SLTC papers – 8 July 2013

2013

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY SENATE LEARNING AND TEACHING COMMITTEE

Meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee will be held at 10:00am on Monday, 8 July 2013 in the Senate Room, Lincoln Building C8A

A G E N D A

Page Numbers 1. WELCOME / APOLOGIES

2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING • Minutes of meeting held on 17 June 2013

Pages 3 - 14

3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

3.1 See action list (refer to Minutes of previous meeting)

-

4. ORAL REPORTS

4.1 Provost -

4.2 Chair (no report at this meeting, as the Chair is an apology)

-

4.3 Reports from the Faculties:

4.3.1 Faculty of Arts (Sherman Young) 4.3.2 Faculty of Business and Economics (David Pitt) 4.3.4 Faculty of Science (Jenny Donald)

Pages 15 - 24

(Pages 16 - 18)

(Pages -19 – 21)

(Pages 22 – 24)

5. GENERAL BUSINESS

5.1 Policies/Procedures:

5.1.1 Academic Honesty/Integrity Policy, Procedure and Schedule (Dominic Verity)

5.1.2 Grading Policy (Dominic Verity)

5.1.3. Student Feedback on Learning, Teaching and Curriculum Policy (Ian Solomonides)

5.1.4 Learning Technologies Policy and Procedure (Ian Solomonides)

Pages 25 - 35

(Pages 25 – 35)

(Pages 36 – 41)

(Pages 42 -47)

(Pages 48 - 59)

5.2 Senate Learning and Teaching Committee - Annual Review of the Terms of Reference For review

Pages 60 - 67

5.3 Evaluation of Student Experience For noting

Pages 68 - 70

SLTC papers – 8 July 2013

5.4 CRIT II recommendations For discussion and recommendation to Academic Senate

Pages 71 -74

5.5 Retention of iLearn units (Ian Solomonides) For discussion

Page 75

5.6 Gradebook (Ian Solomonides) For discussion

Page 76

6. OTHER BUSINESS -

7. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee will be held on Monday, 5 August 2013.

Agenda Items are due by Thursday, 25 July 2013.

-

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 2 Minutes of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee meeting held on 17 June 2013. For approval

Page 3

MINUTES SENATE LEARNING AND TEACHING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee held on 17 June 2013 at 10:00am in the Senate Room, Lincoln Building C8A

Present: Professor Dominic Verity (Chair) Ms Deidre Anderson Dr Matt Bower Mr Andrew Burrell Ms Lindie Clark A/Professor Jenny Donald Ms Gabriela Mariana Fernandez-Paredes Ms Lucy Filardo Ms Tessa Green Dr Peter Keegan Ms Gillian Lay Ms Barb McLean Dr Mitch Parsell A/Professor Susan Page Mr Darren Peters A/Professor Ian Solomonides A/Professor Max Tani A/Professor Leonie Tickle Ms Susan Vickery Professor Gail Whiteford Mr Jonathan Wylie A/Professor Sherman Young

In Attendance: Ms Rajee Grewal Ms Hayley Harris Ms Zoe Williams

Apologies: Dr Michael Cavanagh

Dr Justin Dutch Mrs Jane Franklin Dr Ian Jamie Ms Sonia Jeffares Professor Nick Mansfield Dr Mitch Parsell Mr Benjamin Roe Professor Judyth Sachs Ms Grazyna Tydda A/Professor Leigh Wood

Page 4

1. APOLOGIES AND WELCOME

The Chair welcomed A/Professor Leonie Tickle, representing A/Professor Leigh Wood, Ms Tessa Green, representing Dr Justin Dutch and Ms Susan Vickery, representing Ms Grazyna Tydda.

A welcome was also extended to Mr Darren Peters, who attended to give an overview of the Wellness Dashboard (Item 5.6), and Dr Matt Bower, who gave a presentation on the MOOCs Report (Item 5.8).

The Committee noted apologies from Dr Michael Cavanagh, Dr Justin Dutch, Mrs Jane Franklin, Dr Ian Jamie, Ms Sonia Jeffares, Professor Nick Mansfield, Dr Mitch Parsell, Mr Benjamin Roe, Professor Judyth Sachs, Ms Grazyna Tydda, and A/Professor Leigh Wood. Dr Matt Bower left at 10:25am Mr Darren Peters left at 11:05am

2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The Committee RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2013 as a true and accurate record.

