Education Committee Meeting 3-2006

Meeting 3/2006 of the Education Committee was held on Wednesday, 31 May 2006, in the Clayfield Room, Building A1:34, Caulfield campus, between 2:15 pm and 5:05 pm.

Professor S Parker (Chair), Ms J Allen, Professors T Dingle and O Hughes, Associate Professor S Joy, Dr G Hildebrand, Associate Professor G Codner, Professors W Young and D Arnott, Dr J Paterson, Associate Professors T Luff and L Roller, Dr C Varsavsky, Professor M King, Ms G Key, Mr T Brown, Ms E Greco, Mr C Holmes, Mr K Slywa, Mr L Whiteley, Professors M Evans, D Murphy and G Webb, Ms C Cooze, Mr T Masocco, Mr P Yates, Professor R Willis, Dr L Bennett, Ms R Harris, Ms M King, Mr P Marshall, Mr V Garth, Mr T Hogan and Ms M Clarke.

Dr H Kreutz, Associate Professor B Doecke, Drs L McCall, T Patti and D Taylor, Associate Professor J Hurst and Ms S Bell.

Ms S Chong (Secretary)

MINUTES OF MEETING

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair welcomed those invited to attend as speakers and observers.

The unconfirmed Minutes of Meeting 2/2006 held on 19 April 2006, were circulated on 15 May 2006, and were included in the agenda.

4. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

The Chair spoke to this item. A revised draft committee structure was circulated. Members noted that the sub-committees reporting to Education Committee had been re-aligned in order to facilitate the consideration of issues relating to the student experience by the University Education Committee.

The Education Committee agreed to the revised committee structure and noted the proposed establishment of two new sub-committees: the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee and the Education Policy and Programs Committee.

Comments provided by the student members canvassed support for student representation on the sub-committees reporting to Education Committee. The Committee agreed to the proposal and noted that student representation should be encouraged and included in the membership structures. On the Chair’s advice, student representation would continue within the Learning, Teaching and Quality, Education Policy and Programs and Educational Technology committees.

The Committee noted the advice of the Chair that a revised set of terms of reference for Education Committee would be proposed following ratification of the committee structure and endorsement by Academic Board.

Documentation was circulated and the Chair spoke to this item. The revised draft terms of reference and membership structure were considered by the Committee, following changes agreed to at the last meeting.

The Committee noted the advice of the Chair that the Learning, Teaching and Quality (LTQ) Committee would subsume the role of CADeT. Two sub-committees were proposed to report to LTQ: Transnational Quality Assurance and Improvement Committee, and the Educational Technology Committee.

The Committee considered the revised changes to the terms of reference and recommended its submission to Academic Board.

Regarding the membership structure, the Committee supported an amendment to incorporate a representative from the student membership of Education Committee.

Documentation was circulated and the Chair spoke to this item. The proposed changes to the Committee’s terms of reference and membership structure were considered and agreed to by the Committee.

Documentation was circulated and the Chair spoke to this item. The revised draft terms of reference and membership structure were considered by the Committee, following changes agreed to at the last meeting.

The Committee noted the amendments to the terms of reference and recommended its transmission to Academic Board. Similarly as per discussion of 4.2 regarding membership structure, the Committee supported an amendment to incorporate a representative from the student membership of Education Committee.

Action: The Education Committee recommended for submission to Academic Board, the terms of reference and revised membership structure of the Education Policy and Programs Committee, as a sub-committee of Education Committee.

The Committee endorsed the first recommendation and, on the advice of the Chair, the Education Committee agreed to defer the second recommendation regarding the Faculty Academic Progress Committee membership vacancy to the Working Party.

The Committee noted the Chair’s advice that the Working Party would have a continuing function, in recognition of its work in reviewing the cycle of feedback regarding unsatisfactory progress. The Committee agreed to make it the Exclusion Procedures Advisory Committee, a sub-committee of Education Policy and Programs Committee.

Documentation was previously circulated. The Chair spoke to this item. The Committee noted that the proposal had been considered by faculty managers. Four recommendations were presented in the paper and the Committee discussed and provided feedback to Models 1 and 2, as detailed in the paper.

