university education committee agenda – 28 …web/@gov/documents… · university education...

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE AGENDA – 28 JANUARY 2015 Agenda of the 01/2015 meeting of the University Education Committee to be held at 9.30am on Wednesday 28th January in the University Council Room. PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS A1 Welcome, Apologies and Leave of Absence A2 Arrangement of Agenda A2.1 Conflicts of Interest A2.2 Starring of Items

A2.3 Adoption of Unstarred Items Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee adopt the resolutions that are put to the committee unstarred

A3 Business Arising from the Minutes

*A4 Confirmation of Minutes ATTACHMENT p3

Draft Resolution that the minutes of the 04/2014 University Education Committee meeting of 11th November 2014 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

A5 Chair’s Report PART B – COMMITTEE BUSINESS B1 Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee ATTACHMENT p14

Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee:

a. receive the draft minutes of the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee meeting of 2 December 2014; and

b. note the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee 2015 workplan, as attached to the agenda paper.

B2 Education Policy Review Subcommittee ATTACHMENT p26

Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee:

a. receive the draft minutes of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 2 December 2014; and

b. note the education Policy Review Subcommittee 2015 workplan, as attached to the agenda paper.

Ctee_2015_University Education Committee_Agenda_280115 1

PART C – GENERAL BUSINESS *C1 ACODE Benchmarking – Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) ATTACHMENT p37 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee note the attached update paper on TEL benchmarking activities being undertaken by the University.

*C2 Academic Integrity Task and Finish Group ATTACHMENT p57

Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee endorses the proposal to establish an Academic Integrity Task and Finish Group as detailed in the agenda papers.

C3 Library Opening Hours ATTACHMENT p60 Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee note the enhancements to 2015 Library opening hours,

Wollongong Campus. C4 Library Information Resources and the Online Learning Environment ATTACHMENT p64 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee note the enhancements to Library services and integration of resources in the online learning environment.

*C5 Third Party Delivery Quality Assurance Policy Suite-Review ATTACHMENT p65 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee note the proposed approach to the quality assurance of courses delivered collaboratively, as outlined in the agenda paper.

C6 TEQSA Update ATTACHMENT p67 Draft Resolution

that the University Education Committee notes the TEQSA & Standards Update as set out in the agenda paper.

C7 AQF Update ATTACHMENT p72 Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee:

a. note the update on AQF implementation activities being undertaken by the University, and b. note the completion of AQF Validation.

C8 Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 9.30am on Wednesday 25th March.


UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE MINUTES AGENDA ITEM A4 The draft minutes of the 05/2014 University Education Committee meeting of 11 November 2014 are attached to the agenda paper. Draft Resolution that the draft minutes of the University Education Committee meeting of 11 November 2014 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

ATTACHMENT

Draft University Education Committee Minutes – 11 November 2014 Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Executive Officer, University Education Committee

Prof Eeva Leinonen Chair, University Education Committee


UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE – 11 NOVEMBER 2014

MINUTES Minutes of the 05/2014 meeting of the University Education Committee held at 9.30am on Tuesday 11 November 2014 in the University Council Room. PRESENT:

Prof Eeva Leinonen (Chair) Dr Jennifer Heath Dr Julie Kiggins A/Prof Romy Lawson Dr Ian Piper Dr Bob Brown Mr Dominic Riordan A/Prof Christian Ritz Prof Wilma Vialle Mr Joshua Brown Prof Paul Chandler Prof Mark Dowton Ms Margi Jantti Dr Grace McCarthy Dr Dominique Parrish A/Prof Ian Porter Mr Martin Smith A/Prof Margaret Wallace Mr Jim Davies (Executive Officer)

IN ATTENDANCE:

A/Prof Bill Ashraf Ms Nuala O’Donnell Ms Paola Cicarelli Prof Patrick Crookes Dr Kellie Ridges Mr James Conroy Mr Stephen Kirk Mrs Jan Sullivan

UNABLE TO ATTEND:

Ms Fran Walder Ms Anne Snowball A/Prof Gary Noble Ms Belinda Cheng

PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS *A1 Apologies and Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Dr Sandra Chapple, Professor Joe Chicharo. Professor Anne Cusick, Ms Debra Hocking, Ms Megan Huisman, Professor Tim Marchant, Associate Professor Katina Michael, Dr Marcus O’Donnell, Ms Julie Renwick, Associate Professor Rodney Vickers, Professor Graham Williams, and Associate Professor Michael Zanko.

*A2 Arrangement of Agenda

2.1 Conflicts of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest noted by members.

2.2 Starring of Items

Mr Martin Smith requested that item B4 be starred. In addition, the Chair asked A/Prof Romy Lawson to speak briefly to item C10.


A3 Business Arising from the Minutes

There was no business noted as arising from the minutes of the previous meeting. *A4 Confirmation of Minutes

RESOLVED 61/2014 that the minutes of the 04/2014 University Education Committee meeting of 16 September 2014 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

A5 Chair’s Report

The Chair noted that Associate Professor Indra Abeysekera had taken up a position at another University, and therefore his tenure on the University Education Committee as a representative of Academic Senate has ceased. The UEC and Academic Senate Executive Officers are working to find a replacement. The Chair thanked Mr Joshua Brown and Ms Belinda Cheng for their tenure as student representatives on the University Education Committee, noting that both members were to be commended for their diligence and commitment. The process for the recruitment of new student representatives is in train, and it is hoped that new representatives will be found in time for the first meeting of 2015.

PART B – COMMITTEE BUSINESS B1 Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee

RESOLVED: 62/2014 that the University Education Committee receive the draft minutes of the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee meeting of 7 October 2014, as attached to the agenda paper.

B2 Education Policy Review Subcommittee

RESOLVED: 63/2014 that the University Education Committee receive the draft minutes of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 15 October 2014, as attached to the agenda paper.

B3 Moderation of Assessment Working Party – Progress Report

RESOLVED: 64/2014 that the University Education Committee note the progress report on the Moderation of Assessment Working Group, as attached to the agenda paper.

B4 Student Career Development and Employability Working Party – Final

Report

Mr Martin Smith noted that, based on feedback from the 04/2014 University Education Committee, strategic priorities for 2015 and 2016 had been added to the strategy document. A key recommendation related to questioning students of their post-university intentions at the point of receiving an offer of study, and that the discussions around graduate destinations should be ongoing.


The University will roll out the ‘Focus 2’ system for students in 2015. As a compliment to Start Smart, the program will take 2-3 hours to complete, and will assist students in making choices that will direct them towards their stated career goals. In response to the strategy document, members made the following comments:

• Guest accounts for Focus 2 should be given to Faculty Education Committee members to allow them to trial the system.

• The cross-reference with the Curriculum Transformation Project that is embedded throughout the strategy should be more explicitly stated. The document should also demonstrate the links to the student experience and outcomes KPIs that exist at a University-level.

• The interface with the Co-Curricular learning framework could be clarified. Though at present there is no minimum time requirement as required by the Co-Curricular framework, this is something that can be built in over time.

RESOLVED: 65/2014 that the University Education Committee:

i. note the UOW Student Career Development & Employability Strategy and Plan; and ii. endorse the Strategy, and approve the 2015 priorities as set out in the agenda paper.

PART C – GENERAL BUSINESS *C1 Continuing Professional Development (L&T) Framework

Associate Professor Romy Lawson informed members that to date, consultation on the Framework has taken place with each Faculty, WATTLE (the Wollongong Academy of Tertiary Teaching and Learning Excellence), the Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group, Academic Staff Development Committee, Human Resources, Regional Campuses, UOW College and UOW Dubai. The feedback received has been positive across the board. Associate Professor Lawson noted that the Framework is based on three core principles:

1. Continuous Development - supporting the development of academic staff across their entire UOW career.

2. External Facing - aligns with the requirements of external bodies including HERDSA and the Higher Education Academy. This alignment ensures that there is no duplication of work required for staff making applications to these bodies.

3. Open and entirely available online - each level has built-in Learning Outcomes which are supported through online modules. Staff develop a portfolio that demonstrates the achievement of learning outcomes.

The framework will be piloted in 2015, with full implementation to occur in 2016. The program will be open to all academic staff, including sessional staff. All modules will be self-paced. The first level of the framework will be equivalent to the ULT (University Learning and Teaching Course). In relation to comments from members, the following points were made:

• The framework will consist of four levels, with a pre-level for sessional staff and PhD students. A graduate teaching element is being considered for future development.

• It is expected that academic staff will complete some of the content in addition to their allocated teaching hours. In particular, the three hour preparatory module would be considered as part of a teacher’s pre-teaching preparation.

• Initial conversations are taking place to expand the framework beyond learning and teaching to include governance and research elements. This will enable the


framework to extend itself beyond its status as a tool for probation and promotion, to become an holistic ongoing development exercise.

• The Academic Performance Framework (APF) was not a driver for the development of the framework. Rather, it is an attempt to develop a culture of continuous career development at the University.

Associate Professor Lawson extended her gratitude and thanks to the task and finish group for their guidance in the development of the framework.


i. endorse the Continuing Professional Development (L&T) Framework; and ii. endorse the recommendations made in the Continuing Professional Development

(L&T) Framework Paper

*C2 Technology-Enriched Learning Strategy – Discussion Paper

Associate Professor Bill Ashraf noted that in an increasingly competitive higher education marketplace, a well-developed Technology Enriched Learning strategy was a means of differentiating UOW from other providers. Attached to this concept are two questions:

1. With regard to open education, what position does the University seek to take? 2. How can the University enhance its image through the development of

technology enriched learning opportunities? Consultation on the strategy is ongoing, with the final version of the strategy due for submission to the first University Education Committee of 2015. In relation to the strategy, members made the following comments:

• The strategy should include a timeline for the achievement of key milestones throughout 2015 and 2016.

• As a University, more consideration of the question of what we want to offer online needs to occur, as at present there is no University-wide strategy. Faculties are being asked to consider what strengths can be developed for online delivery in 2015.

• In relation to the distinction between online and technology-enriched, the strategy references physical and virtual resources. Furthermore, simply putting physical delivery documents (eg. lecture slides) is only one of many elements that contribute to the enhancement of learning through the use of technology.

• The current document will outline baseline expectations for technology enhancement. Upon this basis, a differentiated strategy taking UOW’s strengths into account will be built.

• More needs to be done to ensure that current technology is being used properly, and that technology is used to build on good teaching.

• A Learning Analytics cube has been developed to enable reflection on pedagogy and technological engagement.

ACTION: Dr Jennifer Heath will give a presentation to the 01/2015 University Education Committee on the Learning Analytics cube relating to engagement with technology.

\ RESOLVED: 67/2014 that the University Education Committee:

i. note the draft Technology-Enriched Learning Strategy Discussion paper, as attached to the agenda paper;

ii. provide feedback on the strategy; and iii. note that the final Technology-Enriched Learning Strategy will be presented to

the University Education Committee for endorsement in 2015


*C3 UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching

Mr Dominic Riordan noted that the key aim of the Framework was to articulate a common approach to the quality and standards of learning and teaching across the University, and to reflect the complexity of internal and external requirements in an easy to use document. The Framework is based on the four elements of Design, Delivery, Support and Performance, with the first three elements focussing on policies and procedures, and the final element geared towards outcomes. An online toolkit to support the Framework is currently under development, and will be implemented upon approval by Academic Senate. Leaders within each Faculty will be required to shape the online tool to suit the individual Faculty’s requirements. Once implemented, the tool will enable self-assessment against the standards at a faculty, course and subject level, and can be used for self-assurance against the TEQSA Threshold Standards prior to TEQSA re-registration in 2018. In response to comments from members, the following points were made:

• In addition to being embedded within the curriculum transformation process and statements regarding the role of course coordinators, the framework uses the UOW curriculum model and course directors role as focus points at a Faculty level.

• At a curriculum review level, there are a number of policies and procedures currently under development. When approved, these policy documents will be included in the Framework.

• The Framework will also be linked to the Education Evaluation Framework and Continuous Professional Development Framework.

• The Framework is underpinned by a culture of continuous improvement.

Mr Riordan noted that the cross-linkages within the portfolio of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) had facilitated the process of drafting the Framework. However, Mr Riordan also extended his gratitude to members of the team responsible for creating the Framework.


i. endorse the UOW Standards & Quality Framework for Learning & Teaching and forward it to Academic Senate for approval;

ii. note the work underway to develop an online version of the Framework and an online self-assessment tool and invite members to provide feedback during the course of their development.

*C4 Leadership & Coordination of UOW Courses: Consultation Document

Associate Professor Margaret Wallace noted that the 2011 AUQA audit recommended that the University clarify the roles and responsibilities of course coordinators. Course coordination at the University is occurring, but the manner of coordination varies from Faculty to Faculty, and the tasks involved in course coordination are often undertaken by more than one person. The current consultation document acknowledges and builds upon the work already occurring across the University. The document presents both a consolidated and distributed model, and allows for the selection of a blend of the two models.


To date consultation has been extensive, and is set to continue until the end of 2014. The final document will be presented to the first University Education Committee meeting of 2015 for approval. In relation to the consultation document, members made the following comments:

• The nature of the relationship between the course coordinator and head of school in relation to the coordination of courses can evolve over time. The changing nature of relationships at a course-level over time should be considered.

• The driver for this document is giving recognition to the work that is currently being done, and the desire to have workloads reflected in workloads models and academic probation and promotion processes.

• The Continuing Professional Development Framework contains resources that support course coordination activities.

• Efforts will be made to collate evidence collected, as the differing methods used to coordinate courses at the University represents a rich resource.


i. note the draft Leadership & Coordination of UOW Courses consultation document, as attached to the agenda paper; and

ii. note that a final version will be presented for endorsement in early 2015. *C5 Comparative Student Outcomes Monitoring Report

Mrs Jan Sullivan noted that Comparative Student Outcome reporting has, from the start of 2013, moved to a biannual reporting process. This report represents the second report for the 2013 academic year. The results of the report are similar to those found in the first half report for the same year. Mrs Sullivan drew members attention to the six recommendations contained within the report, noting work to address five of these recommendations was currently underway. However, the issue of support for indigenous students was unresolved. At present, the fail rate for indigenous students is twice that for non-indigenous students. In relation to the report, members raised\ the following questions:

• What efforts were made to benchmark UOW’s data against data for the sector? • Has there been an increase in the fail rate to coincide with the removal of the

Pass Conceded (PC) grade? Mrs Sullivan noted that sector-wide data was collected, and would look into whether this data was available for the University to use. Data relating to the impact of the removal of PC grades would be requested from the Performance Indicators Unit, and would be used to inform the review of the Supplementary Assessment Guidelines in 2015.


i. endorse the recommendations contained in the ‘Comparative Student Outcomes Monitoring Report Second Half 2013’, as attached to the agenda paper; and

ii. forward the report’s Executive Summary to the Academic Senate.

*C6 Admissions Rules and Admissions Procedures

Mr Stephen Kirk informed members that the Admissions Rules and Procedures are new documents, and (along with the Credit for Prior Learning Policy and Procedures outlined


in item C7) will replace the Admissions and Advanced Standing Policy. These documents have been subject to wide consultation. The Admissions Rules outline the different pathways available to students to gain entry to the University, and provide information on the minimum requirements for entry to the University, though they do not extend down to the course level. Course-specific requirements are still outlined in the Coursefinder. In response to comments from members, it was noted that there is no whole of Australia approach regarding the provision of information on suspended or excluded students. Rather, the rules inform students that failure to disclose exclusion or suspension from another University during the application process may be used as grounds for exclusion from UOW.


i. endorse the draft Admissions Rules and draft Admissions Procedures, as attached to the agenda paper; and

ii. forward the draft policies to Academic Senate for endorsement, prior to being forwarded to University Council for approval.