3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

From the meeting held on 17 June 2013 Matter Responsibility Date Due Comments

1. A Working Party to be formed to review the Examination Policy, with a view to determining whether closed book examinations remain valid, having regard to the international position on professional examinations.

D Verity August 2013

2. A paper on Teaching Evaluation for Development Services would be presented at a future Senate Learning and Teaching Committee meeting after consultation with Faculties.

I Solomonides September 2013

3. The Academic Integrity Committee consider the University’s official position on the use of proofreading and editing services and the type of information that is appropriate to convey to students and staff about the use of third party proofreading and editing services and propose recommendations to be included in the Academic Integrity Student Module to be released in Session Two through the UniWISE iLearn unit. The Chair of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee to be invited to the meeting of the Academic Integrity Committee, at which this item is to be considered.

T Green August 2013

4. It was agreed to endorse the proposed amendment to the calculation of student GPAs to be commensurate with the attainment of a High Distinction and also align it with most other Australian institutions. The Chair to investigate the practicalities of this change with the Deputy Registrar’s Office and report back to a future

D Verity September 2013

Page 5

meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee.

5. OUA Teaching, Learning and Assessment Model. Feedback request.

Members 4 July 2013

6. Members to provide input to the Chair on UAC Code of Ethical Practice, for the consolidated input to be relayed to the Provost by 7 July 2013.

D Verity/Members 1` July 2013

7. Investigate a regulatory structure for MOOCs. D Verity/H Harris/S Young

September 2013

Items in progress/pending from previous meetings Matter Responsibility Date Due Status as at 17 June

8. Ms Anderson to arrange for a copy of the letter that had been dispatched by Student Advocacy to students at acedemic risk to be forwarded to the Associate Deans of Learning and Teaching and A/Professor Page.

D Anderson ASAP

9. Associate Deans of Learning and Teaching to investigate the feasibility of the Unit Guides and Session 3 Timetable being available at the commencement of Session 2, to allow students time to plan their workload for Session 3 ahead of time. Discussion on mechanisms for approval of unit offerings to also be discussed.

Associate Deans, Learning and

Teaching

July 2013

10. Unit Guide Policy Compliance • Information Technology capabilities ought

to be ‘fast-tracked’ to optimise integration opportunities and eliminate issues of double handling.

• Curriculum mapping: Exploration of program level specification.

Quality Assurance Framework: Academic Standards and Quality Committee to devise a quality assurance framework for the Faculty Standards and Quality Committees to address quality assurance in a more structured way.

I Solomonides/

S Young/ Units/iTeach team

D Verity/S Young/

J Wylie

(Units/iTeach team) D Verity/ P Coutts

ASAP

ASAP

December 2013

11. A progress paper on AQF Compliance of Macquarie University’s Academic Programs be considered at the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee in September, with a view to presenting the final draft of the Policy and Procedures to Academic Senate at the October meeting.

H Harris September 2013

12. Macquarie University considers developing and publicising generic level descriptors as part of its quality enhancement framework.

D Verity/I Solomonides/

Z Williams

October 2013

13. Associate Deans to circulate the Redefining Distance Education Online (Draft Green Paper) within their respective Faculties, with feedback to be conveyed to Mr Andrew Burrell. Progression of this initiative would be discussed at future meetings.

Associate Deans, Learning and

Teaching

end June 2013

14. People and Planet Items form Student Feedback Surveys Associate Deans to discuss the following two questions due to the broad scope of Planet units (or the imprecision and ambiguity of the

Associate Deans, Learning and

Teaching

report back August 2013

Page 6

Matter Responsibility Date Due Status as at 17 June

criteria) to establish which units the criteria was relevant to and how it should be applied:

3. This unit provided an opportunity to reflect on the notion of environmental responsibility. (Grad caps: environmentally responsible) 4. This unit inspired me to consider how I might act in environmentally responsible ways. (Grad caps: active, ethical, engaged, environmentally responsible (Planet unit criteria: scientific literacy)

15. Mr Peters would arrange for a further update later in the year, after more detailed work had been conducted on the implementation logistics of the Disruption to Studies Policy. Also, it would be ensured that the Procedure for Disruption to Studies would clearly state that Indigenous students are to be referred to Warawara in the first instance.

D Peters

R Grewal

August 2013

July 2013

Completed

16. Dr Fraser/Ms Acharya to look into the Skills Development, Student Support and Teaching Quality performance results for First Year Mathematics units and report back to A/Professor Donald.

N Fraser/C Acharya ASAP

17. Ensure that the question of ex-officio membership of the Head of Warawara is considered in the annual review of the SLTC terms of reference.

