Education Committee Meeting 4-2006

Meeting 4/2006 of the Education Committee was held on Monday, 7 August 2006, in the Sir George Lush Room, Building 3A, Clayton campus, between 10 am and 11:30 am.

Professor S Parker (Chair), Ms J Allen, Ms S Bell, Ms J Burke, Associate Professor G Codner, Associate Professor B Doecke, Professor M Evans, Ms G Funes, Associate Professor G Hildebrand, Professor O Hughes, Associate Professor J Hurst, Associate Professor S Joy, Professor M King, Dr H Kreutz, Associate Professor T Luff, Mr T Masocco , Dr L McCall, Professor D Murphy, Associate Professor P O’Connor, Associate Professor L Roller, Dr C Varsavsky Professor R Willis, Mr L Whiteley Mr P Yates.

By invitation:

Ms M King, Professor R Willis.

Observer:

Mr A Davey.

Professor D Arnott, Mr T Brown, Ms C Cooze, Professor T Dingle, Dr T Patti, Professor M Peel, Mr K Slywa, Dr D Taylor, Professor G Webb, Professor W Young.

Ms C Chatterton (Secretary)
 

MINUTES

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

The unconfirmed Minutes of Meeting 3/2006 held on 31 May 2006, were circulated on 12 June 2006, and were included in the agenda.

4.  MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

*4.1  Education Committee Subcommittees  RMO2006/0881

The Chair informed the committee that the Academic Board had approved the new committee structure of Education Committee. The Education Committee terms of reference would be revised later in the year, after the business of the subcommittees was underway and once the reporting upwards and strategic issues that Education Committee would have to deal with had been finalised.

The Education Committee noted the advice of the Chair regarding the establishment of the sub-committees and that the minutes of subcommittees would be submitted to Education Committee as standing items.

*4.2  Educational Technology Committee (ETC)  RMO2006/0786

The draft terms of reference and membership were circulated with the agenda (p.19-20). Professor D Murphy, Chair, Educational Technology Committee, informed members that the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee had proposed a change to the membership of ETC and instead of two Associate Deans (Teaching), an invitation had been extended to all faculties to be represented on the committee and every faculty had submitted a nomination. The terms of reference and revised membership would be submitted to the Academic Board for approval.

*4.3  Mock Audit Demonstration  RMO2000/0766

The Chair advised that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda as AUQA would not be interviewing Education Committee as a committee. Ten members of Education Committee would be interviewed representing other areas of the university and only one member was scheduled to be interviewed as a member of the Education Committee.

The Education Committee noted the advice of the Chair.

*4.4  Swot Vac  RMO1998/2085

The Chair reported that the Academic Board had approved the reintroduction of a three day swot vac period in week 14 of the two main semesters on the basis that a review of the assessment policy and procedures would consider any additional pressures placed on our processes which ensure the integrity of results.

5.  ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM ACADEMIC BOARD MEETINGS 3/2006 AND 4/2006  RMO2004/0611

The Committee noted that the Academic Board had noted all matters that were reported for information from meetings 2/2006 and 3/2006 of the Education Committee.

* 6.  COURSEWORK ADMISSIONS AND SCHOLARSHIPS COMMITTEE  RMO1998/1366

At meeting 4/2006, the Academic Board disestablished the Admissions Committee as a subcommittee of Academic Board and established the Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee as a subcommittee of Education Committee. The Terms of Reference and membership structure, as approved by Academic Board 4/2006 were attached to the agenda (p. 21-22). The Minutes of Admissions Committee Meeting 2/2006 were also attached to the agenda (p. 23-30). A report of Admissions Committee Meeting 2/2006 was noted at Academic Board meeting 3/2006.

Professor M Evans, Chair, Coursework Admissions and Scholarships Committee, advised that Academic Board had approved the addition of UniTEST to the list of aptitude tests for use in middle-band consideration during selection into undergraduate courses in 2007 at Berwick campus. UniTEST had been developed by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) for use by all UK universities in partnership with Cambridge Assessment, UK. ACER had agreed to pilot the use of the test at Berwick Campus. Use of UniTEST would be aimed at widening access and if the pilot was successful, it may be extended to other campuses.