*C7 Credit for Prior Learning Policies and Procedures

Mrs Jan Sullivan informed members that the Credit and Recognition for Prior Learning Policy was informed by external changes that would lead to changes in practice. The documents are based on the principles of consistency, fairness and transparency, and will be supported by clear communications. The new policy recognises the AQF and AQF pathways policy, and attempts to recognise flexible pathways for students that improve outcomes and equity. To support the policy, information on credit published on the University’s website will be consolidated and housed in a single site. A credit precedent database is currently in development to assist staff members in assessing applications for credit. Forms and administrative processes are under review, and it is proposed that data captured will be used to track student performance. The following comments were made through the discussion of this item:

• Caution is needed regarding the temporal element of credit. When creating the database, consideration should be given to allowing users to access previous versions.

• Information on credit arrangements published on the University’s website will be subject to annual review, with the credit arrangements being reviewed under the course review cycle.

• The database should include information on the origin of the award of credit (which staff member granted the level of credit to be applied to a student).

• Data quality in the admissions system varies depending upon the admissions workload at any given time, with data quality dropping at peak times.

Mrs Sullivan noted that the maximum level of credit that could be granted for Undergraduate studies at the University remained unchanged. At postgraduate level, the maximum level of credit that can be granted has increased from 25% to 50% in response to sector-wide norms. A table representing the maximum level of credit that can be applied to all UOW courses is included in the agenda paper, and will form part of the implementation and communication strategy that will support the transition to the new arrangements.



i. endorse the revised Credit for Prior Learning Policy and Credit for Prior Learning Procedures to take effect from 1 July 2015;

ii. forward the Credit for Prior Learning Policy and Procedures to the Academic Senate for endorsement, prior to being submitted to the University Council for approval;

iii. note the accompanying Implementation & Communication Plan and the setting up of a small steering group to oversee implementation;

iv. endorse, for referral to Academic Senate and Council, the rescinding of the Admissions and Advanced Standing Policy; and

v. endorse, for referral to the University Internationalisation Committee and Academic Senate, the rescinding of the Quality Assurance Procedures for Overseas Credit Transfer Assessment.

C8 General Course Rules Revision


i. endorse the revised General Course Rules, noting that they will come into effect from 1 April 2015;

ii. forward the revised General Course Rules to the Academic Senate for endorsement, prior to being submitted to the University Council for approval;

*C9 Late Enrolment and its Impact on Students Results

Associate Professor Ian Porter informed members that the paper is presented in response to member’s questions at a previous University Education Committee meeting. The issue was discussed at the Education Policy Review Subcommittee, where it was determined that this was not an issue that could be addressed through policy. However, more of an effort should be made to ensure that delegated authorities are aware of the consequences when allowing students to enrol later than is allowed by policy. It was noted that the number of students enrolling after week four was not high. However, the ability of students enrolling so late to achieve satisfactory course progress was significantly impacted. It was therefore suggested that Faculties allowing students to enrol at this time might wish to consider putting mechanisms in place to support students, and the possibility of instituting ‘late enrolment study plans’ was raised. It was further proposed that a late enrolment checklist may help faculties to assist students enrolling late. It was noted that late enrolment is mainly an issue for first year students, as many re-enrolling students are able to enrol online, and may not attend class for the first four weeks. Furthermore, given the timing of in-session assessment tasks, students enrolling late may automatically be required to submit academic consideration requests, and could automatically receive Technical Fail (TF) grades for subjects that have an 80% attendance requirement.

RESOLVED: 74/2014 that the University Education Committee note the discussion paper on Late Enrolment and its impact on student results.


*C10 Assessment and Feedback Discussion Paper

Associate Professor Romy Lawson informed members that a Task and Finish Group had been put together to consider what the University considers assessment and feedback to be, and how it is supported and resourced. It was noted that the feedback element was vital to allow students to learn from early mistakes throughout a subject, and that it should occur in a timely fashion. Members supported the proposition that all students should receive feedback from an early assessment task prior to the final assessment task, as required by the Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment (COPTA). It was noted that generic feedback can be given to a cohort prior to specific information being provided to individual students. Providing feedback to students on assessment tasks can be facilitated through the use of MOODLE. The issue of Assessment and Feedback at UOW will be consulted on more widely, and will be presented to the first University Education Committee meeting of 2015 for endorsement.


i. note the discussion paper on Assessment & Feedback; and ii. provide comments on the draft principles and timeline, as set out in the agenda

paper. C11 AQF Update

RESOLVED: 76/2014 that the University Education Committee;

i. note the update on AQF implementation activities being undertaken by the University; and

ii. note the closing of the AQF Working Group. C12 TEQSA and Standards Update

RESOLVED: 77/2014 that the University Education Committee note the TEQSA & Standards Update as set out in the agenda paper.

C13 University Education Committee Membership and Terms of Reference

RESOLVED: 78/2014 that the University Education Committee: i. endorse the changes to the Terms of Reference of the University Education

Committee, as set out in the agenda paper; and ii. forward the amended Terms of Reference to Academic Senate for approval.

C14 University Education Committee 2015 Meeting Dates

RESOLVED: 79/2014 that the University Education Committee approve the committee meeting dates for 2015 as set out in the agenda paper.

C15 Any Other Business


No further business was discussed. C16 Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled to be held on 28 January 2014.

The meeting closed at 11.50. Signed as a true record:

------------------------------

Chairperson / /


ACADEMIC QUALITY AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM B1 The draft minutes of the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee meeting of 2 December 2014 are attached to the agenda paper. Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee:

a. receive the draft minutes of the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee meeting of 2 December 2014; and

b. note the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee 2015 workplan, as attached to the agenda paper.

ATTACHMENT i. Draft Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee minutes – 2 December 2014

ii. Draft Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee 2015 Workplan Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Executive Officer, Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee

Executive Officer, University Education Committee

Prof Eeva Leinonen Chair, University Education Committee


Academic Quality & Standards Subcommittee (AQSS) Meeting of 2 December 2014 Minutes [to be ratified 24 February 2015]

Minutes of the 06/2014 meeting of the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee held from 2:30pm on 2 December 2014 in Meeting Room 6.102. PRESENT: Associate Professor Michael Zanko (Chair) Dr Simon Bedford Professor Anne Cusick Dr Bill Damachis Dr Jennifer Heath Associate Professor Grace McCarthy

Mr Josip Matesic Dr Dominique Parrish

Mr Dominic Riordan Associate Professor Christian Ritz Dr Sharon Tindall-Ford Associate Professor Rodney Vickers Associate Professor Margaret Wallace Professor Graham Williams

IN ATTENDANCE: Ms Jan Sullivan (Executive Officer) Ms Kathleen Malone (UOW College) Ms Anne Melano (Learning, Teaching & Curriculum)

APOLOGIES: Associate Professor Romy Lawson Ms Karina Murray Ms Julie Renwick Ms Anne Snowball

Professor Wilma Vialle PART A - PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A1. Welcome The Chair welcomed members to the sixth and final AQSS meeting for 2014. In recognition that this was Josip Matesic’s last meeting as the student representative on AQSS, the Chair extended his thanks and appreciation to Josip for his valuable contribution to the committee over the past two years. A new student representative will be appointed early next year.

A2. Apologies and Leave of Absence Apologies were received from Romy Lawson, Karina Murray, Julie Renwick, Anne Snowball and Wilma Vialle.

A3. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Chair advised of a proposed change to the wording of the last paragraph under item B1 in the Minutes of the previous meeting. The revised wording was circulated at the meeting and was accepted by all members.

Resolved 42/14

That the Minutes of the previous meeting of AQSS held on 7 October 2014 be accepted, as amended, as a true record of proceedings.


A4. Business Arising from Previous Minutes

There was no business arising A5. Chair’s Report

The Chair spoke briefly about a meeting of the Chairs of Academic Boards held last week in Melbourne at which the topic of academic integrity was writ large. He cited an example of recent work undertaken at the University of Canberra which has developed a three pronged approach to dealing with academic integrity issues.

The integrity of Academic Boards was also discussed and the Chair made mention of an internal audit conducted at Flinders University of its Academic Board. He felt this University could benefit from the findings of this audit which he planned to share, in the first instance, with our Chair of Academic Senate.

He also mentioned that two items from this committee, the Standards & Quality Framework for Learning & Teaching and the CSO Monitoring Report for Second Half 2013, were both being considered at Academic Senate tomorrow. (Note: Senate approved the Framework and the recommendations in the CSO Report).

The Chair also thanked Simon Bedford for representing this committee on an internal panel undertaking an audit of UOW courses delivered by the UOW College. The findings of this audit are expected to be reported to this committee in February 2015.

PART B – STANDING ITEMS B1. TEQSA and Standards Update

The Chair advised that the new higher education standards have been finalised and presented to the Minister, however they are not expected to be in place before 2016. He also mentioned that at the recent forum he had attended, there was some suggestion of TEQSA and the Higher Education Standards Panel being rolled into one organisation. He made reference to the “variable touch” or “graduated regulatory approach” that TEQSA expects to take and to the increasing emphasis being placed by TEQSA on institutional self-assurance.

On this last point, the Chair noted the importance of UOW keeping a line of sight on the AUQA audit recommendations. He further suggested that we use the recently published TEQSA guidance notes (as mentioned in the agenda papers) as a basis to undertake an analysis of UOW’s performance. The Director of Academic Quality & Standards (AQS) advised that his unit had commenced a review of progress in implementing the AUQA audit recommendations and a gap analysis against the checklists within the Academic Governance and Corporate Governance guidance notes. The guidance note on Nested Courses was also being used by the Course Management Coordinator to inform a review of course structures. The results of this work will be reported to the next meeting of this committee.

Resolved 43/14

That the Academic Quality & Standards Subcommittee notes the TEQSA and Standards update provided with the agenda.

B2. Moderation of Assessment Working Group Update

The Director AQS reported on behalf of the Chair of the Moderation Working Group who was unable to attend the meeting. He advised the group had made good progress throughout the year, that useful feedback had been received on the UOW Grade Descriptor guide, and that the revised guide was going to Academic Senate tomorrow for approval [subsequently approved by Senate]. He also said that the group had benefitted from the visit by Professor Chris Rust who had affirmed that the work being undertaken in Australia on calibration and assessment


‘communities of practice’ represented a better model, in his opinion, than the external examiner system in the UK.

The meeting discussed the timing of policy changes to assessment more broadly, with the Director of AQS advising that the review of the Code of Practice Teaching & Assessment (COPTA) was expected to be completed by mid-2015. Dominique Parrish stressed the importance of policy as the driving force behind change and advocated for early and widespread consultation on the COPTA review. One of the issues noted was the fact that COPTA is silent on the development of course materials.

There was broad agreement that COPTA is a critical policy; that it is important that it reflect what it is the University is trying to achieve; and that the review engages with a broad range of people within the University. It was agreed that the COPTA review would become a standing item on AQSS’s agenda for next year.

Resolved 44/14

That the Academic Quality & Standards Subcommittee notes the progress report from the Moderation of Assessment Working Group and requests that Assessment (in addition to moderation) becomes a standing item for the committee in 2015.

B3. Members’ Business

Public Release of Subject Outlines Dominique Parrish raised the issue of Subject Outlines being publicly available to prospective students. She advised that her faculty has put considerable effort into getting subject outlines for Autumn session ready to be published online only to be told that they could not be placed in the public domain. She had been informed that the Web Management Policy and Intellectual Property (IP) restrictions prevented the release of Subject Outlines on the public website. She felt that this contravened UOW’s obligations under Threshold Standard 6.3 which requires the provision of “current, accurate, adequate, and openly accessible information for prospective and enrolled students on all matters relating to their studies”.

One member suggested that a Moodle site be created for each course so that students can access subject information prior to enrolling in particular subjects. However, it was noted that students can only access Moodle after they had enrolled and that enrolment in a course and subsequent subject selection generally occurs as part of the same process and on the same day.

The debate around publishing subject outlines centred on issues of ownership and valuing the work of academics (the suggestion being that we “undervalue the work of academics by giving subject outlines away”), on the one hand, and our obligation to prospective students to provide sufficient information to enable them to make informed subject choices, on the other.

One member suggested creating two versions of a subject outline with an abridged version to be place on the public website. Macquarie University was cited as an exemplar of this practice. Some members did not favour this option as it would create additional work and was not an efficient use of an academic’s time. The new Course Management system may provide a solution to this issue, however this is still some time away from being developed.

On the issue of IP, the point was made that many universities are making their subject outlines available online and, indeed, that many prestigious universities worldwide are putting courseware in the public domain.

The debate was concluded by Dominic Riordan undertaking to liaise with Legal and Corporate Governance (the Unit responsible for the Web Management and IP policies) to see if a resolution to this issue might be agreed that would satisfy SMAH.

The Chair suggested that the wider issue raised, which was about the University meeting its obligations under the Information Standards, ought to be the subject of further discussion across the University next year.


PART C – GENERAL BUSINESS C1. Academic Integrity Update

Dominic Riordan spoke to this item, advising that the University had been contacted by TEQSA with a request to report on what actions were being taken in relation to the allegations of essay fraud by university students (including UOW students) made in the Fairfax media last month. He felt that the University had a good story to tell - including that we have already strengthened our Student Conduct Rules to deal with essay sharing and the use of essay writing services; have commenced a comprehensive review of assessment policy and practices; and have a number of academics who have published research on designing assessment to avoid student misconduct.

Discussion ensued about perceptions of how well the University handles student misconduct. A range of views were expressed. It was generally agreed that staff need more confidence in dealing with student misconduct (more effort needs to be put into encouraging academic staff to attend the training sessions offered) and students need stronger warnings about the consequences of misconduct.

It was further noted that a Task & Finish Group is being set up to oversee the review of the Academic Integrity & Plagiarism Policy (due for review October 2014), which will complement the work already underway to improve assessment practices.

Resolved 45/14 That the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee notes the Academic Integrity Update as provided with the agenda papers.

C2. Course Analytics Report / Learning Analytics

Jennifer Health spoke to her report providing background information on the development of the Course Analytics Report (CAR) with the first round of reports being released earlier this year. Feedback from Executive and Associate Deans has been positive with some suggestions for improvement including the inclusion of some basic financial data and more discrimination between international and domestic students. Dr Heath outlined the governance structures that have been put in place to support the CAR including a Learning Analytics Governance Committee and a Learning Analytics Ethical Use of Data Committee.

Dr Heath referred to the ‘Student Engagement’ graph in the Learning Analytics update provided with the agenda. She advised that she was seeking ‘early adopters’ from each faculty (30 in all) to start using this data as part of a pilot aimed at testing and refining the use of learning analytics to better assist student learning.

Members agreed that this type of data was useful as it would enable teachers to personalise their teaching. On the question of how this data differs to that available in Moodle, Dr Heath advised that the LA data will complement the student data in Moodle. Members were advised that the student dashboard in Moodle is coming with testing to commence in Autumn session next year. Subject Coordinators will have the option of turning this dashboard off is so desired.

Two questions were posed in relation to the CAR: (1) How does this annual high level reporting fit into the course review process? (noting the Academic Review Policy and Curriculum Review Procedures are both under review); and (2) What type and level of reporting might come to this committee? Time did not permit full discussion of these matters and the Chair requested that they be the subject of further discussion outside of the meeting.

Resolved 46/14 That the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee notes: (i) the report on the annual Course Analytics Report; and (ii) that a revised Course Review Policy will come to AQSS for consideration in early 2015.


C3. Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses

Anne Melano spoke to the revised ‘Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses Framework’, outlining the consultation process to this point and the changes made to the statement since the last AQSS meeting.

She advised that there had been a deliberate move away from writing a Course Director role description to a broader statement about course leadership in order for the document to be flexible enough for use across all faculties.

Despite this, some members felt there was still a need to have a role description for the Course Director position as a set of minimum or “must do” statements. The view was put that if all faculties filled out the Course Leadership matrix and a content analysis was then undertaken, a clearer picture of the role parameters would emerge.

It was also suggested that an additional ‘Outcomes’ column be added to the matrix (in line with standard role description statements), although Anne Melano argued that this would lead to a repetition or rephrasing of existing information.

The meeting agreed that the framework needed further discussion before it was ready to go to UEC. Anne Melano undertook to convene a small group to undertake further development work and to bring the revised statement back to this committee in February.

Resolved 47/14 That the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee notes the progress in developing a ‘Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses Framework’ and refers the framework back to an AQSS working group for further development.