D Verity July 2013

18. Themes for Senate Learning and Teaching in 2013-14 biennium Professor Verity to draft a second theme statement and to consult on the co-option of members to represent these themes.

D Verity As soon as possible

19. Creation of a working Party to further refine the Policy document on Disruption to Studies and draw up a detailed operational plan.

D Verity In progress Lucy Filardo has been assigned to provide project support on operational aspects. Updates/discussion items will be flagged with the Committee, as the project progresses.

20. A discussion paper on Pilot of Electronic submission and assessment of assignments to be presented at the February meeting.

S Young August 2013?

21. Establish working party to discuss development of guidelines for supporting students part-way through a subject who become incarcerated (or otherwise unable to attend campus).

Z Williams Early 2013 The first draft Procedures had been discussed with CoE and work is continuing to refine the Procedures further. It is now envisage to present to the SLTC meeting.

22. On line provision of unit readers - refer the proposal to the Library Committee and seek a report at the end of the year on progress

G Tydda August meeting? An update was provided at the March meeting that this had been referred to the Deputy Librarian. Grazyna Tydda will report

Page 7

Matter Responsibility Date Due Status as at 17 June

back to SLTC.

23. Development of expanded Academic Integrity Policy. Formation of working party, development of working paper and initial consultation.

D Verity April 2013

24. The Provost requested that a paper on quality assurance in the iLearn implementation be compiled for review by this Committee in mid-2013.

I Solomonides mid 2013

25. Process for setting the standards for LEU and AUSSE data and monitoring to be discussed at a future meeting

D Verity July 2013 Further discussions to be held with stakeholders during 2013.

Items completed/closed

Matter Responsibility Date Due Status as at 17 June

26. AQF Compliance: The Acting Chair, A/Professor Young, and A/Professor Coutts meet and liaise with the Associate Deans of Learning and Teaching and the Associate Deans of Curriculum and Quality Assurance to investigate the issues that come to light and formulate a strategic approach for submission to the Provost for consideration.

S Young Completed

1. REPORTS

1.1 Provost’s Report

No report at this meeting, as Provost was an apology for this meeting.

1.2 Chair’s Report

Due to time constraints, the Chair provided his update under some of the individual agenda items.

1.3 Reports from the Offices

Macquarie City Campus

The Committee noted the report (Mr Asher was not able to attend this meeting).

Learning and Teaching Centre

The Committee noted the report. A/Professor Solomonides drew the Committee Members’ attention to issues raised in relation to the Teaching Evaluation for Development Service (TEDS) and mentioned that a paper outlining the issues would be presented to the Faculties and subsequently the findings presented to the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee.

Action: A/Professor Solomonides

Centre for Open Education

The Committee noted the report. Mr Burrell informed the Committee that preliminary feedback had been received from the consultation process undertaken in relation to Refining Distance Education Online Green Paper highlights had been uploaded to the WIKI site.

Page 8

The feedback will be incorporated into the Vice Chancellor’s A Framing of Futures Green Paper by the Project Team.

PACE

The Committee noted the report. Ms Clark highlighted that a second round of the PACE Development Grant Scheme would be held this year with a closing date for application of end-July and an innovative approach would be adopted with a view to expanding partnerships. She also highlighted the fact that eighteen applicants had been selected from a field of outstanding applications for the Provost’s Participation Prizes for students and the presentation ceremony is to be held on 1 August 2013.

The Chair observed that developments in the Recruitments and Admissions Working Group were noteworthy and that this work was well aligned with the emerging Recognition of Prior Learning framework.

First Year Experience

Ms Tessa Green provided a verbal report on English Language Proficiency on behalf of Dr Dutch, as he was on annual leave.

English Language Proficiency is a very strong theme in the higher education sector, especially in the lead up to alignment with TEQSA standards by institutions. For example, twenty five Universities now have an English Language Policy.

FYEU is considering twenty-four recommendations from the University’s recent review of English Language provisions and a discussion paper will be circulated widely within the Campus community for consultation and be also presented to the relevant Committees for discussion.

Library

The Committee noted the report. Ms Vickery commented that the new Library premises was undergoing a building review project. Adjustments/remedial solutions will be recommended at the conclusion of the review, based on clients’ and stakeholders’ input, use data and staff comments.

The trialing of longer working hours had been received extremely well. There was a consensus that this was an extremely positive development for students, especially during examination times, and Ms Vickery confirmed that it is planned to retain these hours.