Model 1 proposed a 12-week teaching semester with a swot vac week in week 13. Model 2 proposed a 13-week teaching semester and a swot vac period of at least three days scheduled in week 14. Examinations would commence on the Thursday of week 14. The Committee noted the advice of the Chair that the Examinations Branch confirmed that the University had secured further access to the Examinations venue at Caulfield Racecourse, which would subsequently reduce the scheduling of evening exams and three exams in one day.

Extensive discussion occurred and the following comments were noted, including:

• both models had some support within faculties;
• revision of work could be scheduled into classes earlier into the semester eg mid-way mark or two-thirds of the way through the semester;
• Model 2 would ease the pressure on staff and students;
• the limited availability of the Caulfield Racecourse could be alleviated by gaining further access to the racecourse examinations venue in terms of time, not by identification of an alternative venue, noting that spare capacity at the racecourse venue was 15 per cent on a given examination day;
• opposition to evening exams, citing safety concerns and limited public transport;
• Monash may be offering more units than other universities and, consequently, ‘over-examining’, which necessitates further investigation;
• the structure of the academic year may influence student choices in their enrolment;
• student perceptions of a reduced 12-week semester in the current fee environment may greatly affect the university’s reputation in terms of its quality of teaching;
• there was unanimous support for a swot vac period from the student body; and
• reference to special consideration being available for students, whose exam timetable included three exam sittings in one day, might encourage those students affected in this manner to apply for special consideration, assuming this to be an entitlement, and was best omitted.

In relation to Recommendation 2, "that consideration be given to whether it would be reasonably feasible for swot vac in semester two to occupy the whole of week 14", the Committee rejected the proposed full week swot vac for semester two, and recommended that a three-day swot vac period be applicable for both semesters.

In relation to Recommendation 4, "that the preferred option for re-structuring the examination schedule be the inclusion of evening examinations on Mondays to Thursdays during the examination period", the Education Committee supported only on the basis that the scheduling of evening exams be kept to a minimum. The Education Committee noted that the availability of Caulfield Racecourse had been extended to accommodate the equivalent of two extra days beyond week three of examinations, which would now reduce the likelihood of exams being scheduled outside standard business hours. There may be a consequence for a small portion of students (approximately 50) that they would initially be scheduled for three exams in one day, but the Committee noted that a deferred exam would be granted under such circumstances at the request of a student.

The Education Committee further recommended that the policy on Swot Vac would exclude or otherwise cater for those programs that operated outside standard semester timeframes, including those accredited by a professional organisation.

There was unanimous support for a change to the current arrangements and a move towards an official swot vac period. The proposal of a 13-week teaching semester, with a swot vac period of three days designated in week 14, was endorsed in a vote (12 in favour of this model). The proposal of a 12-week teaching semester and a swot vac period in week 13 was defeated (five votes in favour of this model).

The Committee noted that the agreed revisions would be incorporated into the proposal and the Chair advised that further logistical issues would need to be resolved offline. The Chair thanked the Academic Year Working Party and acknowledged the Examinations Branch for their efforts in accommodating the requirements.

Documentation was previously circulated via email and the Chair spoke to this item.

The Committee received the proposed amendments to the draft policy, following issues raised regarding admission requirements at Academic Board 3/06. Discussion occurred about the revised draft and the Committee agreed to minor revisions in 1 (iv):

• the minimum admission score at any campus in each year will be no more than 5 ENTER points below the estimated highest "clearly in" ENTER score for the course. Equivalence criteria apply to entry qualifications which are not included in the ENTER.

Members also provided clarification regarding the appointment of chief examiners in 1 (vii):

• chief examiners will be appointed by the relevant faculty board for the units comprising the course, which should take into consideration the desirability of spreading chief examiners across the participating campuses.

Further, the Committee noted that the revised draft provided clarification regarding off-campus mode:

• In relation to this policy off campus mode is treated as a campus. Assessment aspects of this policy also apply to Monash courses and units conducted through Open Universities Australia.