C4. Offshore (Collaborative Delivery) QA Framework

Dominic Riordan spoke briefly to the draft Collaborative Delivery Quality Assurance Framework presented with the agenda and invited comment from members. A number of suggestions for changes to the framework paper were made including:

• Institutional-level assurance of prospective partners needs to take account of the existing minimum standards for Library and IT support;

• Further consideration of the annual subject level assurance process with more emphasis on reporting by exception;

• change to wording on page 41 to read that “subject level outcomes and progression data, highlighting subjects with anomalous progression rates and WAM”;

The Director of Transnational Education made the point that any quality assurance framework should not be overly burdensome for our collaborative partners and should be developed in consultation with our existing partners.

Mr Riordan advised the meeting that the new policy and procedures being developed to support collaborative delivery will come to this committee for feedback next year. They will be developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders including the Education Policy Review Subcommittee and the Transnational Education Strategic Alliances Committee.

Resolved 48/14 That the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee notes: (i) the progress being made in developing a policy framework for collaborative delivery of UOW courses; and (ii) that a draft policy and set of procedures will come to this committee in early 2015 for feedback.


C4. 2014 in Review and Looking Ahead to 2015

Jan Sullivan referred briefly to the progress report against the 2014 work plan, noting that it had been a busy year for the committee with eight out of 15 items completed and good progress made on all other items, many of which will be carried over onto the 2015 work plan. There was brief discussion on priorities for 2015, with Assurance of Learning Outcomes and Academic Integrity being mentioned as two items that should be at the ‘top of the list’ for next year.

Resolved 49/14 That the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee notes the progress report against the 2014 AQSS work plan and invites members to advise on priorities for 2015, noting that a draft 2015 Work plan will come to the first AQSS meeting for 2015.

PART D – 2015 MEETINGS D1. Meeting Dates for 2015

Please note there was an error made in the listing of meetings for 2015 in the agenda papers. The correct dates appear below. (Note: meeting requests have been sent to all members via Outlook Calendar).

24 February Tuesday 2:30-4:30pm Room 36:303 28 April Tuesday 2:30-4:30pm Room 36:303 28 July Tuesday 2:30-4:30pm Room 36:303 29 September Tuesday 2:30-4:30pm Room 36:303 24 November Tuesday 2:30-4:30pm Room 36:303

The meeting closed at 4:40pm

Signed as a true record:

------------------------------

Chairperson / /


Summary of actions arising from meeting

Item No.

Item title Action required Responsible Officer

B2 Moderation of Assessment Update

COPTA Review to become standing item for 2015

Jan Sullivan, AQS

B3 Members Business -Subject Outlines

Seek resolution on issue of online publication of subject outlines

Dominic Riordan, AQS and Dominique Parrish, SMAH

C2 Course Analytics Report

Offline discussion of CAR and role of AQSS

Chair, Jennifer Heath, Dominic Riordan

C3 Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses

Further consultation on Course Director role description/Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses framework

Anne Melano and Margaret Wallace with Dominque Parrish and others

C4 Collaborative Delivery QA Framework

Collaborative Delivery Framework to be revised in response to feedback

AQS officers

C5 2015 Workplan 2015 Workplan to be developed with input from AQSS members

Jan Sullivan, AQS


ACADEMC QUALITY & STANDARDS SUB-COMMITTEE (AQSS) DRAFT WORKPLAN 2015 [TO BE RATIFIED BY AQSS 24.02.15]

UOW STRATEGIC GOAL 2: LEARNING & THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE Objective 2.2: Continuously assure the quality and standards of the curriculum, teaching and outcomes of our programs at all UOW locations

STRATEGY 1: UOW L&T STANDARDS – Communicate & Implement the Quality & Standards Framework for Learning & Teaching AQSS Actions Performance Measure Deadline Progress [as at xxx]

1. Ensure UOW community is aware of and operating to standards by communicating/implementing the UOW Quality & Standards Framework for Learning & Teaching.

Website developed and launched Q2

2. Oversee development of an online self-assessment tool (for use by faculties, schools and units) together with accompanying procedure; test and launch Framework and self-assessment tool.

Procedure and self-assessment tool developed and trialled

Self-assessment tool in use

Q2 by Q3

3. Oversee review of Framework once revised national Higher Education Standards are legislated.

Revised Framework presented to UEC>Senate

Q3-Q4

STRATEGY 2: COURSE STANDARDS - Ensure all UOW Courses are compliant with AQF and UOW standards and have AOL process AQSS Actions Performance Measure Deadline Progress and evaluation of outcomes

4. Provide input into review course review policy and procedures and ensure UOW courses are align with standards and external reference points (including UOW curriculum model).

New course-related policies and procedures approved and implemented

Q2

5. As part of above, strengthen processes for accreditation/re-accreditation of UOW courses and governance oversight of

Annual report on progress in meeting 2015 Course Review

Q4


UOW Course Review Schedule (incl. professional accreditation).

Schedule to AQSS>SCDC>AS

6. Develop model, processes for assurance of learning outcomes (curriculum mapping, portfolio of evidence etc)

Process in place (to AQSS by Q3) Q3

7. Ensure annual course review (Course Analytics Report (CAR)) is integrated with quality assurance processes for L&T.

CAR reporting Q4

STRATEGY 3: INTERNAL AUDITS & REVIEWS – Monitor compliance with L&T policy and standards across all locations; review and improve quality frameworks and procedures SAQS Actions Performance Measure Deadline Progress and evaluation of outcomes 8. Monitor quality of L&T via annual auditing e.g. new subject

proposals, subject outlines, subject reviews, other COPTA provisions, credit decisions etc.

Audit reports tba

9. Oversee annual audit of UOWC pursuant to QA Agreement. 2014 Audit Report to AQSS 2015 audit conducted

Q1 Q4

10. Oversee implementation of English Language Policy. Regular reports to AQSS ongoing

11. Oversee development of Collaborative Delivery of UOW Courses Policy and supporting procedures (incl. offshore delivery).

Revised policy & procedures to approved (to AQSS for feedback by Q2)

Q2

12. As part of above, oversee development of new procedures for Joint and Dual Awards.

New procedures approved (to AQSS for feedback by Q1)

Q1

13. Provide input into review of Academic Integrity policy & Revised policy approved (to AQSS Q1-2


practice for feedback by Q3)

14. Oversee development of new moderation policy and provide input into review of assessment policies and practices.

Revised COPTA/Assessment guidelines/moderation provisions approved

Q4

15. Oversee development of new guidelines for Teacher Qualifications and Relevant Professional Experience.

New Guidelines approved (to AQSS by Q2)

Q2

16. Oversee development of new guidelines for non-traditional delivery of UOW courses (MOOCS, UOW badges etc).

New Guidelines approved (to AQSS by Q3)

Q3

STRATEGY 4: EXTERNAL AUDITS - Monitor UOW’s preparations for TEQSA Quality Assessments, ESOS registration and renewal of provider registration SAQS Actions Performance Measure Deadline Progress and evaluation of outcomes

17. Oversee compliance reporting against new National Standards and ensure that non-compliance matters (matters where policy, systems or practice are deficient) are centrally reported, monitored and actioned as appropriate.

New Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) developed (to AQSS by Q3)

Q3

18. Oversee compliance reporting against ESOS National Code and ensure that non-compliance matters are centrally reported, monitored and actioned as appropriate.

ESOS National Code Audit Report

Q3

19. Oversee planning for renewal of registration and any TEQSA Quality Assessments to be undertaken during 2015.

Renewal of TEQSA Registration timeline developed

Q1 ongoing


STRATEGY 5: DATA - Monitor performance and feedback data to ensure compliance with Learning & Teaching Standards SAQS Actions Performance Measure Deadline Progress and evaluation of outcomes

20. Review compliance with standards via monitoring of performance and feedback data - e.g. annual Comparative Student Outcomes (CSO) Monitoring Report

Annual CSO process conducted Q1 and Q3

21. Provide input into a review of student surveys incl. Subject Evaluation Survey (SES)

Revised SES in place tba


EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM B2 The draft minutes of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 2 December 2014 are attached to the agenda paper. Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee:

a. receive the draft minutes of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 2 December 2014; and

b. note the education Policy Review Subcommittee 2015 workplan, as attached to the agenda paper.

ATTACHMENT i. Draft Education Policy Review Subcommittee minutes – 2 December 2014

ii. Draft Education Policy Review Subcommittee 2015 Workplan Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Executive Officer, Executive Officer, Prof Eeva Leinonen


EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES – Wednesday 2 December 2014 Minutes of the 6/2014 meeting of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee held at 10:00am on Wednesday, 2 December 2014 in Building 8, Room 114. PRESENT: A/Prof Ian Porter (Chair) Dr Stephen Brown Dr Julie Kiggins

Mr John Littrich A/Prof Pauline Lysaght Dr Kellie Ridges Mr Dominic Riordan

Prof Heather Yeatman A/Prof Michael Zanko Prof Graham Williams

IN ATTENDANCE: Ms Viji Venkat (AQS) Ms Tori Funnell (Executive Officer) PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS

A1 Welcome, Apologies and Leave of Absence The Chair welcomed Ms Viji Venkat, from Academic Quality & Standards, who was in attendance to speak to item B1.

A2 Business Arising from the Minutes There was no business arising from the Minutes.

A3 Confirmation of Minutes RESOLVED: 2014/30:

That the minutes of the previous meeting of EPRS held on 15 October 2014 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

A4 Chair’s Report The Chair reported that at the following policy items have been submitted to the 3 December meeting of Academic Senate:

• Admissions Rules and Procedures • Credit for Prior Learning Policy and Procedures • Student Academic Complaints Policies • Course Progress Policy • Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience

The Chair invited the Director, Academic Quality and Standards, to provide an update on the MyMaster investigation. Mr Dominic Riordan reported that in response to the recent Sydney Morning Herald report exposing essay mill company, MyMaster, which implicated University of Wollongong students, work has commenced to determine what action can be taken against the reported academic misconduct by UOW students. Further information was requested from Fairfax Media Ltd in relation to the UOW-identified applications for essay generation. This information is currently being analysed in order to identify and


investigate users of the essay mill company. A briefing paper about the investigation will be provided to the 5 December meeting of University Council. The issue has implications for the current review of the Academic Integrity & Plagiarism Policy, which may need more explicit reference to the use of essay mills. Further, the University will need to consider how it is able to demonstrably maintain academic integrity as new modes for academic misconduct develop, particularly as more university practice moves into the digital space. One mechanism to combat academic misconduct is assessment design. Mr Riordan commended the work of Ms Anne Rogerson from the Faculty of Business who is an expert in this area and will likely be given a platform on which to promote her research in the near future. A/Prof Michael Zanko reported that he had recently returned from a National Chairs of Academic Senates and Boards Conference at which academic integrity had been the primary area of discussion. There was agreement among all NSW and Territories Chairs that academic misconduct is a common problem within the current university environment. Members discussed issues relating to the current process by which investigations of alleged academic misconduct are currently undertaken, including:

• the workload involved for Subject Coordinators and/or Primary Investigation Officer to undertake thorough investigations;

• the misconception that without evidence of the original source a finding of academic misconduct cannot be made;

• the disincentive to escalate high-level cases because of experiences where the Student Conduct Committee has subsequently dismissed the allegation or allocated a low-level penalty;

• the disincentive to make a finding of misconduct in disciplines where there are implications at the graduate level, for example Law; and

• the potential need for a guidance document to assist staff in determining an appropriate penalty.

A/Prof Michael Zanko reported, as Chair of the Student Conduct Committee (SCC), that process is followed very carefully by the SCC. He went on to report that the SCC is provided with a list of penalties administered by the committee on previous occasions of findings of academic misconduct, which provides some guidance to the committee on determining an appropriate penalty. A/Prof Zanko suggested that such a list might be made available for lower level investigations to assist in penalty allocation. Members were supportive of this idea, however acknowledged the difficulty where student conduct is dealt with via poor academic practice process, for which no record keeping is required. A/Prof Zanko reported that the University of Canberra presented their model for academic integrity at the recent conference, and agreed to pass further information about the model to the Academic Quality & Standards Unit. ACTION A/Prof Michael Zanko to provide information about the University of Canberra’s academic integrity model to the Academic Quality & Standards Unit.


PART B – GENERAL BUSINESS B1 Course Policy and Course Design Procedures

Ms Viji Venkat introduced the item, reporting that since the last meeting of EPRS further drafting had been undertaken on the Course Design Procedures in consultation with staff from Learning, Teaching and Curriculum. There had been an intention to include information relating to the Curriculum Themes and Principles, however because these continue to be fine-tuned, a decision was made to not include reference to them in the Course Design Procedures at this stage. Changes that have been made to the Procedures are highlighted in the document included in the agenda papers. These changes are proposed as a result of feedback from EPRS and further consultation with affected faculties. Members noted that the nested qualifications box included on page 35 is included in response to revised advice from TEQSA. Ms Venkat brought members’ attention to the implementation activities included in the draft Procedures on page 32 of the agenda, which are proposed as a result of faculty consultation. The Chair enquired whether the proposed implementation could result in a misalignment between elective and core subjects. Mr Dominic Riordan clarified that this is not what was intended; rather, where electives are able to be amended without having a negative impact on course structure, this should occur immediately. A member sought clarification on whether the move to 6 credit points (cp) would be enforced if a course review or reaccreditation process identified a strong justification for retaining 8cp subjects. Mr Riordan responded that should a course re-accreditation be imperilled by a change of credit point values, the 6cp move would not be enforced. However he emphasised that consultation with faculties indicated that it is very unlikely that such an event would occur, and reported that the primary concerns raised by faculties related to the implementation and transition process for moving towards the 6cp model, which prompted the proposed section in the draft Procedures relating to implementation. A member commented that the Course Design Procedures appear to be lacking in sufficient content or justification relating to pedagogical considerations. Mr Riordan clarified that the primary purpose of the move from 8cp to 6cp is to resolve issues relating to limits on student choice of subjects, student workload sitting under or over a standard session workload of 24cp, and the inbuilt disincentive for struggling students to reduce workload when undertaking three 8cp subjects as opposed to four 6cp subjects due to problems with Centrelink and visa requirements. Retaining the 8cp model gives rise to pedagogical issues around trying to fit subjects with different credit point values together to form a course. Members expressed concern with endorsing the draft Course Design Procedures as a Subcommittee without feeling confident that the proposed change to the 6cp model is a Senior Executive directive. A member commented that the committee may take opposing views on whether to standardise credit point values, and on whether the procedures manage this issue effectively. Mr Riordan commented that those who were in attendance at the July 2014 meeting of UEC would agree that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) is clearly supportive of this move, and spoke in favour of it at that forum. The Chair proposed that the members move to a vote for passing the draft resolution. The Chair put forward the motion to move the draft resolution as it stood. The vote resulted in


five for and five against the motion. The Chair then put forward the motion to move an amended resolution, removing the second part of the resolution relating to endorsing the Course Policy and Course Design Procedures. The second vote resulted in nine for and one against the motion. As such the amended motion was carried. Resolved 2014/31:

That the Education Policy Review Subcommittee: i. note the further consultation undertaken with stakeholders regarding the Course Policy

and the Course Design Procedures; ii. forward the Course Policy and Course Design Procedures to the University Education

Committee The Chair agreed to arrange a meeting with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) and Director, Academic Quality and Standards, to seek a formal directive from the Senior Executive for the University to move to a 6cp model. ACTION Chair and Director, Academic Quality and Standards, to meet with Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) to seek a formal directive to move to a 6cp credit point model. The Director, Academic Quality and Standards agreed to reword the paragraph relating to consultation with the Dean of Law prior to the item being submitted to the University Education Committee to clarify that his position is that he considers the move to 6 credit points is achievable if that is the directive of the University.

B2 Underage Student Policy Dr Kellie Ridges provided a background to the item, explaining that in the past mechanisms for managing underage students have been very operational; however the need for a formal policy to direct management of underage students has now been identified. The main purpose of the policy is to clearly state the University’s position that operations will not be modified to accommodate underage students. The policy, however, does intersect, and at times, override existing policies in a number of areas. Two policy areas of note are:

1. Student Progress: where an underage student is considered to not be coping with university life (either academically or socially), the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) will have delegated authority to terminate their enrolment without requiring the student to proceed through the usual 18-month Course Progress process. This would only take place as a consequence of an in-depth monitoring process.