Sydney Institute of Business and Technology

The Committee noted the report (Ms Jeffares was an apology for this meeting).

GENERAL BUSINESS

5.1 Policies and Procedures 5.1.1 Learning and Teaching Policies

The Chair invited the Manager of Governance Services, Ms Williams, to provide an update to the Committee on recent organisational changes. Ms Williams outlined that there had been

Page 9

a change in reporting lines and the University Policy Unit had now been amalgamated into the Governance Services Section of the Deputy Registrar’s Office.

The Chair mentioned that the list of Learning and Teaching Policies circulated with the Agenda was for information of Members. The Policy Unit is in the process of sending out reminders to sponsors and will be working with the Chair and the Deputy Registrar to set up working parties to meet the review cycle.

Action: Professor Verity/Mr Wylie

5.1.2 Action Item from University Council (Closed Book Examinations)

The Chair relayed to Members that the University Council, at its meeting on 18 April, had asked for the Chair of Academic Senate, in consultation with Members of the Committee, to review the University’s Examination Policy with a view to determining the status of closed book examinations in the current information environment. Council had also asked for this review to take into account the international position in regard to professional examinations. The Chair pointed out that Macquarie’s current philosophy was to embrace much broader assessment strategies, but that it might be timely to review the status and conduct of examination processes and to take another look at the assessment policy. He also observer that many professions explicitly ask for assessment practice which is, at least partly, dependent on closed book examinations.

It was agreed to form a Working Party to investigate the intricacies and viability of this proposal and put together a draft paper for the Committee’s consideration. The Chair invited A/Professor Young, A/Professor Solomonides and Ms Paredes to participate in the Working Party and encouraged participation from other Members; he requested anyone interested in contributing to let him know.

It was RESOLVED to form a Working Party to review the Examination Policy, with a view to determining whether closed book examinations remain valid, having regard to the international position on professional examinations.

Action: Professor Verity

5.1.3 Recognition of Prior Learning

Ms Harris provided an overview of the Recognition for Prior Learning and AQF Program Compliance, as outlined in the written update and it was noted that it is intended that work being undertaken in these areas would be presented at the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee on 8 July and the Academic Standards and Quality Committee on 16 July for consideration, and that an amended set be presented to the 6 August meeting of Academic Senate for discussion and endorsement.

It was noted that offers to International students for commencement in Academic Year 2015 would be made in Quarter 4, 2013 and changes cannot be made to programs after offers are accepted. The Chair undertook to discuss this issue with the A/Professor Pamela Coutts.

Action: Professor Verity

It was RESOLVED that a synopsis of the work currently being undertaken in relation to Recognition of Prior Learning and AQF Compliance would be presented for consideration at the next meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee on 8 July 2013.

Page 10

5.2 Academic Integrity

Ms Green elaborated to the Committee the issues that First Year Experience Unit was experiencing in receiving requests from both students and staff for proofreading and/or editing written work. A related issue is also how the University views the use of proofreading and editing services being advertised around campus. Discussion ensued around what distinguishes acceptable and unacceptable conduct. There was a consensus that Postgraduate students working collaboratively may not constitute a breach of academic honesty, depending on the nature of the collaboration, however it was much more clear cut for undergraduate studies, as it paramount for students to work on honing their academic writing skills.

FYEU is requesting clarification of the university’s official position on:

1) the use of proofreading and editing services

2) the type of information that is appropriate to convey to students and staff about the use of third party proofreading and editing services.

This will inform all future communications and will be included in the Academic Integrity Student Module to be released in Session Two through the UniWISE iLearn unit.

A/Professor Solomonides mentioned that there was work being conducted in OLT which was related. The Chair enquired if the Academic Integrity Special Interest Group could consider the issues and propose recommendations. He also asked if he could be invited to attend the meeting of this group when this issue is considered. The Deputy Vice Chancellor (Students and Registrar), Ms Anderson, requested that, as part of this exercise, the relevant University Policies clearly articulate the demarcation between the support the University provides to the students in learning skills and plagiarism.

It was RESOLVED that Academic Integrity Special Interest Group consider the University’s official position on the use of proofreading and editing services and the type of information that is appropriate to convey to students and staff about the use of third party proofreading and editing services and propose recommendations to be included in the Academic Integrity Student Module to be released in Session Two through the UniWISE iLearn unit. The Chair of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee to be invited to the meeting of the Academic Integrity Committee, at which this item is to be considered.