Admissions Committee had also recommended, and Academic Board had approved, the setting of eligibility ENTER scores for selection based on faculties’ academic judgements of scores the students are likely to need to be successful in each course, with the proviso that the scores not be set below the university quality floor of 70.

The unconfirmed Minutes of Meeting 1/2006 of the EPPC were attached to the agenda (p. 31-38). Professor M Evans, Chair, EPPC, informed members that the EPPC had a heavy schedule which included review of a number of policies including the Week 13 policy, review of the course template as well as monitoring compliance with policies. The EPPC was also considering the issue of a university GPA calculation and a weighted average mark to be included on transcripts. New policies on examination-related issues and responsibilities during partnerships teach-out were also under consideration.

The unconfirmed Minutes of Meeting 1/2006 were attached to the agenda (p. 39-42). As Professor G Webb was an apology, the Chair invited members to note that the CEQuery data contained valuable information that would be useful to faculties.

Professor S Parker, Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, advised that a review of promotion, probation and performance management policies had been taking place. At meeting 2/2006 Academic Board had approved the Academic Promotion Guidelines 2006 and had provided in-principle approval for foreshadowed changes for 2007 to support the transitional phases and not to disadvantage any applicant seeking promotion. The main change was to the minimum weighting which would be 30% for each of teaching and research; with leadership to be demonstrated across the three areas of teaching, research and service. This was a substantial shift in the promotions policy. Findings of the project suggested that a greater sense of predictability of the outcome of applications was desired. In the research area, a separate initiative is under way to specify the minimum research activity that staff at each academic level should be engaged in, and this is likely to have an impact on promotion. Committees would therefore be moving in the direction of employing a metrics approach to evaluating research.

Members were asked to contribute suggestions that could be incorporated into a metrics approach to quantifying teaching performance, to increase predictability for promotion applicants in this category. Past records had been scanned and monitoring of 2006 promotions was taking place to try to obtain profiles of clearly-in candidates. Profiles would be anonymous or permission would be obtained from candidates. Suggestions received included:

• faculty and academic level specific averages could be determined and candidates that were above average could be easily identified;

• research-led teaching and researching one’s own teaching;

• peer review;

• the interview process had been valuable in the past;

• benchmarking against the Go8 was not easy;

• innovation and developments in teaching should be considered; and

• LTPF grants won.

In discussion on the use of unit evaluation data, issues that arose included:

• the relationship between class sizes and student satisfaction was not automatic;

• compulsory units versus electives and their impact on student satisfaction. In compulsory units the teacher cannot drop content if the students do not like it and there would be a positive relationship between elective units that students chose to undertake;

• students do not always recognise good teaching;

• unsolicited qualitative comments by students should not be ignored; and

• a mismatch in student and staff expectations is detrimental to the learning process.

Issues that arose during discussion on the use of MonQuest as an evaluation tool included:

• difficulty in obtaining data from the MonQuest site

• MonQuest is based on a lecture and tutorial model of teaching

• frequency of MonQuest surveys

• flexibility of MonQuest surveys

• review of MonQuest to ensure it is up-to-date.

Professor Parker concluded that the methodology for evaluation of teaching in the promotion process would be presented to Education Committee for endorsement, while the methodology for evaluating research activity would be presented to the Research Committee for endorsement.

Information about this item had previously been circulated to Education Committee members via email on 7 July. The Chair stated that Monash had not won any B-HERT awards for a few years, if ever, and urged members to try and put nominations in. The deadline for submission of applications for the 2006 B-HERT Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Collaboration in Research and Development and Education and Training is 31 August 2006. Further information is available at http://www.bhert.com.

The draft policy document, including recommendations for amendments, endorsed by Education Committee at meeting 3/2006, had been further amended prior to transmission to the Academic Board for meeting 4/2006. The policy approved at Academic Board meeting 4/2006 was attached to the agenda (p. 43-46).

The Chair outlined the changes made. Deans of faculties, in consultation with the relevant campus PVC, were empowered to make exceptions, based on informed decisions depending on individual faculty/campus requirements.

A document was attached to the agenda (p. 47-50, 57-64 & 199-206).