2. Admissions: the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) will have delegated authority to approve admission of an underage student outside of the normal admission requirements of the course. A requirement of the underage student’s admission will be regular interaction / monitoring by the Student Support Advisors.

EPRS feedback is sought on the proposed policy provisions. A member enquired whether an underage student would be required to have completed high school and/or have an ATAR. Dr Ridges indicated that this has not been the case with existing underage students, and agreed to check the new Admissions Rules and Procedures for requirements relating to matriculation. In response to a member’s enquiry, Dr Ridges confirmed that the policy does not apply to entry of an underage student into non-award study. She also confirmed that this policy is


not applicable to situations where faculties offer high school subjects to high school students. Dr Ridges reported that work is currently underway to develop further information relating to the monitoring of underage students. Members provided suggestions for other considerations relating to the policy, including:

• child protection issues such as whether University staff will be able to meet with underage students unsupervised;

• amendment to the definition of underage student to read “…14 years and 9 months and under 17 years”; and

• clarification that the policy no longer applies once the underage student has turned 17.

Resolved 2014/32: That the Education Policy Review Subcommittee provide comment on the draft Underage

Student Policy as attached to the agenda papers.

B3 Draft 2015 EPRS Workplan The Chair led the Subcommittee in reviewing the draft 2015 EPRS Workplan. The Subcommittee discussed the slated review of the Student Academic Consideration Guidelines by the Client Services team of the Student Services Division. Members agreed that the membership of Senior Manager, Academic Administration provided a conduit between Student Services Division policy activities and EPRS. The Executive Officer agreed to investigate whether the Student Academic Consideration Policy is also under review, and will invite the policy reviewer, Ms Xanthe Knox, to the next meeting of EPRS to provide an update on the review to date.

ACTION Executive Officer to investigate whether Student Academic Consideration Policy is under review by the Student Services Division.

ACTION Executive Officer to invite Ms Xanthe Knox to first 2015 meeting of EPRS to provide update on the review of the Student Academic Consideration Guidelines. Resolved 2014/33:

That the Education Policy Review Subcommittee note the draft 2015 EPRS Workplan, as attached to the agenda paper.

B4 Update Report on Moderation of Assessment Working Group The Chair reported that the item was for noting. A member commented that there is a perception that many academic-related projects are being pushed through the governance pathway without having provided sufficient and appropriate opportunities for academic staff at the grass-roots level to hear about and/or provide feedback on the projects. Members discussed the challenges of consulting across the organisation within the new faculty structure, where previously used consultation channels are no longer available. The Subcommittee also acknowledged that care needs to be given to the timing of such communications as project proposals and deliverables are often transforming and morphing regularly.


Resolved 2014/34: That the Education Policy Review Subcommittee note the update report on the Moderation

of Assessment Working Group, as attached to the agenda paper.

PART C – OTHER BUSINESS C1 2014 EPRS Workplan

The Chair congratulated the Subcommittee on its achievements throughout the year.

C2 2015 Meetings The Subcommittee noted the proposed 2015 meeting dates.

C3 Other Business The Chair noted that this was A/Prof Pauline Lysaght’s final EPRS meeting in her capacity as Student Ombudsman. The Chair thanked A/Prof Lysaght for her considerable contribution to the Subcommittee over numerous years and extended an invitation for her to continue on as an academic staff member of EPRS in 2015 should she wish to. The meeting closed at 11:45am.

Signed as a true record:

------------------------------

Chairperson

/ /


Actions Arising

Meeting Date (when the issue was

raised) Summary of Issue Responsibility

Status (In Progress, On Hold,

Completed)

4 June 2014

Supplementary Assessment Policy Prepare a briefing paper for the Senior Manager, Student Systems (ARD), regarding system change implications in relation to the anticipated review of the Supplementary Assessment Policy.

Executive Officer and Director, Academic Quality and Standards

On Hold

2 December 2014 Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy Provide information about the University of Canberra’s academic integrity model to the Academic Quality & Standards Unit

A/Prof Michael Zanko In Progress

2 December 2014 Course Design Procedures Meet with Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) to seek a formal directive to move to a 6cp credit point model

Chair and Director, Academic Quality and Standards

In Progress

2 December 2014 2015 EPRS Workplan Investigate whether Student Academic Consideration Policy is under review by the Student Services Division.

Executive Officer In Progress

2 December 2014 2015 EPRS Workplan Invite Ms Xanthe Knox to first 2015 meeting of EPRS to provide update on the review of the Student Academic Consideration Guidelines.

Executive Officer In Progress


EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT WORKPLAN YEAR: 2015

Education Policy Project Activities

Responsible EPRS members

Deadline 2015 Progress

Progressed Items from 2014

Student Academic Complaints Policies (Coursework and HDR)

Revised policies in light of complaints handling report. Address issues that have been logged and undertake further work on complaints handling.

Project Officer: Tori Funnell

Academic Grievance Policy (CW&H) and other complaints-related policy documents to be revised / developed. Approval and implementation 2014

Course Progress Policy Scheduled review to address issues that have been logged and identify through consultation any other issues.

Project Officer: Jim Davies Working Group: Dominic Riordan, Kellie Ridges Graham Williams, John Littrich +Paul Carr (Science) +Rep from SBS

Project timeline TBA

Admissions Policy & Procedures

• Review, consultation and draft revisions to Policy 2013

• Revised Policy to UEC early 2014 Project Officer: Stephen Kirk

To be reviewed 2014 Approval 2014 for implementation Autumn 2015.

Credit for Prior Learning Policy

• Benchmarking / mapping exercise with other Universities

• Develop draft Policy documents • Communicate and consult with stakeholders • Implement and communicate Revised Standards

Project Officer: Jan Sullivan

Working group/ consultation Mar-June; Draft Policy EPRS June> UEC July; Second consultation July-Aug; Final Policy EPRS Aug> UEC Sept>Senate Sept>Council Oct Implementation 2015





Curriculum Policy Framework

• Develop a policy framework that clarifies the relationship between course-related policy documents, identifies good practice and outlines regulatory requirements relating to course management:

- Review existing policy documents and develop new policy documents relating to course management

- Consult with stakeholders - Implement new policy framework

Project Officer: Viji Venkat

Staggered development, approval and implementation approach throughout late 2013 – 2014.

Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience

Provide input into scheduled review being undertaken by Academic Quality & Standards Unit.

Project Officer: Quality Officer, AQS

Review early 2014 Consultation, approval and implementation of any changes mid –late 2014

Carry Over Items from 2014

Academic Integrity & Plagiarism Policy

Undertake scheduled review, with particular focus on Appendix 1 – Use of the Turnitin Text Matching Software.

Project Officer: Stephen Kirk Review to commence mid-late 2014 and likely to extend into 2015

New Items for 2015

Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment

Undertake major scheduled review to address issues that have been logged and identify through consultation any other issues.

Project Officer: Tori Funnell TBA





Policy provisions to govern moderation of assessment practice

Provide input into policy development being undertaken by Moderation of Assessment Working Group.

Project Officer: Tori Funnell TBA

University Examination Rules

Undertake scheduled review to address issues that have been logged and identify through consultation any other issues.

TBA TBA

Supplementary Assessment Guidelines


TBA TBA

Student Academic Consideration Guidelines

Provide input into scheduled review being undertaken by Client Services Unit, Student Services Division

Project Officer: Xanthe Knox TBA

Academic Advice to Students Policy


Project Officer: Jim Davies TBA


ACODE Benchmarking – Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) AGENDA ITEM C1 In 2014, UOW participated in an international Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) benchmarking exercise based on the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-Learning (ACODE) Benchmarks.

The ACODE Benchmarks have been developed to assist institutions in their practice of delivering a quality technology enhanced learning experience for their students and staff.

There are eight benchmarks, each of which can be used as a standalone indicator, or used collectively to provide a whole of institution perspective.

Initially, the TEL Task & Finish Group conducted an internal benchmarking exercise against the ACODE Benchmarks, examining practice across faculties and central units. Consolidated data and agreed UOW scores were then used in a collaborative, comparative international benchmarking exercise with 26 other institutions at an Inter-University Benchmarking Summit that provided powerful indicators of practice. The outcomes of the ACODE Benchmarking exercise have been used to inform the development of the UOW Technology-Enriched Learning Strategy which will be presented to the University Education Committee for endorsement in 2015. Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee note the attached update paper on TEL benchmarking activities being undertaken by the University.

ATTACHMENT ACODE Benchmarking Update January 2015

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: A/Prof Romy Lawson Director, Learning, Teaching & Curriculum


Prof Eeva Leinonen, Chair, University Education Committee


UEC Update Paper January 2015: ACODE Benchmarking Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL)

1. Background The ACODE (Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-Learning) benchmarks have been developed to assist institutions in their practice of delivering a quality technology enhanced learning experience for their students and staff. The purpose of benchmarking is to support continuous quality improvement in technology enhanced learning. The approach reflects an enterprise perspective, integrating the key issue of pedagogy, with institutional dimensions such as planning, staff and student development and infrastructure provision. The benchmarks have been developed for use at the enterprise level, or by the organisational areas responsible for the provision of leadership in technology enhanced learning and their associated services. The benchmarks were originally developed as part of an ACODE funded project, initiated by Goodacre and Bridgland (2007). They were developed collaboratively by representatives of a number of ACODE member universities and independently reviewed. More recently (2014) the benchmarks have undergone a major review to ensure they are now both current and forward looking. A team of six ACODE representatives (including A/Prof Romy Lawson as the UOW representative) worked on this project and have developed a revised suite of benchmarks to assist institutions, in monitoring their capacity to provide the best possible technology enhanced learning experience for their students and staff. There are eight benchmarks, each of which can be used for self-assessment purposes either as a standalone indicator, or collectively to provide a whole of institution perspective. However, where these benchmarks become most powerful is when they are used as part of a collaborative, comparative exercise with other institutions, as part of a benchmarking exercise. 2. ACODE Benchmarks The Benchmarks cover the following eight topic areas:

1. Institution-wide policy and governance for technology enhanced learning; 2. Planning for institution-wide quality improvement of technology enhanced learning; 3. Information technology systems, services and support for technology enhanced learning; 4. The application of technology enhanced learning services; 5. Staff professional development for the effective use of technology enhanced learning; 6. Staff support for the use of technology enhanced learning; 7. Student training for the effective use of technology enhanced learning; 8. Student support for the use of technology enhanced learning.

Each of the above benchmarks includes a Scoping Statement, a Good Practice Statement, a set of Performance Indicators (PIs) and an area to make initial recommendations on that may need improvement having emerged from undertaking the assessment. 3. Technology Enhanced Learning (ACODE Benchmarking) Task & Finish Group Prior to initiating work on the Technology Enriched Strategy a preliminary group was established to undertake the ACODE Benchmarking Exercise for UOW. Membership of the group consisted of:

A/Prof Romy Lawson (Chair April - June) Tanya Barton-Saad (Group Administrator) Keith Brophy (BUS) Sasha Nikolic (EIS)

Dr Victoria Neville (SMAH) Martin Hesse (SOC) Dr Merilyn Childs (LTC) Andrew Whelan (LHA)


Carl Runeson (Disability Services) Emily Purser (LTC) Chris Brewer (LTC) Dr Marcus O’Donnell (LHA/LTC)

Sarah Lambert (LTC) Cathy Nicastri (ITS) Kate Schreiber (SMAH)

The group initially conducted an internal benchmarking exercise focussing on benchmarks 5 to 8, examining practice across faculties and central units (see appendices I-IV). This found uneven levels of staff expertise in teaching using technology, and patchy access to staff development opportunities. For students, with some exceptions there was little support for technology-enhanced learning unless the student was enrolled in a technology-focused degree. This data was consolidated and agreed scores for UOW decided by the task and finish group and then used as part of a collaborative international benchmarking exercise that provided powerful indicators of practice.

4. Inter-Institutional Benchmarking Summit At a two day intensive International Benchmarking Summit in June 2014, twenty six international institutions (see table 1) who were willing to share their practice with, and learn from others participated in a benchmarking exercise using their consolidated self-assessment data.

Table 1: Participating Institutions at the Inter-Institutional Benchmarking Summit, 2015, indicating selected benchmarks This process allowed UOW to ascertain current strengths and areas for development in comparison to these other institutions. It was also an opportunity to identify potential actions based on good practice examples provided by high scoring universities in both the benchmarks undertaken by UOW and also in the remaining four benchmarks. The data from both the self-assessment and benchmarking exercise is outlined in section 5 and the appendices.

5. UOW Self-Assessment & Comparative Data The data in this section shows the consolidated UOW score for each performance indicator for benchmarks five to eight plus the mean score for the other institutions participating in each benchmark. Those scores in bold highlight where UOW scored significantly lower than the mean score


for the other participating institutions. Details of the individual scoring across UOW and rationale for score can be found in appendices I to IV. BENCHMARK 5: Staff professional development for the effective use of technology enhanced learning Factors that were considered into the scoring of these indicators included the 2013 Moodle Transition; the Faculty re-structure; new personnel working in the DVCE portfolio including ADEs; the introduction of the Digital Learning Thresholds in 2014; and the forthcoming Technology Enriched Learning Strategy. The individual faculty/unit scores ranged from 1 to 4 indicating a lack of cohesion across the university. Good examples within faculties included established professional development strategies that linked directly to performance plans and grant opportunities for TEL related projects. It was also acknowledged that the ULT course utilised Moodle in a blended approach to learning.

Performance Indicators: 1. A framework for staff development in technology enhanced learning is part of the institution's learning and teaching strategy. (Mean 2.83; UOW 3) 2. Processes are in place and in use to identify staff development needs in support of the institution’s strategy for technology enhanced learning. (Mean 2.83; UOW 2) 3. Educational and technical expertise is used to develop quality programs and resources addressing staff development needs. (Mean 3; UOW 2) 4. Coordination occurs between those areas providing staff development for technology enhanced learning across the institution. (Mean 2.67; UOW 2) 5. Staff development for technology enhanced learning is resourced. (Mean 2.75; UOW 2) 6. Staff development programs are delivered flexibly and address differing skill levels. (Mean 2.58; UOW 2)

7. Evaluation data is used to inform the planning for continuous improvement of staff development processes. (Mean 2.67; UOW 2)

Table 2: Benchmark 5 Comparative Scores

Areas that were identified for improvement included developing an institutional strategy to foster professional development for technology enhanced learning structured around the digital learning thresholds; providing a range of support with a focus on just in time resources including the new digital literacies for staff project; encourage TEL champions/mentors with faculties; and continue to embed TEL into all centrally run continuing professional development activities. The need for evaluation to inform needs of UOW staff was also recognised, and the role of the Learning Platform Steering Committee in recognising professional development areas as the platform evolves.


BENCHMARK 6: Staff support for the use of technology enhanced learning The scores for these indicators ranged with rationale referring to moderate resourcing provided to current technologies but limited resources to emerging ones. Evaluation processes to identify were not regularly applied to ongoing services (new services were seen to undergo evaluation) and where processes did exist the data was not publically available or extensively utilised. Coordination across the university varied with evidence of work between central units (for example, LTC and IMTS) and between central units and faculties but little coordination across faculties, who were seen to predominantly work in silos. It was noted that support for more remote staff was limited and that the current ticketing system did not provide a quick enough response and so the helpdesk service was preferred.