Action: Ms T Green

5.3 Calculation of Student GPAs

It was acknowledged that the current calculation of GPAs as contained in the Grading Policy disadvantages high performing students, as it does not distinguish between the attainment of High Distinctions and Distinctions. The proposed amendment to move to a 7 point GPA scale that disctinguishes HDs and Ds has the added benefit that it would bring Macquarie University’s GPA calculations into line with those of most other Australian institutions. It also ensures that pass cutoffs for transfer and admission do not fall below the centre of the GPA scale.

There was a consensus that this incongruity needed to be rectified by adopting the proposed amendment in the calculation of the GPAs and the Chair undertook to further investigate the

Page 11

practicalities of this change with the Deputy Registrar’s Office and to report back to a subsequent meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee.

It was also suggested that the criteria for the Vice Chancellor’s Recommendations be reviewed in tandem with the proposed change to the calculation of student GPASs to make the system more equitable for students.

It was RESOLVED to endorse the proposed amendment to the calculation of student GPAs to be commensurate with the attainment of a High Distinction and also align it with most other Australian institutions. The Chair to investigate the practicalities of this change with the Deputy Registrar’s Office and report back to a future meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee.

5.4 Update on Student Code of Conduct

The Chair reported that the Student Code of Conduct Working Party members had met with the General Counsel on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 to discuss feedback that had been received by the Working Party and steady progress was being made in addressing the outstanding issues.

5.5 OUA Teaching, Learning and Assessment Model

The Chair solicited feedback from Members on the documentation circulated with the Agenda papers.

Action: Members

5.6 Wellness Dashboard

Mr Darren Peters attended the meeting to elaborate on the paper that was distributed with the Agenda outlining the management of wellness in the higher education sector:

• Creation of a system (in the first instance the focus is on enabling backend capabilities) that would capture the various touch points in the student life cycle to flag students at risk. Examples of the type of the data that can be extracted

o AMIS o Tracker o WiFi o Academic Performance o GENIE o Events Attendance o Library usage

• The DVC (Students and Registrar) has had a discussion with the General Counsel’s office about the legal ramifications of such a system. This is tied in with the development of a Student Code of Conduct, which is in progress.

Page 12

• Implementation will be undertaken in stages to ensure that the system is appropriately embedded in the practices of various functional units, both academic and professional. Currently, the focus is primarily on allied health.

• It is anticipated that a demonstration of the system will be scheduled at a future meeting –this is subject to a commercial arrangement with the University of Technology Sydney and the purchase of a license.

• Work is being undertaken to look into the areas of overlap:

o Academic: Faculties o Allied Health: Campus Wellbeing o Student Administration: Deputy Registrar’s Office

5.7 UAC Code of Ethical Practice

UAC had revised both the Code of Ethical Practice and the Principles Accepted by Participating Institutions, following discussion at the NSW Vice Chancellors’ meeting. The Provost has requested input on the revised Code and Principles by 7 July and as such, any feedback is to be forwarded to Professor Verity by 3 July for consolidation.

Professor Whiteford remarked that the following requisite parameter in Section 3.3. Advice to applications is long overdue and she personally cannot support it strongly enough:

Institutions may NOT make the award of scholarships bonuses or other benefits, such as access to bursaries or provision of books, computers, etc, subject to an applicant’s order of preference.

Action: Members to provide input to Professor Verity by 3 July 2013

5.8 MOOCs Report/Presentation ATTACHMENT 1

Dr Matt Bower made a presentation to the Committee and outlined the approach of the MOOCS Project Overview and outlined the three essential phases:

• Information Gathering exercise for the University, ie, what is going on in the MOOCs sphere

• Internal Consultations • Design of MOOCs – one from each Faculty to understand what the issues were:

o Philosophy - PHL137 Critical Thinking o Education - EDU261 ICT in Education o Finance – ACTS300 Financial Literacy Principles o Computing – COMP255 Software Engineering

Sustainability Issues and Outstanding Issues were also addressed and there was a brief discussion about how programs could be credentialed and the high production quality of units offered through MOOCs retained. In this respect it was imperative to have effective quality controls in place.

In conclusion Dr Bower highlighted the Project Outcomes and the Provost’s vision in regard to tapping into the strengths of Macquarie University’s strengths and realising the emerging opportunities in the MOOCs space, and how this might help to transform our learning and teaching practices. Dr Bower also mentioned that the report contained a lot more information about flexible access, multiple learning pathways, cultural collaborations.

Page 13

Dr Bower conveyed to the audience that the report and presentation was largely the work of Dr Jacqueline Kenney, who had been unable to be at the meeting due to annual leave .

