Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee Meeting 1-2009

A Sub-committee of Education Committee

Meeting 1/09 of the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQC) was held on Thursday, 19 February 2009 in the Sir George Lush Room, Building 3a, Clayton campus.

MINUTES

1. Apologies and attendance

There were present: Professor Adam Shoemaker (Chair), Professor Stephen Barkoczy, Dr Angela Carbone, Dr Stephen Legg, Dr Kristina Macrae, Ms Lauren O’Dwyer, Dr David Squire, Professor Phil Steele, Associate Professor Cristina Varsavsky, Mr David Watson, Professor Len Webster.

Apologies: Dr Lorraine Bennett, Associate Professor Gary Codner, Associate Professor Louise McCall, Professor Peter Stewart.

Professor Shoemaker welcomed members and Dr Squire to the first meeting of the LTQC for 2009.

2. Confirmation of Minutes

The minutes of LTQC meeting 6/08 held on 20 October 2008 were confirmed.

3. Matters Arising

3.1 Plagiarism Detection Software and Damocles

Introducing the item, Professor Shoemaker informed members that there was significant interest in the potential use of Damocles as an educative tool at Monash.

Commencing his presentation, Dr Squire informed members that the basic principle that defines plagiarism is that it is the “passing off of someone else’s words or ideas as one’s own”. Damocles is utilised in more than 100 units offered across the Business and Economics, Information Technology, and Law faculties, and Monash College.

Issues around plagiarism and the use of plagiarism detection software included:

the strategic role of plagiarism detection software, in the context of whether it was used in a punitive way or to educate students on best practice;
pressure on students to succeed, particularly full-fee paying students;
the premise that, if students have the ability to paraphrase, they also have an explicit understanding of the source content;
cultural differences. For example, high rates of plagiarism among students enrolled in masters degrees offered by the Faculty of Information Technology. The majority of such cases involve international students who have completed undergraduate studies at institutions where rote learning is common and debate/independent thinking are discouraged;
evidence that when plagiarism detection software and measures to educate students about plagiarism were in place, three per cent of students would continue to plagiarise. These students were predominantly young males who do not understand the serious consequences of such risk-taking behaviour; and
a perception that the shift to a mass higher education system had devalued tertiary qualifications and created an environment where plagiarism was viewed as a means to an end;
the resources required to identify plagiarised work and pursue the matter at a school/department/faculty level.

Demonstrating a Damocles staff user interface, Dr Squire informed members that staff would be able to access the following features:

an online colour-coded originality report, with sections in bold and colour indicative of content matches above the threshold of five consecutive words;
a function to sort content according to the number of words plagiarised, with a link to the webpages from which the content had been taken; and
a function to identify content matches amongst students enrolled in the same unit and also students enrolled in the unit in previous semesters.

With regard to the Damocles student user interface, Dr Squire noted that:

students would log into their account and click on the file name of the assessment;
if Damocles had identified potential plagiarism in the work to be assessed, students would receive a warning before the due date for the assessment, allowing them to address the problems prior to final submission. It was noted that students could still override the system and submit the work for assessment; and
the student user interface does not offer students access to the report available to staff, as this may encourage poor writing practices, such as copying and amending every fifth word.

During discussion, the following points were made:

education about the value of referencing to avoid unintended plagiarism and best practice for writing in an academic environment could take place in Week 1, followed by reinforcement of the message during Survival Week;
the current agreement that Dr Squire has with an external provider has a capacity to scan up to a maximum of 100,000 words per day;
to roll out Damocles across Monash would require funding to increase capacity for scanning and a commitment of further human resources;
there was a lack of consistency in plagiarism detection practice across the University. The Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences and Sunway campus, Malaysia have licences for Turnitin, three faculties and Monash South Africa use Damocles, and other faculties do not use either Turnitin or Damocles; and
Dr Squire could present on Damocles to Academic Board and Education Committee.

Members expressed their congratulations to Dr Squire on his significant achievement in building Damocles and thanked him for his presentation.

Resolution:

The Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee referred consideration of plagiarism detection software and the potential for Damocles to be used on a University-wide basis to Education Committee and Academic Board.