Performance Indicators: 1. Technical and educational support is aligned with the current and emerging learning technologies being deployed by the institution. (Mean 3.11; UOW 2) 2. Procedures are in place to identify the support requirements of staff, at individual, team and institutional levels. (Mean 2.33; UOW 1) 3. Procedures are in place to regularly evaluate the support services and resources provided for staff. (Mean 2.55; UOW 2) 4. Coordination occurs between those areas providing support services for staff across the institution. (Mean 3.00; UOW 2) 5. Technology enhanced learning support services are accessible and used by staff. (Mean 3.22; UOW 2) 6. Technology enhanced learning support services are adequately resourced. (Mean 2.67; UOW 2) 7. Technology enhanced learning support services are promoted to staff. (Mean 3.44; UOW 2) 8. New technology enhanced learning services are fully analysed for staff support requirements, prior to and during the adoption process. (Mean 3.11; UOW 2) 9. There are procedures in place that ensure that evaluation data on technology enhanced learning support services for staff contributes to their continuous improvement. (Mean 2.44; UOW 2)


Recommendations for improvement in this area will stem from the new TEL Strategy with a coordinated approach to TEL support and evaluation processes ensuring a focus on both current and emerging technologies. A one stop shop approach will be being explored for both pedagogical and technical issues which incorporates a telephone triage service for all TEL related support needs.

BENCHMARK 7: Student training for the effective use of technology enhanced learning Student training again ranged across faculties with some taking an embedded approach, and others relying on online resources. Training was also offered by the Library and IMTS. Provision for Moodle was most prevalent but different disciplines did also provide specialist training. Students were also able to upskill through the SAF funded digital literacies training and resources.

Performance Indicators: 1. Student training is aligned with the technologies and teaching approaches in use at the institution. (Mean 2.60; UOW 2)


2. Student training for technology enhanced learning is adequately resourced. (Mean 2.00; UOW 1) 3. There are procedures in place to regularly evaluate the training and training resources provided for students. (Mean 2.20; UOW 2) 4. Coordination occurs between those areas providing training for students. (Mean 2.00; UOW 1) 5. Student training programs are delivered flexibly and address differing skill levels. (Mean 2.60; UOW 2) 6. Student training promotes an ethical approach to the use of social media and the technology enhanced learning services provided by the institution. (Mean 1.80; UOW 1) 7. Evaluation data is used to inform the planning for continuous improvement of student development processes. (Mean 2.00; UOW 1) 8. There are clearly defined pathways for students to access the training they require. (Mean 2.60; UOW 1)


Areas for development in this benchmark include the inclusion of TEL training at orientation for all students and the option to undertake a digital professionalism online module will both contribute to the Curriculum Transformation Theme of all students having a digitally enriched learning experience. Also the continuation of the digital literacies project to provide further training and develop more extensive resources will support student training.

BENCHMARK 8: Student support for the use of technology enhanced learning The support services for students are the same as the staff (see Benchmark 6) and so responses reflect this previous benchmark.

Performance Indicators: 1. The provision of support for students is aligned with the technology enhanced learning services used by the institution. (Mean 3.17; UOW 3) 2. Student technology enhanced learning support services are resourced. (Mean 2.67; UOW 2) 3. There are clearly defined pathways for students to access support services and these are promoted to the student body. (Mean 3.33; UOW 3) 4. Support sites and resources are accessible from commonly used devices and the analytics of student usage are monitored. (Mean 3.00; UOW 2) 5. There are procedures in place to ensure that student support services and resources are regularly evaluated. (Mean 2.50; UOW 2) 6. There are procedures in place that ensure that evaluation data on technology enhanced learning support services for students contributes to their continuous improvement. (Mean 2.50; UOW 2) 7. Coordination occurs between those areas providing support for students. (Mean 2.83; UOW 2) 8. There are procedures in place to ensure there is an alignment between student training and student support. (Mean 2.16; UOW 2) 9. Processes are in place to determine the ongoing support requirements of students. (Mean 2.33; UOW 2) 10. New technology enhanced learning services are fully analysed for student support requirements, prior to and during the adoption process. (Mean 3.33; UOW 3)



The use of student surveys and learning analytics to monitor and evaluate student support for TEL will be important in the future; these systems will then provide a feedback loop to guide continuous improvement. This will be reinforced by encouraging the student voice, for example, student representatives on steering groups and utilising peer support processes. In addition a Learning Co-op is due to pilot in Autumn 2015 to act as a one stop shop for learning support, this will include TEL support.

6. Next Steps The next steps for the benchmarking exercise are: • Conduct a self-assessment of benchmarks 1 to 4 and compare with data from Inter-University

benchmarking Summit; • Participation in future benchmarking TEL exercises (meeting the HESF requirements for external

benchmarking); • Incorporate recommendations into the 2015 TEL Strategy (see excerpts below);

SUPPORT & TRAINING

Action Timeline 2015 Timeline 2016-2018 Responsibility

Enhance Continuing Professional Development modules and develop new modules and resources as needed (both face-to-face and online) to support staff capacity to deliver technology-enriched learning

Q1-Q2 technology-enriched learning incorporated into existing CTP modules Q2-Q3 Develop modules /opportunities and/or source MOOCs and promote these to staff on topics such as open and hybrid learning, as well as technology-specific resources as required

Continued development Head, Teaching Development

Provide both students and teaching staff will with training and support in the use of digital technologies as relevant to their discipline

Digital Literacy Project (Manage Use Create) Digital Literacy for Staff project

Program Managers, Digital Literacy Projects Head, Technology Enhanced Learning Head, Technology Enhanced Learning Faculties Students

Develop clear ePrinciples for selecting and developing learning technologies. These will: support access through UOW student labs; safeguard student privacy and safety; address intellectual property issues; and incorporate the

Q1-Q2 Develop and consult Q3 Disseminate

Director, Information Management and Technology Services Head, Technology Enhanced Learning Faculties


disability access standards Scope, cost & implement an improved system to assist staff and students with teaching and learning technology questions, directing enquiries to the correct central and faculty helpdesks

Q1-Q2 Framework developed Q3 Implementation

Director, Information Management and Technology Services Head, Technology Enhanced Learning University Librarian

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

Action Timeline 2015 Timeline 2016-2018 Responsibility

Offer showcases to assist in capacity building, bringing together innovators and academic seeking to enhance their technology-enriched learning practice. These may include events and workshops

Selected showcase opportunities to be added to the 2015 Continuing Professional Development schedule

Ongoing Learning, Teaching and Curriculum

Head, Technology Enhanced Learning Faculties

Establish online communities of practice, special interest groups and discussion spaces

Establish technology-enriched learning champions, potentially through WATTLE Provide tools & exemplars to support the formation of online networks / societies

New and ongoing collaborations

Head, Technology Enhanced Learning Head, Teaching Development Faculties Director, WATTLE

References Goodacre, C., Bridgland, A. and Blanchard, P. (2005). Benchmarking Project: Evaluation Report on Workability of the Framework. Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-Learning. Available from: http://www.acode.edu.au/mod/page/view.php?id=23


APPENDIX I: Benchmark 5 - Staff professional development for the effective use of technology enhanced learning

Scoping Statement The key focus is on developing teaching staff to make effective use of a range of approaches to technology enhanced learning (TEL). Staff development activities encompass individual and group delivery, face-to-face, as well as online.

Self-directed learning activities and resources are also included. Some professional development will be designed and delivered to meet the strategic needs of the organisation, whilst other activities will be provided to meet the demands} of teaching staff as they arise.

Good Practice Statement Quality learning and teaching is brought about where people are confident, enthusiastic, skilled and well supported, and learning experiences are designed to engage the learner and employ a variety of approaches.

Engagement in professional development should not be limited by factors of physical location, equity or technological skills. This means that staff development is offered flexibly, accommodates a range of entry points, is evaluated and is informed by the work of related units.

A good practice approach to the use of technology enhanced learning reflects an understanding of learners’ characteristics and needs as required by different discipline contexts.

Team Consolidation

Benchmark 5: Staff professional development for the effective use of technology enhanced learning

1 2 3 4 5

2013 – Moodle Transition = increase in PD New Faculty Structure 2013 New DVCE/Director LTC 2013 New Head TEL 2014 Digital Learning Thresholds 2014 TEL/Open Strategy 2014 1. A framework for staff development in technology enhanced

learning is part of the institution's learning and teaching strategy. x

Rationale Range from 1-4 – university strategies in place/being developed; some faculties have no PD/strategy; some it is part of BAU; some link to performance plans; ULT Moodle blended approach. Evidence

LTC 3 LTC Action Plan Strategy 10, Technology Enhanced and open learning Digital learning thresholds implementation planned PD

SMAH 4 PD recommended by School of Nursing & Midwifery Learning, Teaching & Assessment Committee. Part of each individual's career development plan in negotiation with their HOS.

EIS 4 In EIS the majority of the faculty is based on research using technology. As a result most of the staff is expected to be at the forefront of technology in their field. The emphasis on learning is the constructivist perspective where you learn on your own.

BUS 1 No Faculty framework exists. LHA 1 There is no staff development for Faculty with respect to TEL unless any occurs in ULT. If there is strategy

within the Faculty or further afield, there is no mention of it. SOC 2 There are staff development opportunities, but no strategy/framework.


2. Processes are in place and in use to identify staff development needs in support of the institution’s strategy for technology enhanced learning.

x

Rationale Range from 1-4 – mainly ad hoc analysis at university level; some analysis linked to individual performance plans; some grant opportunities (FSA) Evidence

LTC 2 Ad hoc analysis of support requests, recurrent problems/issues identified by the support teams e.g. people keep asking up about copyright of images. Individual consultations & consultation

SMAH 3 School of Nursing & Midwifery + School of Medicine have education staff that determine staff needs. In other Schools this is part of each individual's career development plan in negotiation with their HOS. Teaching scholars have been identified in Schools & they are used to encourage staff's use of TEL. Faculty hosts showcase of good practice & is planning a repository of videos by teaching scholars to show & encourage adoption of good TEL practice.

EIS 4 Generally the main process is via the CDP or PP. Most schools seem to have some money available for development should it be needed. The faculty has 2 engineering education staff that are now available to help identify development needs in the classroom. What can be missing is identifying if TEL is being used to improve pedagogy, and the associated development needs.

BUS 1 Faculty processes are in place but not aligned/linked to institutional strategy. - Individual: Annual review/Career development plans - Unit/Faculty: Faculty Education Committee => Feedback

LHA 1

There are ad hoc and occasional processes, for example, immediately prior to the restructure, there was a one-off grant scheme (including buy-outs) for developing TEL strategies. These were competitive grants and there was no obligation to report publicly to the Faculty on conclusion and no means established for dissemination of outcomes. This one-off scheme was not repeated.

SOC 3

Some processes are in place but these are ad hoc and tend to centre on recent implementations rather than ongoing needs. Little specific to school/faculty needs. Poor consideration for individual needs.

3. Educational and technical expertise is used to develop quality programs and resources addressing staff development needs.

x

Rationale Range from 1-4 – Central unit but operates partly on project funding but still offers a large array of resources – AD/ED/LD/SC/Bus Sol/Proj Mgt/ Media Unit – Faculty Teams (ULT); some faculties seek more advanced programs; more technical courses available than educational Evidence

LTC 3-4 3 Good staff are not always retained due to short contract/project workforce Mission statement, support doc, workshops, Educational Designers, Flexi ULT, ULT, Mahara, UOW MoodleLab, eLearning@UOW, Formal Peer Review, Blog, CASR: Faculty Service Agreements, LDev - research & development in EL ed

SMAH 2 2 School of Nursing & Midwifery + School of Medicine have education staff (educational & technical) that support staff development needs..

EIS 3 3 There are a range of development programs that the university offers. Some wanted better support for more advanced things such as advanced features in Moodle. Online training tutorials, manuals etc can also be a greater resource than training programs. The new faculty now also has 2 engineering education staff to help into the future.

BUS 2 2 * At the institutional level, various PODS courses provide programs across the Learning Platform. * Need better communication/visibility around what is available.

LHA 1 1 Given that there is no evidence of staff development within the Faculty outside of bureaucratic procedures such as CDRs, there is no evidence of any kind of expertise, and certainly not of the technical or educational variety.

SOC 3 3 Not enough staff in the central unit to service the true professional learning needs. Very limited staff in faculties. Seem to be more technical courses available. Limited offerings for well-developed educational technology centrally, some of this in faculty.


4. Coordination occurs between those areas providing staff development for technology enhanced learning across the institution.

x

Rationale Ad hoc/informal only due to no university strategy however moodle transition was very successful with good consultation; faculty teams; LP Steering Gp/TEL T&F Group. Evidence

LTC 1-2 Informal discussions. No evidence available SMAH 2 In School of Nursing & Midwifery workshops in TEL are advertised & run, but attendance is optional.

SMAH is waiting for career development points from UOW Learning & Teaching. EIS 2 Some problems include little description in the actual learning objectives of the courses to determine

suitability, mismatch in speed and complexity of learning programs. BUS 1 * Without an institutional strategy, little evidence of coordination

* However, Moodle roll-out completed successfully with consultation across units LHA 2 Effective TEL occurs despite rather than because of institutional structures and relies heavily on networks

of colleagues, across Schools and Faculties, and Academic and Professional staff. SOC 1 Difficult to judge but there seem to be no courses jointly offered by educational and technical central

units.

5. Staff development for technology enhanced learning is resourced. x Rationale Resourcing is often project based (e.g. ADOBE Connect; Moodle Transition); FSA & ESDF available each year; external training self-financed; peer support occurs; self-teaching is common. WATTLE Evidence

LTC 2-3 Skeleton staff, very stretched. Responding to the big stuff, missing many opportunities to move forward on the numerous good ideas for more comprehensive change programs. Additional positions for Platform transition in EDU to develop resources and facilitate training Faculty Service Agreement (FSA) Adobe Connect Pilot Group, training workshops, evaluation

SMAH 3 Staff development is resourced by UOW through Learning Platform workshops, PODS etc, but courses outside UOW are usually financed by staff themselves. Lots of peer support through sharing of ideas.

EIS 3 Most staff in faculty teach themselves. BUS 3 When the required development is identified, it is appropriately resourced (e.g. Moodle roll-out).

However, it is necessary to articulate what that development need is (no institutional guideline or plan). LHA 1 No evidence of any resources. SOC 1 Few rewards/incentives for improving teaching through technology.

6. Staff development programs are delivered flexibly and address differing skill levels.

x

Rationale The provision available is flexible in delivery (needed for regional campuses/casual staff needs) and tailored to current needs. Funding for development is based on current needs. Evidence

LTC 2 2-3 Flexi-ULT, conducted online for the purposes of PD, using OERs, synchronous (video conferencing) and asynchronous design, focussed on sessional staff (enhancing teaching and learning of sessions staff, using TEL). One specific module on TEL, but entire site is a model as well. Recent acquisition of Adobe Connect should help with this. Individualised nature of consultations and small group workshops indicate some addressing of different skill levels LTC PD (customised) CASR: Educational Systems Development - Sharing of “hot projects” and animation show-reel CASR: Faculty Service Agreements

SMAH 2 2 In School of Nursing & Midwifery Staff development programs are offered flexibly with workshops & online learning.

EIS 2 2 If there is online training videos on tech not already available on YouTube that the university uses then it would be good to have them created for use.

BUS 2 2 Some programs are available and have been delivered well: * Casual Staff Workshops [Faculty] * Moodle Workshops (Moocers & Shakers) [Institution]

LHA 1 1 There are no staff development programs for TEL within the Faculty to our knowledge, so how they are delivered is moot.

SOC 1 1 Very little flexible delivery and mainly a ‘one size fits all’ approach.


7. Evaluation data is used to inform the planning for continuous improvement of staff development processes.

x

Rationale Limited - where evaluation is in place it is not used in a structured way to inform continuous improvement. LA on way. Evidence

LTC 2 Much of what we do is consultation based, so standard paper-based training/workshop evaluation forms are not used. Workshop teaching is often done in teams, reflections by staff on good/bad aspects informs improvement for next time. Evaluation data (held with teaching services) is used to feed into further development of workshops and resources Learning Analytics coming on line to analyse moodle based delivery.

SMAH 2 Data from subject evaluations may prompt staff to seek development in TEL. Little systematic data collection for this purpose.

EIS 3 No evidence that it is used for continuous improvement. SECTE has a detailed development program for laboratory demonstrators that has been improved via continuous improvement, both for the individual and the program.

BUS 1 * Difficult to evaluate the impact * No follow-up/evidence to determine if/how the 'development' was used

LHA 1 No indication of any TEL staff development; no indication of any evaluation data. SOC 2 Not clear how often this occurs and how.


