor M Page, Ms S Chong

    *9. GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRESS COMMITTEES

    Associate Professor John Hurst, chair, Working Party on exclusion procedures, spoke to this item. The Guidelines for Academic Progress Committees (APC) paper was drafted by the Working Party after the issue was raised at the bi-annual exclusion forum held on 27 May 2004. The current draft was a result of a series of consultations by the Working Party at its meeting on 20 August 2004 and further consideration at the bi-annual forum on 5 October 2004. Committee members noted that the Guidelines were written to assist APC members about the conduct of student hearings and examples of conditions that could be imposed on students.

    Discussion occurred regarding reference to academic/non-academic conditions and the definitions of "recommendation" and "condition". It was noted that some faculties used "recommendations" for the purposes of APC to incorporate terms that could not be monitored or enforced. Associate Professor Hurst emphasised that any recommendations imposed to students were intended to assist their unsatisfactory progress. The chair acknowledged the Working Party’s contribution to its development of succinct guidelines and proposed that the documentation be circulated and reviewed in due course.

    Action: Following consideration and minor amendments, the Committee approved the Guidelines for Academic Progress Committees for circulation and noted the documentation was open to review by the Working Party.

    Action/Information: Associate Professor J Hurst, Ms S Chong

    *10. 2004 REPORT OF THE EXCLUSION APPEALS COMMITTEE, FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR FACULTY ACADEMIC PROGRESS COMMITTEES AND THE EXCLUSION APPEALS COMMITTEE

    Documentation was circulated. The chair noted this was a straightforward item and members concurred with the principles of the documentation to assist APC members with clarification on processes and interpretations and, accordingly, the Functions and Procedures for Faculty Academic Progress Committees and the Exclusion Appeals Committee were endorsed.

    Action: The Education Committee received and noted the report of the Exclusion Appeals Committee, Functions and Procedures for Faculty Academic Progress Committees, and Functions and Procedures for the Exclusion Appeals Committee, as reviewed and amended by the Working Party of Education Committee on review of exclusion procedures.

    Action/Information: Associate Professor J Hurst, Ms S Chong

    *11. REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE

    The report of the Academic Policy Subcommittee, including a revised academic policy review schedule and protocols for academic policies and procedures, was circulated. Mr David Secomb, chair, Academic Policy Subcommittee of Education Committee, spoke to this item.

    Mr Secomb referred members to the revised academic policy review schedule and noted that the starting point of this schedule was the work of the Academic Policy Bank Project.

    It was reported that the Subcommittee had determined the suite of policies that would be reviewed by the Subcommittee itself and those policies whose review would be best undertaken by other groups within the University. Consequently the Subcommittee referred policies related to the relevant Education Committee subcommittees or working parties for review, and was waiting for reports from these groups.

    The majority of the policies under review were far advanced, as noted by Mr Secomb, however, some of these policies were still in the very early stages of review. Members noted that the Subcommittee was about two years into a three-year review cycle, with the first stage of the review to be completed at the end of 2005. It is intended that the Subcommittee will sign off on a timeline at its next meeting.

    Members noted that the Subcommittee was responsible for disseminating advice regarding the preferred format for academic policies and procedures to be posted on the Academic Policy Bank site, and best practice in the development of policy and procedures. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Subcommittee had prepared a ‘toolkit’ for the development of policy and procedures. This toolkit contained advice on developing academic policies and procedures, flowcharts for policy development, policy and procedure templates and an academic policy coversheet.

    Members noted that consideration had been given to ensure that the templates and flowcharts in the toolkit had a similar look and feel to promote consistency in the policy development process. Mr Secomb observed that over time all faculties may develop their own policy bank.

    The Subcommittee recommended that the toolkit be adopted for mandatory use for University level academic policy and recommended to faculties for the purposes of their policy development. The Committee noted that the proposed procedures would ensure provision for faculties to cross-reference policies at University level.

    Mr Secomb acknowledged the role of Ms Susie Smith in supporting the Subcommittee as its executive officer.

    Action: The Committee received and noted the report of the Academic Policy Subcommittee. The Committee endorsed the protocols for policy and procedures for University-wide adoption and faculty adaptation:

  • four-stage policy development process, noting UAPS as a central point in the development process:
  • 1. Stage 1 Identification
  • 2. Stage 2 Consultation and Drafting
  • 3. Stage 3 Approval and
  • 4. Stage 4 Implementation;
  • Academic Policy Coversheet provides background information of the new policy and outlines the passage of its proposal, including consultation and reasons why it is needed;
  • Academic Policy Template and Academic Procedures Template are updated version of the current templates; and
  • Recommended Flowchart for Faculty Level Academic Policy Development to allow opportunities for cross-referencing between University and faculty level policy.
  • Action/Information: Ms S Stafford, Mr D Secomb, Ms S Smith

    *12. OTHER BUSINESS:

    PART B: FACULTY REPORTS AND PROPOSALS

    No items were submitted under this section for this meeting.

    PART C: NEXT MEETING

    The Education Committee noted the 2005 schedule for meetings of the Committee that was approved by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic):

    Meeting Submissions Due Meeting Date
    1/2005 2 February 16 February
    2/2005 2 March 16 March
    3/2005 4 May 18 May
    4/2005 29 June 13 July
    5/2005 24 August 7 September
    6/2005 12 October 26 October

    An extraordinary meeting of the Education Committee will be held at 12:30 pm on Wednesday,
    15 December 2004.

    The first scheduled meeting of the Education Committee for 2005 will be held at 2.15pm on Wednesday, 16 February 2005.

    All final submissions for the agenda for that meeting are due by Wednesday, 2 February 2005.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Membership:

    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)

    MPA – position vacant

    In Attendance:

    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)

    Further Distribution:

    Faculty Managers/Registrars (*9)

    Mr T Calder

    Ms K Wilson-Reid

    Ms P Williams

    Ms P Herman

    Ms S Stafford

    Ms B Le Grand