A/Professor Young raised the issue of structuring a governance framework to support the development and application of MOOCs.

Action: Professor Verity, A/Professor Young, Ms Harris to examine the governance question in regard to MOOCs and to report back to the August meeting of SLTC.

5.9 Reports from meetings of the Academic Senate

The reports from meetings held on 30 April 2013 and 4 June 2013 were noted.

6. OTHER BUSINESS

There were no matters to be addressed under Other Business.

7. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee will be held on Monday, 5 August at 10:00am. Agenda Items are due by Thursday, 25 July 2013.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 12.11pm. Professor Dominic Verity Chair

Page 14

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 4.3 Reports from the Faculties For information

Page 15

Faculty of Arts Report to SLTC, July 2013

Faculty Learning and Teaching Research Grants

Congratulations to the following staff who were recently awarded a Faculty of Arts Learning and

Teaching Research grants:

• Ms Lise Barry (Department of Law)

Are You Talking to Me? A Communication skills e-learning module incorporating video

• Dr Nicole Matthews and Dr Jane Simon (MMCCS)

Exploring the affordances of an audio visual on-line glossary in the humanities

• Dr.Chavalin Svetanant and Ms Kayo Nakazawa (International Studies)

Creating interactive engagement in reading activities via the Student Response Network

(SRN) on iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad in a large language classroom

• Dr Hui Ling Xu and Dr Robyn Moloney (International Studies)

Developing intercultural teaching and learning undergraduate cohorts of Chinese Studies

• Dr Kimiko Tsukada, Dr Hui Ling Xu, Dr Nan Xu, Mr Ian Argent and Mr Christopher Arthur

(International Studies)

Assessment of Mandarin tone pronunciation via native listener judgement before and after

listening practice using ipad

• Dr Tom Murray, Dr Steve Collins, Dr Maree Delofski and Ms Liz Giuffre (MMCCS) $5000

The Macquarie Screen Culture Lab – Student led learning in a cross disciplinary environment

Professional Learning

Faculty Board has endorsed the Arts ‘Preparation to Teach’ guidelines – which outlines a series of

guidelines for all academic staff – including inductions, and continuous professional development.

This is now being implemented across the Faculty.

Examination Reporting for Session 1/2013

As part of the examination reporting for Session 1/2013, we have piloted an online version of the

traditional unit convenor’s report in the Department of Media, Music, Communications and

Cultural Studies. Using a Qualtrics survey distributed to all convenors, the Department was able to

collect and collate 60 convenor reports and glean useful feedback (as an example, see collated

Page 16

text responses below). We will discuss the pilot with MMCCS and if their reaction is positive, will

roll out the initiative across the Faculty.

Faculty MOOC Update

We have received preliminary analytics from the Faculty’s first MOOC on the Open2Study

platform. I’ll present more data at a later SLTC meeting, but a couple of interesting tables here.

(For comparison, completion rates on the big MOOCs typically run under 10%...)

Page 17

And here’s a review of the unit from http://moocnewsandreviews.com, a US MOOC blog

Associate Dean Learning and Teaching

Faculty of Arts July 1st 2013

Page 18

Report to the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee Leanne Carter and David Pitt for Leigh Wood June 2013

Theme for 2013: Attracting students The Faculty L&T team is working to attract students to Macquarie, as well as continuing to support initiatives to retain students, enhance their experience and improve outcomes.

Student experience • Survey of high achieving students to ascertain what they would like for recognition and support • Careers seminars for cohorts • Careers strategy embedding across the programs • Student Experience Officer (Juliet Moore) appointed to work with students to improve their academic

performance

Staff appointments in Learning and Teaching • Ms Ashleigh Cassilles has been appointed as a PACE officer on a 6 month contract to replace Dr Jennifer Lai

who has taken maternity leave. • Lilia Draganov has been appointed as Student Experience Officer (PAL and SAR) replacing Michele Gairn.