APPENDIX II: Benchmark 6 - Staff support for the use of technology enhanced learning

Scoping Statement Staff support for the use of technology enhanced learning encompasses both technical and educational support. Technical support is required to deal with problems or needs related to the technological environment, including hardware and software, communications and connections, and performance.

Educational support addresses the needs of staff who want to use technologies and/or encounter difficulties while using them, and who need to be able to get ready access to and who want to maximise student learning outcomes

Out of scope. This benchmark does not include staff development which forms part of the more formal professional development framework – see Benchmark 5

Good Practice Statement Staff are made aware of and have access to comprehensive technical and educational support for the use of technology enhanced learning tools and services: prior to and during the implementation of the technology, in formal training sessions, on a just-in-time basis, and for troubleshooting purposes.

Team Consolidation

Benchmark 6: Staff support for the use of technology enhanced learning

1 2 3 4 5

1. Technical and educational support is aligned with the current and emerging learning technologies being deployed by the institution.

x

Rationale Broad range of support across faculties; Moderate resources allocated to current technologies as required – limited resources available for emerging Evidence

LTC 3 3 Platform support for transition: help desk, ETS & ITS ticketing systems SMAH 2 2 A new teaching facility is being built for SMAH.

School of Nursing & Midwifery encourages staff through educational designer to consider current & emerging technologies, e.g. development of resources for use on cross platform devices, multimedia resources & assessment, e-communication etc.

EIS 3 2 Support is available for technologies. In EIS the great majority of support is provided by the Faculty IT and technical staff groups as the technologies used are generally changing faster or are different from the rest of the university. Support teams are responsible for getting the tech working in the environment but the academics are responsible for driving it. When it comes to university wide TEL some have expressed the desire for better support for more complex features. Emerging technologies do not move fast enough at UOW.

LHA 4 4 The assumption within our Faculty is that if any technology is going to be used in teaching it will be that used by the institution. There is no support for 'off-grid' technology, although such technology is used in teaching.


2. Procedures are in place to identify the support requirements of staff, at individual, team and institutional levels.

x

Rationale Limited to CDP/Performance plans. Evidence

LTC 1 1 1 No evidence available SMAH 2 1 1 Only really identified through career development plan made in negotiation with HOS or

School's educational designer. EIS 4 4 4 Individuals have the CDP or PP. LHA 1 1 1 We are not aware of any such procedures at any level within the Faculty. BUS 1 1 1 * While IT Forum exists, not aware of any other channels or procedures. SOC 1 2 2 Does not seem to be diagnostic or pre-emptive.

3. Procedures are in place to regularly evaluate the support services and resources provided for staff.

x

Rationale Very limited evaluation and not publically available. Evidence

LTC 2 2 No evidence only anecdotal SMAH 1 1 None identified. EIS 2 2 Not much evidence LHA 2 2 Being teaching staff, we are unaware of how support services are determined or evaluated. BUS 1 1 * No clear channel/procedure for feedback (i.e. nothing similar Library Feedback Surveys) SOC 2 2 Not able to comment further.

4. Coordination occurs between those areas providing support services for staff across the institution.

x

Rationale Coordination occurs within some faculties but not between faculties and/or central units. Coordination occurs to a degree between LTC/ITS Evidence

LTC 1 no evidence found SMAH 2 Support staff within SMAH contact other UOW TEL support staff as required. EIS 3 Within the faculty some coordination occurs. At a university level not much evidence but some does

occur LHA 2 Could not comment. Requests for support go to centres outside of this Faculty, as there is nobody within

it tasked with support. BUS 1 * Not visible/not aware if coordination takes place. SOC 2 Not able to comment further.

5. Technology enhanced learning support services are accessible and used by staff.

x

Rationale Difficult to provide services when some faculty support staff do not have remote access to sites; Concerns about level of support from ITS and referrals back to faculty staff ; ticket system does not provide quick enough response so helpdesk preferred. Evidence

LTC 4 4 Platform support have extended hours - local coverage business hours, then Netspot pick up phone - only for Moodle and Mahara questions EduStream help desk/FAQ Help for users of EduStream, with embedded links

SMAH 2 2 Staff only use resources when they feel an immediate need, but they prefer to speak with a live person at the time, not Submit a Ticket & wait for a response.

EIS 3 3 If staff need access to support they will access it. LHA 2 2 Requests and queries (e.g. regarding Moodle) are handled via the Learning Platform Support

ticketing system. BUS 3 2 * ITS Support and Moodle support available during core working hours SOC 3 2 Staff commented on limited use of support.


6. Technology enhanced learning support services are adequately resourced.

x

Rationale Project support was good but since transition this is limited. All to ITS to streamline - triage. Evidence

LTC 3 Phone support - specialist number for platform support during transition, and email available during platform project, however no longer available

SMAH 2 Submit a Ticket suggests that live telephone advice is not adequately resourced. SMAH understands that the support help phone line is being discontinued in June.

EIS 3 This really is dependent on where the learning support is coming from. There are some areas good, some areas need more.

LHA 2 TEL is presumably resourced centrally. BUS 1 * Difficult to evaluate/gather evidence SOC 1 Not possible to make a comment on resource. They might be well resource but poorly used.

7. Technology enhanced learning support services are promoted to staff. x Rationale Project communication was good and systems are in place but are not active promotion but reference points. Streamline to one number will help. Evidence

LTC 3 Web presence announcing options for TEL assistance, Blog, ITS forums Automatic subscription announcements to new staff (eg Mahara) Mailing lists subscriptions (e.g. Moodle)

SMAH 2 Links to TEL support services are on Moodle sites & promoted regularly through All Staff email in School of Nursing & Midwifery.

EIS 3 The services are promoted but become an afterthought until specifically looking for something. LHA 1 TEL issues are either resolved informally among colleagues or via Learning Platform Support. For some

systems (e.g. Turnitin) there is no UOW support service whatsoever. BUS 3 * Roll-out of Moodle was well communicated with assistance for moving to platform

* Little by way of communicating/promoting follow-up (e.g. what to do next, advanced techniques) * Moodle support services provide pedestrian responses (limited to ticketing system and knowledge base for discussing/investigating issues - no phone support).

SOC 2 A lot of staff commented that they were not aware of what was available.

8. New technology enhanced learning services are fully analysed for staff support requirements, prior to and during the adoption process.

x

Rationale New services get evaluated but existing services are not continually analysed. Evidence

LTC 1 1 Adobe Connect Lounge - pilot groups, evaluations to determine direction of staff development however other TEL services can be introduced adhoc. Mahara well evaluated and reported on.

SMAH 1 1 There are no formal procedures for analysing staff support requirements prior to or during adoption of new TEL services.

EIS 1 1 Not much evidence LHA 1 1 Could not comment. BUS 5 5 * The Moodle review and roll-out was fully analysed with faculty visits and workshops to help staff

move to the new platform. SOC 4 4 This seems to occur with big tickets items, but possibly not well done for other technologies.

9. There are procedures in place that ensure that evaluation data on technology enhanced learning support services for staff contributes to their continuous improvement.

x

Rationale No systematic process – evidence is ad hoc. Evidence

LTC 2 No real evidence only anecdotal SMAH 2 Subject evaluations provide some data from students related to TEL, evaluation of individual’s own

career development plan may provide more data; but otherwise there is no systematic evaluation data collection on TEL support services to contribute to staff continuous improvement.

EIS 2 Not much evidence LHA 2 Could not comment. BUS 1 * While adoption/roll-out of Moodle was well communicated/delivered, there has been little follow-up

since. * Little visibility of evidence of as to what has been implemented/impact of results

SOC 1 No comment possible.


APPENDIX III: Benchmark 7 - Student training for the effective use of technology enhanced learning

Scoping Statement Technology enhanced learning services are the systems and tools used by the institution to support learning and teaching. These can include the use of: required computing equipment and software; learning management systems and associated applications; library systems; cloud-based environments; mobile technologies. Aspects of an ethical approach to technology enhanced learning are also included.

Student training refers to the applied use of such technologies in a learning context. It can take many forms and be provided by many people, for example through: specific training classes; self-help resources; or as part of a unit of study. Staff providing the training need appropriate skills which require alignment to the professional/staff development benchmark.

Out of Scope. Student training does not encompass training in other aspects of learning development (i.e. general study skills).

Good Practice Statement The provision of student training for the effective use of the institution’s technology enhanced learning services is aligned with the teaching approaches in use; is adequately resourced; is coordinated with other student support services; is flexible; is focused on the needs of students; covers a range of current technologies and reflects good practice in the use of technology.

Team Consolidation

Benchmark 7: Student training for the effective use of technology enhanced learning

1 2 3 4 5

Digital Literacies Project across Student Support Contrasting across faculties with a range of responses/technologies used across disciplines with EIS being the exception. 1. Student training is aligned with the technologies and teaching

approaches in use at the institution. x

Rationale Moodle is the norm for the majority of students but different faculties do have discipline related technology. Training varies for different faculties but not from an institutional level. Evidence

EIS 5 4 Students are immersed in a range of technologies many that go beyond the central core used within the university. Students are taught a range of technologies primarily through the subjects they undertake. This can be via labs, projects or workshops. The way technology is taught varies between the schools. For example in maths it is more about showing the application of how the technology is used. On the other end of the scale in SECTE it is more constructive learning, with the fundamentals and possibilities shown and it is then pushed on to the students to explore and build their knowledge.

SMAH 3 3 Most subjects have a Moodle site. Moodle site contains links to Moodle Help resources. LHA 1 1 Students are not trained. BUS 2 2 Faculty level training is provided by the lecturers/coordinators for various subjects for use of

subject-related software (e.g. PHStat, Stata, LimeSurvey). Not aware of a coordinated training plan across the institution/faculty.

2. Student training for technology enhanced learning is adequately resourced.

x

Rationale Training is limited and so resources are also. EIS is the exception. Evidence

EIS 4 When it comes to learning based on the subjects it is resourced appropriately as it is taught by experts within the field, using the style they want the students to learn with. A number of different resources within the faculty depending on the school are available. As an example SECTE has the following web page for TEL resources: http://secte1.elec.uow.edu.au/traininglab/. Training for TEL outside of the faculty is also available by courses. Online training opportunities would strengthen what is available.

SMAH 2 Students need resources & training for creation of digital narratives/online presentations. LHA 1 Any attempt to introduce 'new' technology to students entails teaching them oneself what it is and how

to use it. BUS 1 * No data available.


3. There are procedures in place to regularly evaluate the training and training resources provided for students.

x

Rationale Generic evaluation methods are in place – CEQ etc but not specific surveys. Evidence

EIS 3 3 As most of TEL comes from subjects within the faculty most of the evaluation is conducted via subject surveys. SECTE being one of the biggest uses of TEL in the faculty also runs student surveys on the labs (where the technology is being used) every session.

SMAH 2 2 Only what comes from student feedback & subject evaluations. LHA 2 2 Presumably such procedures exist. We have never encountered them, nor had any students we

asked. BUS 2 2 * No faculty defined procedure

4. Coordination occurs between those areas providing training for students. x Rationale Limited cross institutional coordination. EIS have a coordinated process within their faculty. Evidence

EIS 4 In the faculty as TEL is run in the subjects, the academic teaching staff are those conducting the training so there is not much need of coordination. Outside the faculty not sure what coordination takes place.

SMAH 2 Academic staff consult with CEDIR & Platform Help as required. LHA 1 Students commonly do not know how to use Turnitin, Moodle, Mahara, or even the library website. BUS 1 * Not aware of cross-institution coordination.

5. Student training programs are delivered flexibly and address differing skill levels.

x

Rationale EIS use subjects to train students. Evidence

EIS 4 4 Within most of the faculty being very TEL based the learning occurs via subjects, projects, workshops etc. The flexibility comes from the fact that the basics are taught. The students are taught and are expected to use the resources of the school/faculty, Google, YouTube etc. to fill in the gaps. The learning style is not to hold the users hand in the learning process.

SMAH 2 2 Only those provided by Platform Help. LHA 1 1 If there are student training programs, they do not seem to be particularly effective. BUS 2 2 * No data available

6. Student training promotes an ethical approach to the use of social media and the technology enhanced learning services provided by the institution.

x

Rationale Digital Literacies Project addresses social media; Some embedded approaches for example BA has a subject– varies across disciplines/faculties. Evidence

EIS 4 4 Ethics is taught in most if not all schools within the faculty. SMAH 1 1 None known in SMAH. But is covered in Moodle: Manage Use Create site to which students are

directed via Moodle web link. LHA 1 1 The institution does not provide social media.

We are not aware of any training for students with respect to ethical use of social media or TEL services.

BUS 1 1 * No data available

7. Evaluation data is used to inform the planning for continuous improvement of student development processes.

x

Rationale No cross institutional systematic approach. Evidence

EIS 4 This is conducted via subject surveys and through the assessment marks of the subjects. SMAH 1 No evidence of systematic evaluation for improvement re TEL. LHA 1 We are unaware of any student development processes, and consequently unaware of how evaluation

data would be used in them. BUS 1 * No data available


8. There are clearly defined pathways for students to access the training they require.

x

Rationale No clear institutional pathways. Evidence

EIS 4 The learning path is structured via the degree the students are undertaking together with an emphasis of students to explore resources available and learn independently.

SMAH 1 No evidence of TEL training pathways. LHA 1 It is not clear to us how training can be accessed. We were unable to locate any such training on the UOW

'Current Students' pages. BUS 1 * No data available


APPENDIX IV: Benchmark 8 - Student support for the use of technology enhanced learning

Scoping Statement Support for students in the use of technology enhanced learning services is defined as primarily technical but the learning context should also be acknowledged. Support should be considered in terms of the use of computers and mobile technologies; learning management systems and their associated applications; library systems, and; those cloud based systems and tools adopted by the institution. The requirements of on-campus and off-campus study should be considered.

Good Practice Statement Students are aware of and have access to effective and well-resourced support for the technology enhanced learning services used by the institution. Student support is responsive to student needs; is coordinated with student training; and is constantly developing in response to changing technology.

Team Consolidation

Benchmark 8: Student support for the use of technology enhanced learning 1 2 3 4 5 1. The provision of support for students is aligned with the technology

enhanced learning services used by the institution. x

Rationale Moodle platform has the same support service for staff and students. Evidence

EIS 4 Support for TEL is provided by the faculty and university services. SMAH 3 Staff mostly link to UOW Moodle & Platform Help resources for students.

2. Student technology enhanced learning support services are resourced. x Rationale Project and new resources are resourced but ongoing resources can be limited. Evidence

EIS 4 There is a sufficient amount of resources to support TEL by the faculty and university services. SMAH 2 Probably more staff are required to provide more comprehensive TEL support.

3. There are clearly defined pathways for students to access support services and these are promoted to the student body.

x

Rationale Central numbers and email support promoted to students. Evidence

EIS 4 3 The university and faculty has central numbers and websites that the students can turn to for support. Students are also taught how to gain external support.

SMAH 3 3 Moodle site contains links to Moodle Help resources for students.

4. Support sites and resources are accessible from commonly used devices and the analytics of student usage are monitored.

x

Rationale Resources are provided for a range of devices but monitoring is limited and ad hoc. Evidence

EIS 4 4 Most support sites are accessible from commonly used devices. If a student has access to email and internet then they can access most support. Many but not all resources are monitored. For example ticket requests, number of discussions in a Moodle discussion board are monitored.

SMAH 3 1 No evidence of systematic monitoring of device usage. Ad hoc only.

5. There are procedures in place to ensure that student support services and resources are regularly evaluated.

x

Rationale No specific system, data is derived from generic surveys. Evidence

EIS 3 3 This comes from the annual university student survey SMAH 2 2 No evidence of systematic evaluation, other than what students provide in subject evaluations. Ad

hoc only.


6. There are procedures in place that ensure that evaluation data on technology enhanced learning support services for students contributes to their continuous improvement.

x

Rationale Ad hoc in faculties. Evidence

EIS 2 We believe this happens to an extent, but not too sure of the evidence. SMAH 2 No evidence found.