*6. QUALITY ISSUES – SYSTEMATIC IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES IN RESPONSE TO UNIT EVALUATIONS AND MEQ DATA RMO1999/0182

Documentation was circulated. The two papers are part of a series of submissions to the Education Committee from the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) regarding its strategies to provide support to faculties, following the Centre’s re-launch as CALT in 2006. The papers were produced in collaboration with the Centre for Higher Education Quality.

The Committee discussed the initiatives and noted the advice of Dr Lorraine Bennett, Deputy Director CALT and Dr David Murphy, Director CALT.

There was some discussion regarding student input in the quality assurance processes and the potential effect that the perception of unit evaluation responses might lead to a "dumbing down" of courses.

Discussion occurred regarding other CALT initiatives proposed for 2006 and the Committee noted that papers in relation to academic progress and higher degree research would be submitted to a subsequent meeting.

Documentation was circulated. Ms Robyn Harris, Acting Director Centre for the Higher Education Quality (CHEQ), was invited to speak to this item.

In preparation for the audit by AUQA, the findings of a recent AUQA audit report were circulated to the Committee for information. It was confirmed that AUQA would meet with the Education Committee during its visit to Australian campuses in September 2006. A selection of potential education-related questions had been disseminated and the Chair advised that it would be beneficial for a mock panel interview to be demonstrated at the Committee’s next meeting.

The Committee noted the advice from Ms Harris regarding the illustrative questions that the Committee might be asked.

Documentation was circulated. Professor Rob Willis, Academic Director Caulfield and Clayton, and Mr Peter Marshall, Vice-President Administration, were invited to attend to speak to this item. Mr Peter Yates and Ms Michelle King provided additional comments.

The Committee noted the way in which the Student Experience Framework defined how Monash would achieve the strategies set out in Monash 2025, to provide opportunities for students to enrich their experience of tertiary studies and maximise their potential while at university.

The Committee provided comments to the draft Framework and welcomed the initiatives. Members further noted the advice of Ms Michelle King, Director, Office of the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, regarding the four pilot projects and the local consultation process at campuses from a "bottom up" approach. The responses from campuses to the pilot projects had been enthusiastic, according to Mr Peter Yates, Divisional Director, Student and Community Services. Mr Yates acknowledged the efforts of staff in supporting the pilot programs.

Noting the implementation of the Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation in 2007, the Committee received the report of Mr Peter Marshall regarding how Monash was preparing for the changes that would be taking effect and the financial arrangements, as agreed to by the university, to ensure the ongoing operations of student associations and services. The university would provide $4 million to supplant funds previously sourced from compulsory amenities fees. The university would aim to raise voluntary fees to support services at risk of folding and the university would underwrite a sum of up to $2 million in order to meet this target revenue. The Committee noted that a consultant had been commissioned to prepare an independent review of the services and activities currently funded by compulsory amenities fees.

Members were unanimous in supporting the Student Framework and the pilot projects and welcomed the university’s actions leading up to the VSU implementation. Members noted that the two initiatives were coordinated processes and supported the suggestion to further integrate their activities. The Committee agreed to circulate the Student Experience Framework document to the student representatives.

Documentation was circulated and Professor David Murphy, Director Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT), spoke to this item.

The Committee noted the governance structures proposed in the discussion paper, in order to fill a gap following the cessation of the HEPCIT (Higher Education Partnerships in Communication and Information Technology) forums. As referred to in agenda item 4.1, the Committee noted the proposed establishment of the Educational Technology Committee.

The Education Committee noted the information regarding technology-supported education at Monash and accepted the recommendations of the paper, with the following revisions:

That a Technology Supported Learning and Teaching Forum be established to demonstrate and/or discuss new technologies and approaches to pedagogy and to promote and share best practice within the University.

That the Educational Technology Committee be established, consisting of key members of the Learning, Teaching and Quality sub-committee of the Education Committee

That membership of the Educational Technology Committee should include Director CALT, PVC Campus Coordination, senior representatives of ITS, the Library and the faculties.