MIB Update We have continued the design and development of quality enhancement features for four units of the MIB. We have critically evaluated standards to support changes in teaching practice to meet the specific circumstances of the program and stakeholders. The project has evolved focusing on activities that are strategic, scalable and sustainable such as building shared models for professional learning and learning design. As well, we have now a fully functional filming studio and this week we have started to record the convenor's lectures in shorter 10 minutes contained segments. MIB Update:

Session 1 units and academic leaders ACCG835 International Accounting: Parmod Chand, Amitai Lapidot AFIN867 International Financial Management: Damian Bridge, Geoff Loudon BUS854 Leading and Managing in Culturally Diverse Environments: Meena Chavan, Ronald Innis ECON847 International Trade: Marc Lombard, Johannes Hoelzemann

Session 2 units and academic leaders MKTG801 Kanika Meshram, Brenton Price BUS804 Rob Jack, Yue Wang

Units are continuing to be designed and developed, which is changing teaching practices as lecturers record their material. They are taking a student-centred approach to learning which includes the use of simulations, animations, power-point and video. Issues currently being discussed include the integration of iLearn (quality and the understanding of the iterative nature of learning design) as well as the video time lines (due to taking a more student-centred approach) but are currently on target.

Page 19

Undergraduate On-line courses Deidre Seeto (LTC), Mauricio and Scarlet are working with several academics to build on-line courses. The unit that will be ready for next session is HRM250 Human Resource Management. There is some discussion needed moving forward to determine the type of units that suit this delivery, how it works within the EBA, market factors and discipline specific issues, before it is rolled out. Other interested academics include David Pitt (Actuarial) and Sue Wright (Applied Finance).

Student Success Program Juliet Moore (LTC) has commenced work on the development of a system for identifying students at risk of failure with the objective of improving student retention in FBE. Identification of students at risk is the first stage. This involves using AMIS data relating to GPA in addition to failures on early diagnostic tests or other assessments recorded in Gradebook. Identified students are to be offered independent study support skills classes in addition to subject specific assistance. The project will be extended to provide an automated tracking system for all students in FBE over time.

Lucy Mentoring Initiative 2013 marks the third year of the Lucy Mentoring initiative in the Faculty of Business and Economics at Macquarie University with the Lucy Mentoring launch held in early June at MGSM. This mentoring program links female undergraduates in their second year (or above) with industry mentors, enabling our students to build networks, gain confidence and a better understanding of the workplace. The Lucy Mentoring program was launched in 2011 with only 10 student placements. The growth is evidenced this year as we received 100 applications from interested students and were able to offer placements to approximately 30 students with partner organisations.

First STEP Mentoring We held a final afternoon tea for the participants in First STEP Mentoring for Session 1 at the end of May. The peer mentors (2nd, 3rd and 4th year students in FBE) were awarded certificates signed by the Dean thanking them for their participation. Preparations are now underway for the Session 2 program. We have 15 academics from across the 4 Departments in FBE participating and have the same number of peer mentors. Students who will be coming into Macquarie through the mid- year intake and students that are in their second semester (but still first year) at Macquarie are eligible to participate. The launch for the program will be held in Week 2 of Session 2.

Merit Scholars Mentoring (Foundations for Success) FBE are piloting a similar mentoring program to First STEP for the first year merit scholars (32 students across the 4 Faculties) in Session 2. The mentors for this program will be either Professors, Associate Professors or research academics. We currently have Sue Wright, Leonie Tickle, David Pitt, Nick Parr and Vicki Baard from FBE participating. We are still working with the other faculties to get them on board. This program will have a soft launch in Week 1 of Session 2.

PACE Update Approximately 107 students have been through the Shell Units involving 30 partners. In total approximately 280 students have had a participation experience this session involving 64 partners. The Ethics Protocol training will be compulsory for all students enrolled in the Faculty Shell Units from session 2013. 5 PACE Grants were submitted by FBE with all being accepted with some minor revisions 4 PACE papers/presentations abstracts have been submitted for Learning and Teaching Week.

Judyth Sachs’ Participation Prize 2012 There are awards for students who have undertaken a participation experience and demonstrated excellence in:

1. The quality and value of the contribution made by the student/s to the partner organisation and/or the broader community;

Page 20

2. The quality of the student’s reflection on how the activity enabled them to achieve one or more of the Learning Outcomes of the unit;

3. The quality and value of the Participation activity to the student/s, particularly in terms of meeting professional and personal goals.

Recipients will also have the Prizes recorded on their Academic Transcript and Australian Higher Education Graduate Statement. The winners in FBE for 2012 are Marc Harrold, Carolyn Yuan, Jennifer Sutoji Jie. Their activity was with Deloitte (Fastrack Innovation and Intrapreneurship Challenge) and were enrolled in the Faculty Shell Unit FOBE300 Student Leadership in Community Engagement. There is a Prize giving ceremony to be hosted by Judyth Sachs on 1st August for students and their partner/host organisations.