For Action/Information: Dr D Squire, Mr Fenaughty

4. Update on CALT Activities

4.1 Unit Guide Template Policy

Associate Professor Webster informed members that the Unit Guide Template Policy was developed during extensive consultation by Dr Bennett with LTQC members. During discussion, the following points were made:

University policy is implemented through complementary procedures that detail the standard approach and parameters;
policies have a long shelf life, whereas procedures can be adjusted as the need arises;
under the first sub-heading “Purpose” (refer agenda page 8), the third dot point “is of a consistent quality across all faculties of the university” is ambiguous;
under the fourth sub-heading “Policy Statement” (refer agenda page 8), the syntax of the second and fourth dot points could be revised to clarify the use of “only”. In the second dot point, “managing faculty” could be amended to teaching faculty;
under the fourth sub-heading “Policy Statement” (refer agenda page 8), the third dot point implies that there will be multiple unit guides under the same unit code. The sentence could be revised to indicate that the guide will contain information common to all campus offerings, and information specific to each campus offering or stream;
unit guides could be a component of student evaluation of units, however there would be significant challenges in relation to ensuring that guides for all units would be available by the first day of each semester; and
under the fourth sub-heading “Policy Statement” (refer agenda page 8), the sixth dot point could be relocated to the Unit Guide Template Procedures.

Resolution:

Learning, Teaching and Quality resolved that:

the draft Unit Guide Template Policy would be amended, as follows:
- under the first sub-heading “Purpose” (refer agenda page 8), delete the third dot point “is of a consistent quality across all faculties of the university”;
- under the fourth sub-heading “Policy Statement” (refer agenda page 8), revise the syntax of the second and fourth dot points to clarify the use of “only”, and amend “managing faculty”, as follows (deletions italic, additions in bold):
  - “There will only be only one Unit Guide per unit of study. The Unit Guide must only be developed and/or amended only by appropriately authorised staff in the managing teaching faculty. A suitable review process will also be established”; and
  - “The title “Unit Guide” may only be used only for a publication developed from the Unit Guide Template”;
- under the fourth sub-heading “Policy Statement”, the third dot point would be amended, as follows (deletions italic, additions in bold):
  - “The Unit Guide is to contain information which is common to all campus offerings or streams, as well as information which is specific to each campus offering or stream and information specific to each campus offering or stream.
- under the fourth sub-heading “Policy Statement”, the sixth dot point would be relocated to the Unit Guide Template Procedures.

For Action/Information: Drs L Bennett and K Macrae

5. Chair’s Report

Due to time constraints, this item was held over.

6. Update on CHEQ Activities

6.1 Update on CHEQ 2009 Structure

6.2 Unit Evaluation Criterion for Commendation Letters from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education)

Dr Macrae sought and was granted permission by members to circulate items on the CHEQ 2009 structure and unit evaluation criterion in soft copy for comment.

For Action/Information: Dr K Macrae

7. Draft Faculty Guidelines and Checklist for Implementation of the Academic Programs Offered from Multiple Campuses Policy

Professor Steele informed members that the guidelines and checklist were developed to enable faculties to maintain an audit trail of the implementation of the Academic Programs offered from Multiple Campuses Policy and that extensive consultation with members on the draft guidelines and checklist had informed the current iteration.

In relation to the distinction between a managing and a teaching faculty, it was agreed that Associate Professor Varsavsky would liaise with Professor Steele to refine this element.

Resolution:

Learning, Teaching and Quality resolved that, subject to an explicit articulation of managing/teaching faculty, the Faculty Guidelines and Checklist for implementation of the Academic Programs offered from Multiple Campuses Policy would be transmitted to Education Committee for noting.

For Action/Information: Professor P Steele, Associate Professor C Varsavsky

8. Other Business

No other business.

9. Next Meeting

The next LTQC meeting will be held on Thursday, 2 April 2009, in the Sir George Lush Room, Building 3a, Clayton campus, commencing with informal discussion from 12.30pm and followed by the meeting commencing at 1.00pm.