That a position be established reporting to the Directors of CALT and ITS, jointly funded, whose role it is to provide leadership and coordination for the deployment of technology supported education services, and to act in an executive role supporting the Educational Technology Committee overseeing the adoption of technology supported teaching and learning.

The Committee noted that the Educational Technology Committee terms of reference and membership structure would be submitted to a later meeting. In response to a question regarding whether HEPCIT’s aims and strategies would be usurped into the new committee, Professor Murphy commented that the committee would be reconstituted to attract a broader audience and student input was welcomed. This approach was noted by members.

The Education Committee received the discussion draft document "Review of Coursework Programs" and noted the briefing provided by the Chair regarding the proposed review. The Chair advised that a possible review of coursework programs was part of a range of matters arising following the International Self-Review conducted in 2005.

The Committee noted that the intended review of the suite of Monash’s coursework programs would receive high priority and significant resourcing from the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor to ensure that Monash remained competitive, noting the current trends in the global higher education environment.

The Committee noted the enormous logistical challenges presented by a review of this calibre. The brevity of the exercise would, in the first instance, require either a segment by segment review (eg graduate-postgraduate) or by a pilot project. The Committee provided feedback to the proposal and agreed to the proposed approach, noting that there was indicative interest from the Faculty of Business and Economics Graduate School of Business to participate in the project.

The Chair would make some further decisions about the review and the logistics of the exercise, prior to further disseminating the document.

The Chair spoke to this item. It was noted that a joint initiative in student retention from the Office of the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International) would be undertaken. The significance of the university’s attrition rates in some programs needed further investigation, noting that the attrition rate of coursework postgraduate students in some programs were very high. Members noted that there was considerable data available within Monash on this issue and members indicated support for the initiative. The Committee endorsed the Chair’s comments that this was an area that had been identified by the University for further focus.

A briefing paper would be developed by the Chair and brought back to the Committee.

Documentation was circulated. The Chair and the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Planning) spoke to this item.

The Education Committee noted the proposed flowchart for course proposals for Monash University Malaysia and South Africa campuses. Following discussion the Committee noted that the international campuses had their own external accreditation regulatory body. The following suggested changes were endorsed:

• checklists on the course proposal template to ensure courses are compliant with South Africa and Malaysia regulations; and
• checklists to ensure that the course proposals have been presented before the campus operations companies.

Documentation was circulated and the Chair spoke to this item.

The Education Committee received the recommendations from a TQAIC review of co-operative delivery programs in Hong Kong. In relation to the first recommendation, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of the recommendation regarding development of a university-wide policy on unit guides to a later meeting.

The Committee endorsed the recommendation of TQAIC that faculty deans designate a faculty officer to follow up with academics who have exceeded the specified timeframe for assignment return and to report recurring instances to the dean for appropriate action. Consideration could be given to allocating this responsibility to the same staff member taking the responsibility for overall relationship management of cooperative delivery programs.

Documentation was tabled at the meeting and is attached to the minutes.

The Education Committee received a progress update on the University’s response rates to the semester one 2006 Unit Evaluation. As at 31 May, the University had received 38,592 responses, representing 26.07% of total potential responses. The Committee noted the advice from Professor Graham Webb, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality) regarding the strategies to increase response rates.

In response to a query from a member regarding the status of anti-plagiarism software and the Plagiarism policy, the Committee received advice from Professor David Murphy, Director CALT, that the issue regarding the use of anti-plagiarism software had been devolved to faculties. Faculties were also encouraged to utilise Google and other web search engines as an alternative to the software.

Clarification regarding copyright issues was sought and the Committee noted the advice of the Chair that the revised Plagiarism Policy would be presented at the next Education Committee meeting for re-consideration.

DEVELOPMENTS

The Education Committee received and noted the biannual report of approved course and unit developments, as presented by the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences.

The next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee (Meeting 4/2006) will be held at
10.00am on Monday, 7 August 2006 (note new date and time). The venue is the Sir George Lush Room, ground floor, Building 3a, Clayton campus.