Professor S Parker informed members that agenda pages 47-50 contained a description of the fund and its anticipated operation in 2007. Funding would be allocated based on four discipline areas and one or more of the discipline areas could be funded. All the data that would be used was already in existence and nothing could be done to change the data. Agenda pages 57-64 contained a set of tables that displayed the existing data according to the new categories. DEST had made changes to the seven performance indicators which would be weighted equally for 2007, and progress rates would include all undergraduate students. The university had not made a decision on the allocation of any funding received in 2007.

Professor M Evans commented that the figures did not seem to be encouraging, based on the 2005 unadjusted data used. Overall there had been a decline in the five CEQ and GDS factors. The Arts and Health clusters seemed to be performing better than others. In 2007 funding would be provided according to disciplines so it would be possible to recognise excellence in a particular discipline of a university.

The Retention Project Scope document was attached to the agenda (p. 51-54). Professor S Parker introduced this item by recalling that at Education Committee meeting 3/2006 he had introduced this project to investigate the reasons why students do not progress in their studies.

Professor R Willis outlined the scope of the project which would be managed by the Education Plan Implementation Corps (EPIC). The project would be conducted in three stages as outlined in the Project Scope Notes circulated with the agenda papers. A literature review would commence shortly as well as an analysis of qualitative data from CEQ. An exit survey was being implemented to ascertain why students discontinue their studies with Monash. Some campuses and faculties seemed to have a high attrition rate. An analysis of the data would be used to identify students at risk and strategies would be implemented to decrease the attrition rate.

In response to a statement that some faculties already had information on reasons students leave but the cost of installing software to incorporate exit surveys was prohibitive, Professor O Hughes stated that in the Faculty of Business and Economics an outside firm was utilised which provided better value. Professor Willis agreed to follow this up with Professor Hughes.

Professor Parker concluded this item by stating that periodic reports on the progress of this project would be presented to the Education Committee.

*14.1  Review of Assessment  RMO1998/0070

Documents were circulated with the agenda (p. 65-72). Professor M Evans invited submissions and feedback from members on the assessment review and asked for volunteers to form a working party. Professor T Dingle and Associate Professor G Hildebrand volunteered to participate on the working party.

14.2  Academic Advisory Board (Malaysia)  RMO2006/0515

The minutes of meeting 2/2005 held on 21 June 2005 and meeting 1/2006 held on 24 January 2006 were attached to the agenda. (p. 73-94).

The Education Committee received the minutes of meetings 2/2005 and meetings 1/2006 of the Academic Advisory Board (Malaysia).

*14.3  MEQ Benchmarking 2005  RMO1999/0182

Documents were circulated with the agenda (p. 95-198). The Chair stated that Monash seemed to be on an upward trend.

*14.4  Board of Studies (South Africa)  RMO2003/0371

The minutes of meeting 2/2006 held on 30 March 2006 and meeting 3/2006 held on 11 May 2006 were attached to the agenda. (p 207-215). The Chair advised that minutes of meetings of the Board of Studies (South Africa) would be regularly forwarded to Education Committee. Faculty representatives on the committee were advised to note the proceedings of the meetings to keep abreast of developments on the South Africa campus.

*14.5  Additional meeting of Education Committee  RMO2005/1422

The Chair proposed that an additional meeting of Education Committee be scheduled in December to enable subcommittees to report on their business for the year. The date for meeting 7/2006 of the Education Committee will be Wednesday 13 December, from 2:15pm to 4 pm in the Sir George Lush Room, building 3A, Clayton campus.

The attached compliance audit report was attached to the agenda (p. 55-56). The report provided a comparison of the reports provided in October 2005 and the recent audit completed in May 2006. Professor M Evans, informed members that it was planned to conduct the compliance audit biannually. Faculties would be provided with their previous response and they would only need to indicate improvements.

Faculties were invited to note that the next reporting of faculty compliance with education policies and procedures is scheduled to be presented at Education Committee Meeting 6/06 on 11 October 2006.

Faculties will provide a biannual report to Education Committee on faculty compliance with education policies and procedures.

The next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee (Meeting 5/2006) will be held at 2:15 pm on Wednesday 6 September 2006 in the Sir George Lush Room, Ground floor, Building 3a, Clayton campus.

All final submissions for the agenda for that meeting are due by Wednesday, 23 August 2006.