7. Coordination occurs between those areas providing support for students. x Rationale Very limited cross institutional coordination. Evidence

EIS 3 Coordination does occur in a limited manner. SMAH 2 Academic staff consult with CEDIR & Platform Help as required.

8. There are procedures in place to ensure there is an alignment between student training and student support.

x

Rationale No evidence of this occurring. Evidence

EIS 4 This is hard to answer because of the way TEL learning is carried out. Generally speaking if a technology is required then support is provided to teach that within the faculty. Support is determined by the learning outcomes. If support is this tech does not work, fix it then this is also aligned.

SMAH 2 No evidence found.

9. Processes are in place to determine the ongoing support requirements of students.

x

Rationale No specific processes, data is derived from generic surveys. Evidence

EIS 3 This is carried out through annual university student surveys, subject surveys and metrics looking at support tickets etc

SMAH 2 No evidence found.

10. New technology enhanced learning services are fully analysed for student support requirements, prior to and during the adoption process.

x

Rationale New technology is assessed before and post implementation. Evidence

EIS 4 4 In terms of the faculty TEL is introduced by academics in subjects and to get this working they need to cooperate with the various technical groups. In a way this covers the support group. In terms of using TEL the support will be dependent on the learning objectives.

SMAH 2 2 Student support requirements for TEL are usually discussed locally during implementation planning.


UOW TASK AND FINISH GROUP – ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AGENDA ITEM C2 It is proposed that an Academic Integrity Task and Finish Group be established under the auspices of the University Education Committee to oversee the scheduled review of the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy and related policy and practice. This is timely as:

• The review of the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy is underway, and it has been flagged that there is a need to take into account online submission of assessment tasks and the increasingly widespread use of digital media in accessing information. Also, it has been recognised that the use of Turnitin needs to be reconsidered from a policy perspective.

• A number of other policies due for review this year include academic integrity provisions such

as the Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment, Student Conduct Rules, and Procedure for Managing Allegations of Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework.

• The University’s response to the Sydney Morning Herald MyMaster allegations has

demonstrated that the University has robust rules and procedures for dealing with allegations of academic misconduct. However, it has also indicated that that the University does not have a strong University-wide approach to promoting academic integrity. The University does have outstanding academics in the area of academic integrity including Dr Ruth Walker (LTC) the Chair of the Asia Pacific Forum on Educational Integrity, Ms Ann Rogerson (BUS), Dr Michael Jones (BUS) and Dr Lynnaire Sheridan (BUS) who are active in promoting academic integrity at the faculty level, but there appears to be an opportunity to strengthen the current overarching University strategy.

• 2015 has been declared the University’s ‘Year of Assessment and Feedback’ with a focus on

a broad range of actions to embed innovative assessment and feedback practice recognising that good practice in assessment design can reduce the risk of academic misconduct and promote academic integrity.

Existing University–Wide Resources Existing policies provide that responsibility for academic integrity lies with the student and the subject coordinator. The principles of academic integrity are embodied within the Student Charter and the Student Conduct Rules. Student responsibilities are outlined in the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy. Resources and support materials provide advice that emphasises the need for appropriate acknowledgement practices to minimise plagiarism. Online resources include a Learning Development resource on Plagiarism and a Library link to Referencing and Citing. Learning Development offers a limited places workshop for coursework students (Using Evidence and Referencing) and postgraduate research students (Effective Referencing) during each session. Students’ attention is drawn to acknowledgement practices and potential for plagiarism in StartSmart, but only new undergraduate students are required to complete the program. Subject outlines contain a link to the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy, which emphasises the need to avoid plagiarism and the unwise practices of accessing websites that provide access to essays or other assessment items or uploading assessment items to those sites. The Turnitin text matching service is made available to students and academic staff. Provision is made for subject coordinators to provide access to Turnitin to enable students to review tasks before submission. However, it appears that there is limited awareness of these resources. Staff expectations regarding academic integrity are located within:


• the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy, which notes that resources and assistance to staff are provided by the Learning Development Unit, and the University’s University Learning and Teaching (ULT) course.

• the Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment (COPTA), which states that the subject coordinator is responsible for academic integrity within the subject. Support for the subject coordinator to design assessment tasks to minimise plagiarism is contained within the Good Practice Assessment Guidelines.

Faculty based resources exist such as those developed within the Faculty of Business, but the University does not have a mechanism for sharing these resources or promoting best practice. Academic Integrity Standards OLT Priority Project At the September 2012 meeting, the UEC considered the Report on the Academic Integrity Standards OLT Priority Project. The Committee endorsed recommendations for action at that meeting including:

• The development of an Academic Integrity Portal to provide easily accessible information about academic integrity from a wide range of stakeholders for students and staff.

• Endorsement of the systematic and ongoing teaching of academic integrity across curricula and programs.

• The production of ‘fast fact sheets’ with information about academic integrity and expectations for staff and students and guides to assist in managing alleged academic misconduct.

• Reviewing and producing guidelines for the use of Turnitin. • Reviewing data management procedures relating to student academic misconduct.

Action to implement the recommendations was held in abeyance during the University restructure.

Task and Finish Group In light of these circumstances, the review of existing policy and practice would be enhanced through the input of a Task and Finish Group.

• Proposed Terms of Reference may include:

o To review the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy and recommend policy amendments to provide a framework for a University-wide approach to academic integrity.

o To review academic integrity provisions within other policies being reviewed and recommend policy amendments.

o To develop a strategy to implement a University-wide approach to the provision of easily accessible information, resources and support for students and staff.

o To develop strategies to embed integrity instruction into the curriculum, with discipline specific resources, learning activities and assessment design.

o To review and produce guidelines for the use of Turnitin. o To review data management procedures relating to student academic misconduct

and recommend procedure amendments.

• Membership

o Dr Ruth Walker (LTC) as Chair of the Task and Finish Group. o Staff members from:

LTC, the University Library, and Faculties (drawing on the expertise identified above)

Note that in view of the tight time frames, a number of staff have been nominated by AQS to be members of the Group.


• Time Frame

o The Group will present a final report at the January 2016 UEC meeting.

Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee endorse the proposal to establish an Academic Integrity Task and Finish Group as detailed in the agenda papers.

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Stephen Kirk, Academic Quality and Policy Specialist, AQS

Mr Dominic Riordan, Director AQS



EXTENSION OF LIBRARY OPENING HOURS AGENDA ITEM C3 The model for Library opening hours has remained largely unchanged for a decade. On average, the Library is open for 80 hours per week across the traditional two session teaching model, moving to reduced hours (averaging 54.5 hours per week) during Summer session and mid-year breaks. The introduction of the three session model within the Faculty of Business highlights the limitations of opening hours to meet Business students’ needs for access to space, technologies and collections. 2015 timetabling information, coupled with results from the 2014 SEQ provided the foundation for determining adjustments to existing model. The Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group has endorsed a proposal for an extension of opening hours, effective February 2015. Draft Resolution that the University Education Committee note the enhancements to 2015 Library opening hours, Wollongong Campus.

ATTACHMENT

Library Opening Hours Discussion Paper Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Ms Margie Jantii Director, Library Services

Executive Officer University Education Committee



EXTENSION OF LIBRARY OPENING HOURS – DISCUSSION PAPER AGENDA ITEM C3 INTRODUCTION The model for Library opening hours has remained largely unchanged for a decade. On average, the Wollongong Campus Library is open for 80 hours per week across the traditional two session teaching calendar moving to reduced hours (averaging 54.5 hours per week) during Summer session and mid-session breaks. The introduction of the three session model within the Faculty Business highlighted the limitations of opening hours to meet Business students’ needs for access to space, technologies and collections. Former Model The former opening hours model was closely aligned to the traditional two session timetable. During session, the Library was open on average 80 hours per week: Mon-Thu 8am to 10pm Fri 8am to 6pm Sat-Sun 10am to 5pm The Library was open for 3,799 hours in 2014 and achieved a visitation rate of over 1.5M. The Library building (16) continues to dominate the top 20 for building occupancy across UOW Main Campus (source: UOW Space Utilisation Report, 2014). UOW Library is ranked 22nd (see red bar in Chart 1) when compared to opening hours offered by Australian university libraries. (Source: Council of Australian University Libraries – Statistics) Chart 1 – Comparative Opening Hours

Since 2013, following strong and consistent demand from students, extended opening hours were introduced for the examination periods of the two session model, adding 14 extra hours per week. Students clearly valued the access to space and learning resources as measured in 6-7K students making use of the additional hours with at times 500+ students utilising the Library building as counted during hourly audits.


Key themes emerging from the 2014 Student Experience Questionnaire (SEQ) included students seeking longer opening hours to be offered by the Library. An assessment has shown that 18 Australian university libraries (and their branches) and/or associated learning commons offer extended hours (closing after 10pm). See Table 1. Table 1 – Range of operating hours of Australian University Libraries University Library Hours of closing Newcastle Information Commons 24/7 UWA Reid Arts and Business – 2am Swinburne Hawthorn Latelab 24/7 Monash Midnight (2am for examinations) Curtin Mon-Fri 2am; midnight weekends VU City West midnight Macquarie 1am JCU Townsville Information Commons 24/7 UMelb Some branches till midnight La Trobe Variable to timetable - up to midnight Murdoch South Street Campus Library 11pm M-F

(session) UQ 2 libraries open 24/7 ACU Some extended hours to 11apm UCanberra Library Commons open 24/7 Issue The ~1,000 students (headcount) enrolled in the Faculty of Business postgraduate programs were disadvantaged by the former model, particularly when the opening hours were adjusted downwards for the mid-year break. The students affected are typically full fee paying students; with heightened expectations of value for money invested in their education. The Faculty of Business received numerous complaints from students regarding limited and inequitable access to core learning facilities, i.e. the Library. As a stopgap, the Faculty of Business assigned rooms within Building 40 to allow after-hours, supervised study spaces for individuals and groups. This interim measure, while offered in good faith, was far from adequate in providing high quality engagement with state of the art information and learning facilities offered through the Library. While the Library absorbed the overheads associated with the extended hours for exams (2 session model), i.e. staffing and additional cleaning services, it was not possible to resource the additional costs required to adjust opening hours to meet the inherent needs of the Business Faculty. After an assessment of 2015 timetabling, at a minimum, a further 334 hours were required to address the immediate needs of enrolled students. VCAG supported a request for a central funding supplement to the Library budget to enable the delivery and provision of fair and reasonable access to Library facilities, infrastructure (technologies, WIFI) and information resources. New model of opening hours Postgraduate programs within the Faculty of Business commence in the first week of February, typically 3 weeks before Orientation for students enrolled in the two session model. In 2015 the Library will extend its opening hours from: 2 February to 22 February 2015 Current Proposed Mon-Fri 8.30am – 6pm Mon-Fri 8.30am to 8pm Sat – closed Sat 10am to 6pm Sun 10am – 5pm Sun 10am – 6pm


Oweek 23 February to 1 March 2015 Current Proposed Mon-Fri 8.30am – 6pm Mon-Fri 8.30am to 10pm Sat – Sun 10am – 5pm Sat – Sun 10am to 6pm Sessions 1 and 2 Current Proposed Mon-Thu 8am – 10pm Mon-Thu 8am – 10pm Fri 8am – 6pm Fri 8am – 10pm Sat – Sun 10am – 5pm Sat – Sun 10am to 6pm 29 June to 27 July 2015 Current Proposed Mon-Fri 8.30am – 6pm Mon-Fri 8.30am - 10pm Sat – closed Sat 10am - 6pm Sun 10am – 5pm Sun 10am - 6pm These changes will be communicated and promoted by the Library website, print marketing materials, social media and via signage on the Library building. The Library and the Facilities Management Division will monitor visitations and occupancy.


Library Information Resources and the Online Learning Environment AGENDA ITEM C4

The Library will launch two initiatives aimed at improving staff and student access to, and experience of, Library resources and services. A project focused on subject readings will deliver greater ease and simplification for the management of core subject readings. All citation data is now stored in Equella, and a new, web-based interface provides a one-stop-shop for student subject materials, whether a print-book chapter, a journal article, an eBook, a weblink, or a short-loan title. Equella offers the functionality to display readings in a week-by-week format in line with the subject outline and nominate readings as essential or recommended, and to note whether readings are required for particular essays or assignments. Equella also contains automatic copyright checking functionality, and Copyright Agency reports can be generated instantly. This will reduce the number of readings added independently to Moodle without being copyright cleared by the Library, and reduce the administrative burden of other surveys conducted by the Copyright Agency. Deadlines for the submission of subject readings will be communicated in Universe and reading lists or subject outlines can be forwarded to [email protected]. To coincide with this launch the Library will be introducing My Library, a Moodle ‘Block’ that will be embedded in the default Moodle template. The My Library service will provide students with access to discipline specific resources and the ability to run a contextualised search across the Library’s collections. We are promoting both these initiatives as ‘Library in the eLearning space’; providing flexible, seamless just-in-time access to resources at point of need.

Draft resolution that the University Education Committee note the enhancements to Library services and integration of resources in the online learning environment

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Ms Margie Jantii Director, Library Services




mailto:[email protected]

THIRD PARTY DELIVERY QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY SUITE – REVIEW AGENDA ITEM C5 Background A key deliverable under the University of Wollongong Education Strategy for 2014 is a review of the offshore quality assurance framework. At present, all quality assurance for Transnational Education (TNE) is undertaken by representatives from within the portfolio of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International). However, responsibility for the quality assurance of all teaching and learning-related activities falls within the portfolio of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). The procedures that govern TNE quality assurance are overdue for review. As a result, a working party has been undertaking a review of the University’s approach to the quality assurance of transnational education. This report outlines the outcome of that review. Current Transnational Quality Assurance Structure The current quality assurance model for transnational education is governed by the International Alliances Policy, which in turn is supported by a number of procedures, namely:

• Procedure for Assessment of New Transnational Education (Offshore) Programs and Partners;

• Quality Assurance of Transnational Education (Offshore) and UOWD Teaching and Learning Procedure;

• Annual Review of Transnational Education (Twinning) Programs Procedure; and • Annual Review of Transnational Education (Offshore) Programs Procedure.

With the exception of the International Alliances Policy, this suite of documents was initially created prior to the AUQA audit of UOW in 2011. Each of the procedures was scheduled to be reviewed in November 2013, with the Policy having a notional review date of October 2013. The current structure essentially recognises the paradigm whereby quality assurance is a collaborative effort undertaken by the relevant Faculty and the Transnational Education and Alliances Unit, facilitated by TNE & A. All quality assurance initiatives are ultimately signed-off by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International), and in all instances without any input from the portfolio of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). Furthermore, it is noted that the current procedures do not reflect the requirements of the TEQSA Threshold Standards. Proposed Quality Assurance Structure As a result of the Offshore Quality Assurance Working Party’s deliberations, a new model is proposed. While it is proposed that the International Alliances Policy will remain the mechanism that governs the creation and maintenance of all international alliances, it is proposed that a new policy (notionally titled the Collaborative Delivery of UOW Courses Policy) will be created to mandate quality assurance specific initiatives at a teaching and learning level. It was noted by members of the working party that while there are procedures in place for transnational education programs, there are no policies or procedures related to courses delivered by third parties within Australia. This new policy will be applicable to all courses delivered by or with a partner, regardless of location. It is further proposed that the current suite of procedures be rescinded. In its place, the following structure is proposed:

Collaborative Delivery of a UOW Course Policy Overarching policy that covers all third party arrangements for delivery of a UOW course

(or part thereof) both onshore and offshore

QA of

Prospective Partner

Procedures

Annual Review

Procedures

Triennial Review

Procedures review of contract

Joint & Dual Award QA Procedures

UOWD QA

Procedures


The proposed model shifts the focus of the quality assurance process from a delivery method-based approach to one that is based on timeframes, while at the same time recognising that a differentiated approach is required for Joint/Dual Awards and for quality assurance at UOW Dubai. This shift in focus is essentially recognition of the fact that many of the elements that require quality assessments will be the same regardless of the delivery method used to teach the course. However, within each procedure will be embedded differentiated requirements for different delivery methods. For example, while infrastructure and facilities will be mandated regardless of delivery method, it will be recognised that teaching quality and teacher qualifications will not need to be assessed where UOW is exclusively responsible for delivering the taught components of the course. Within each procedure, elements will be grouped under Institution-level, Course-level and Subject-level quality assurance, although there will be some overlap between the three domains. It is further proposed that a series of quality assurance checklists be created to facilitate the process for each level of assessment. Each procedure will be supported by templates that will enable the relevant information to be presented to those undertaking the quality assurance. Checklists and report templates will support partner institutions, in that they will outline what information is require by UOW, and how the information should be presented. In recognition of the fact that the relationship with UOW Dubai differs significantly from all other third party delivery relationships, it is proposed that a separate procedure and series of report templates will be created to support quality assurance initiatives at UOW Dubai be developed. In relation to joint and dual awards, interest in and proposals for these sorts of programs is increasing, and the existing policy and process is not well suited to managing the demands of these programs. At present, several are managed through what are little more than reciprocal credit arrangements. New policy in this area will be based on recent guidance material from TEQSA on the issue. Next Steps The working party set up to consider the quality assurance of courses delivered by a third party has endorsed the proposed policy suite outlined above. A paper has also been submitted to the Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee for their consideration. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit will begin work drafting the Collaborative Delivery of a UOW Course Policy. An initial draft will be submitted to UEC for comment at the next meeting. It is proposed that a final draft will be submitted to the Committee at its September meeting, in order to allow for approval by University Council in December. The Academic Quality and Standards Unit will work with current stakeholders to ensure that the policy is fully implemented beginning from quarter 1 2016. Draft Resolution That the University Education Committee note the proposed approach to the quality assurance of courses delivered collaboratively, as outlined in the agenda paper. Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Academic Quality and Policy Specialist, Academic Quality and Standards Unit

Manager, Academic Quality and Policy, Academic Quality and Standards unit

Prof Eeva Leinonen, Chair University Education Committee

Due Diligence/ Risk

Assessment Checklists and

report

Annual Review Checklist and report template

Triennial Review

Checklist and report template

Joint & Dual Award QA Checklist

UOWD Annual Review Checklist and

report template


TEQSA & STANDARDS UPDATE UEC AGENDA ITEM C6 1. TEQSA Amendment Act The TEQSA Amendment Bill was finally passed by the Senate and enacted on 12 December 2014. A back down by the Government will see TEQSA retain its quality assurance role and the controversial spilling of all the Commissioner positions will no longer occur. The main changes are the splitting of the chief commissioner and chief executive roles and increased ministerial control over the make-up and number of commissioners.

The challenge for TEQSA will be to meet its regulatory and quality assurance responsibilities with a 41% cut in its funding. At this stage, it is not clear if TEQSA will conduct any QA reviews in 2015.

2. Response to TEQSA on Academic Integrity On 12 December UOW submitted a response to TEQSA detailing the actions that the University has taken in responding to the allegations of student misconduct in relation to the MyMaster website, as well as the policies and processes in place to address academic integrity issues more generally. TEQSA was asked to take action on this issue by the Federal Education Minister. To access a copy of UOW’s submission, contact [email protected].

3. UOW’s Renewal of Registration UOW’s registration with TEQSA as a higher education provider expires on 31 March 2018. Submission of our renewal of registration application is due September 2017. The process for re-registration will actually begin six months earlier in March 2017 when discussions to determine the scope of TEQSA’s assessment will commence.

Although this may seem a long way off, it is important that the University starts to gear itself up for the re-registration process. It is also important that UOW is able to demonstrate that it has a culture of self-reflection and continuous improvement across all its activities.

In preparation, it is proposed that a self-review against the new national higher education standards be conducted in 2015, followed by a more comprehensive compliance audit in 2016. It is further proposed that a TEQSA Steering Group under the auspice of the DVCA be established early in 2016. A notional timetable is provided below for discussion and feedback.

UOW Renewal of Registration - Notional Timetable

Date Action Comment First half 2015

Conduct self-review against standards framework; look at evidence requirements and develop improvement plan based on gaps in practice and evidence; report findings to AQSS>UEC/UIC/URC>Senate and RACC.

HESP has released new higher education standards to Minister, but unlikely to be enacted before 2016. TEQSA will revise its renewal application form in accordance with new standards, however, core evidence requirements unlikely to change substantially.

March 2016 Set up Steering Group led by DVCA to oversee preparations.

Steering Group to be chaired by DVCA with regular updates to AQSS>UEC>Senate. Initially meet every 6-8 weeks. Steering group would need to include Research and Governance reps (so not just a sub-group of AQSS).

April 2016 Conduct self-review (compliance audit) against new standards using Renewal of Registration Application Form as guide.

TEQSA expects that internal self-assessment or self-review forms a part of our quality assurance processes. Consider inviting external expert to be part of review; ensure all locations included.

Sept 2016 Report outcomes of audit; review improvement plan and report to Steering Group.

TEQSA re-registration preparations to be standing item for all major committees in 2016-17.


http://www.hestandards.gov.au/final-proposed-framework

1 March 2017 Contact TEQSA Case Manager to clarify

application requirements. TEQSA will advise in writing the scope of the assessment - that is whether the scope is the core or if we will be assessed against an extended set of standards, and if so which additional standards will be included and why.

April 2017 Once scope confirmed, reassess performance review and evidence requirements.

Steering Group to meet monthly from here on.

By 30 Sept 2017

Lodge application for renewal of registration with TEQSA.

Must apply to TEQSA for renewal of registration at least 180 days prior to the expiry of the current registration period (31.03.18).

Oct 2017 –March 2018

TEQSA assesses application. TEQSA may visit one or more of our delivery sites; if required, our case manager will consult on the scope, timing and a program. TEQSA may use external experts as part of the assessment process, we will be given an opportunity to identify any potential conflicts of interest with the experts.

Before 31 March 2018

TEQSA prepares a summary of findings - if application rejected or approved subject to conditions, TEQSA will send summary of finding.

We have opportunity to comment on the summary of findings before TEQSA makes a decision (only if application rejected or conditions to be imposed) – otherwise expect we will be notified that our renewal application has been approved.

By 31 March 2018

TEQSA renews UOW’s registration for further seven years (at a minimum).

TEQSA normally allows 6 months to assess application, make decision and update public register.

3. New Higher Education Standards The Higher Education Standards Panel, led by Prof Alan Robson, has completed its review of the Threshold Standards and on 19 December it released a new, proposed Higher Education Standards Framework. See http://www.hestandards.gov.au/final-proposed-framework.

The framework has been presented to the Federal Education Minister who is required to undertake consultation with state and territory Ministers with responsibility for higher education, TEQSA and the Commonwealth Minister with responsibility for research in relation to the Panel’s advice. Following this consultation, the Minister will make decisions in relation to the proposed Framework. The new framework will require legislative changes to the TEQSA Act and will not likely be in place before 2016.

A summary of the key elements of the new framework is attached for information.

Attachment

Higher Education Standards Framework - Summary of Changes

Draft Resolution That the University Education Committee notes the TEQSA & Standards Update as set out in the agenda paper.

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Manager, Academic Quality & Policy, AQS, 16 January 2015

Executive Officer, UEC Chair, UEC


Attachment 1

HIGHER EDUCATION STANDARDS FRAMEWORK - SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. Proposed New Standards The new Standards for Higher Education are divided into seven domains and 24 sub-domains as follows:

1. Student Participation and Attainment 1.1 Admission 1.2 Credit and Recognition of Prior Learning 1.3 Orientation and Progression 1.4 Learning Outcomes and Assessment 1.5 Qualifications and Certification

2. Learning Environment 2.1 Facilities and Infrastructure 2.2 Diversity and Equity 2.3 Wellbeing and Safety 2.4 Student Grievances and Complaints

3. Teaching 3.1 Course Design 3.2 Staffing 3.3 Learning Resources and Educational Support

4. Research and Research Training 4.1 Research 4.2 Research Training

5. Institutional Quality Assurance 5.1 Course Approval and Accreditation 5.2 Academic and Research Integrity 5.3 Monitoring, Review and Improvement 5.4 Delivery with Other Parties

6. Governance and Accountability 6.1 Corporate Governance 6.2 Corporate Monitoring and Accountability 6.3 Academic Governance

7. Representation, Information and Information Management 7.1 Representation 7.2 Information for Prospective and Current Students 7.3 Information Management

2. Structure of the Framework The Panel has proposed a three-part Framework as shown below.


Domains: Two domains of the Standards in Part A have been renamed: Institutional Quality Assurance and Governance and Accountability; the former recognising that all of the Standards are about ‘quality assurance’, while this particular domain is about institutional systems to self-assure quality, and the latter to reflect strengthened corporate governance requirements. Some sections within domains have also been streamlined, merged or relocated. For example, ‘Orientation’ and ‘Progression’ have been merged and streamlined, ‘Course delivery’ has been refocussed on ‘Staffing’ and ‘Delivery Arrangements with other Parties’ has been transferred to ‘Institutional Quality Assurance’ to better reflect the focus of these Standards. Form of the Standards: The Panel had sought to streamline the drafting of the Standards by transferring some details, e.g. ‘qualifiers’ and ‘lists’, to either footnotes or definitions. This approach was widely unpopular for various reasons. It also created a number of unintended consequences. In light of these issues, all of the detail associated with particular Standards statements has now been included in the Standards Statements themselves. While this approach has added detail, the Panel feels that it has not detracted unduly from the streamlining of the Standards and removes any doubt about the content and intent of the individual Standards concerned. In addition, a number of Standards Statements have been edited to better reflect an outcome rather than a process. Scope of the Standards: Some commentators suggested that a minority of Standards statements could be deleted for various reasons such as being ‘unnecessary’ or ‘too prescriptive’ or being about ‘process vs outcome’. In response, the Panel has undertaken some streamlining of the Standards and some editing of various Standards towards outcomes as discussed above, but on the whole the Panel believes that the scope of the Standards is balanced. In forming this view the Panel has taken account of the overall feedback received, the potential risks associated with each Standards Statement, the role of each component of the Standards as part of a coherent framework for internal quality assurance, the appropriateness of particular Standards given the varying scale and scope of providers and the differing scope and maturity of their internal quality assurance mechanisms, and the importance of internally generated evidence of quality assurance in reducing external regulatory burden. The Panel does not believe that the Standards ask for anything that a responsible provider would not ordinarily be seeking to do for itself in understanding, monitoring and improving its higher education operations. This is also consistent with the aim for regulation identified in the Review of Higher Education Regulation (2013), to ‘enable a dynamic and increasingly self-managed regulating environment’. Preserved Intent: The following features of the Framework received widespread support and have been retained:

• the elimination of the concept of threshold/non-threshold standards • the separation of the Parts A & B of the Framework • a focus on students and the facilitation of informed choice • the value of the Framework for internal monitoring • the form, style, structure and language of the Framework • a combination of technically detailed and overarching standards e.g. learning outcomes vs

academic governance • an emphasis on outcomes rather than processes • room for flexibility rather than ‘standardised’ approaches • integration of the AQF and the educational quality aspects of the ESOS National Code.

The Provider Category Standards will remain unchanged except for minor editorial changes to achieve consistency with the proposed Framework. As previously advised by the Panel, a separate review and consultation on the Provider Category Standards is planned. Technical Improvements: Most of the suggestions for improvement were seen by the Panel as both helpful and uncontroversial. The Panel has paid particular attention to improvements in standards concerned with the following:

• staffing (to articulate more clearly the role of academic leadership and oversight and to clearly acknowledge the role of teachers of different backgrounds who may teach in parts of a course of study such as experienced practitioners or higher degree students)


http://www.hestandards.gov.au/final-proposed-framework

• corporate governance and accountability (to strengthen the requirements in certain respects, such as continuing financial viability and to re-introduce a requirement for some independent directors)

• academic governance (to provide more emphasis on evaluating the effectiveness of academic policies and practices)

• complaints handling (to reintroduce access to an independent process where internal processes fail to resolve a complaint)

• various refinements to the research and research training standards (to better reflect accepted good practice)

• criteria for seeking self-accrediting authority (to maintain the intent of current requirements but with clearer specification)

• the application of the Standards for regulatory purposes (to ensure an appropriate balance between the value of the Framework for internal monitoring purposes and its effectiveness for external regulatory purposes).

Matters of Divided Opinion: The Panel noted differing and sometimes mutually contradictory views on some aspects of the proposed Framework. All of these views were considered in detail as the Panel reached its decision. In so doing, the Panel agreed that it was not prepared to prescribe the following:

• formal teaching qualifications for teaching staff, as against being otherwise equipped for their roles • particular academic governance structures such as an academic board, as against governance

outcomes and processes • a majority of independent directors, as against requiring some independent directors • a single pathway to seeking self-accrediting authority, as against various options • detailed requirements for recognition of prior learning, as against more overarching requirements

concerned with the integrity of educational outcomes • two external examiners for a masters degree (research), as against the examiners otherwise

being competent, independent and without conflict of interest. In reaching its views on these matters the Panel notes that the position taken in the Standards does not in any way preclude a provider from taking a particular approach to meeting the outcome of the standards e.g. preferring an academic board as its chosen mechanism to meet the requirements for academic governance or having a majority of independent directors on the corporate board or teachers holding teaching qualifications. To read the full Higher Education Standards Framework and the recent Communique from the Panel, visit http://www.hestandards.gov.au/final-proposed-framework


http://www.uow.edu.au/handbook/aqfchanges/index.html


AQF IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE AGENDA ITEM C7

Background The Australian Qualifications Framework is due for full implementation by 1 January 2015, by which time all courses into which students are enrolled must meet the requirements of the AQF. This paper is part of a series of updates to the University Education Committee. The AQF builds upon strong evidence that effective tertiary learning is built upon clear learning outcomes and effective assurance of learning against those outcomes.

AQF Progress The table reproduced at the end of this report is a snapshot of the AQF validation status at the Faculty level for UOW courses. It shows course status where AQF validation work has been formalised either by submission of material using the fast track process, or through the SCDC as course proposals. This table is correct as at 19 December 2014. All AQF Validation documentation has now been received and approved. AQS has completed implementation activities including actioning all Suspensions and Discontinuations.

Post AQF Validation AQS has received approval to develop a visualisation tool for AQF mapping. An Educational Resource Development Agreement application has now been granted for the development of a Visual Validation Tool. This is intended to be in an accessible format whereby students and staff can view the relationship between assessment tasks, subjects and Course Learning Outcomes. A summary of course changes has been completed and is available as part of the 2015 Course Handbook. The AQF Changes page highlights where changes have been made to courses, and provides a link to both the 2014 and 2015 course handbook pages. It is hoped that this will prompt students to review new course structures and encourage them to access academic advice if required.

Further Information Specific questions may be addressed to the Course Management Team within the Academic Quality and Standards Unit (email: [email protected]).

Draft Resolution That the University Education Committee;

a) note the update on AQF implementation activities being undertaken by the University, and b) note the completion of AQF Validation.


http://www.uow.edu.au/handbook/aqfchanges/index.html


AQF Implementation - In Progress Total Courses Remaining 1 2 3 4 5

Faculty Total Courses*

AQF-Validation**

New Courses Proposed***

Courses to be discontinued****

Courses to be Suspended****

(Column 1 – (Columns 2 + 4 + 5))

UOWD Remaining

BUS 60 38 4 3 (3) 16 (16) 0 0

EIS 103 64 0 21 (21) 18 (18) 0 0

LHA 80 77 4 1 (1) 2 (2) 0 0 SMAH 65 57 9 5 (5) 3 (3) 0 0

SOC 69 41 19 21 (21) 7 (7) 0 0

Total 377 277 36 51 51 46 46 0 0

* Column 1- on Course Database as at 01/01/2014 + HDR courses + consolidated course codes

** Column 2 - Submitted/Completed for Existing Courses

*** - Column 3 - As per initial proposal submitted to SCDC, subject to final approval

**** Column 4 and 5 - As advised by Faculties - numbers in brackets are where forms have been submitted

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

AQF Project Officer Executive Officer, UEC Chair, UEC


university education committee agenda – 28 …web/@gov/documents… · university education...

Documents