Energy Carbon Strategy Project Update Green Accounting online unit as a joint project between the CPA and Macquarie University is now live. It is a short course designed for professional development. www.energycarbonstrategy.com

Page 21

Faculty of Science June 2013 Report to Senate Learning and Teaching Committee

A/Prof Jenny Donald, A/Dean Learning and Teaching

Students at Academic Risk

A number of initiatives are taking place in this area.

1. Development of academic literacy

The issue of poor academic literacy has received considerable discussion within the Faculty. A key issue is referring students to appropriate academic support early in their studies. In many Departments in the Faculty of Science much of the marking of assessment tasks, particularly in large lower level units, is being done by postgraduate students. While these postgraduate tutors and demonstrators receive induction into aspects of the laboratory teaching, they infrequently receive training in recognizing problems in academic literacy.

A pilot program is being run in the Department of Biological Sciences to address this issue. A half day workshop for all postgraduate tutors is being run in collaboration with the First Year Experience unit with the aims of giving tutors the tools to identify and correct grammatical and structural issues that are common in student writing. In addition it aims to aid tutors in the identification of students with literacy problems and of the level of intervention necessary, and to inform them of the range of literacy support resources and programs to which students can be referred.

2. Early assessment tasks

Following on from the review of early assessment tasks in the Faculty of Science, a workshop is being planned in conjunction with the Learning and Teaching Centre to consider new approaches to these early assessments, including a series of competency based assessments.

3. Quantitative skills

Inadequate mathematical skills are recognized as a risk factor for Science students. Discussions have been held with Departments on the quantitative skills required for their programs, with a view to developing a new unit for 100 level Science students to specifically cater for the needs of students in the life and environmental sciences. In addition efforts are being made to ensure that new students are made aware of the support available from the Numeracy Centre before they commence their studies.

Page 22

Program conveners

Program conveners have now been identified for all programs and majors in the Faculty of Science. A series of workshops is being planned to discuss the roles of program conveners and the development of program level learning outcomes.

L&T grant success

Dr McIver was awarded an ISP grant for a project entitled “Reflection and relevance in computer science - representing, sharing and reviewing computing solutions”

Dr Petocz was awarded an ISP grant for a project entitled “Exploring a Model for Peer Learning in Statistics”

Dr Nipperess was awarded an ISP grant for a project entitled “Exploring New Worlds: using a simulated environment to discover the rules of nature”

Dr Westaway was awarded a Competitive grant for a project entitled “The gamification of key concepts in earth science; enhancing student understanding and engaging surface learners”

Dr Bollerup was awarded a Competitive grant for a project entitled “Capacity building for a nurturing research environment within the university setting”

Dr Parker was awarded a Competitive grant for a project entitled “Training of Engineering postgraduates and teaching assistants as effective mentors and tutors in the undergraduate classroom”

Faculty Partnership Program

Three applications for FPP Projects for Session 2, 2013 have been accepted for development and will commence in July:

• “Engaging marine science students through a flipped classroom model” - Academic Lead: Melanie Bishop

• “Marine Conservation and Management – Level 700” - Academic Lead: Paul Duckett

• "Questions and Answers to improve critical thinking in statistics” - Academic Lead: Maurizio Manuguerra

Tutoring Induction Program (TIP)

Following the very positive responses received from participants in the Tutoring Induction Program offered by LTC in session 1, the Faculty of Science will continue to offer funding to Departments to allow more new teachers to attend TIP for the start of session 2.

Page 23

Brazilian Science Without Borders students

The Brazilian Science Without Borders program is a large-scale, nationwide scholarship program that is primarily funded by the Brazilian federal government. The program seeks to strengthen and expand Brazilian education in the areas of science, technology, innovation and competitiveness by providing opportunities for students to study abroad. Plans are currently underway for the first cohort of students under this program, who will be arriving at Macquarie in July. They will receive intensive English tuition for 25 weeks before enrolling in Science and Engineering units for sessions 1 and 2 in 2014.

Associate Dean Learning and Teaching Faculty of Science, June 2013

Page 24

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.1.1 Academic Honesty/Integrity Policy, Procedure and Schedule For noting; and for full discussion at the next meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee.

Page 25

POLICY

Academic Honesty Policy

Purpose To enable the University to take a consistent, equitable and transparent approach to academic honesty amongst staff and students.

Overview The nature of scholarly endeavour, dependent as it is on the work of others, binds all members of the University community to abide by the principles of academic honesty. Academic honesty is an integral part of the core values and principles contained in the Macquarie University Ethics Statement. Its fundamental principle is that all staff and students act with integrity in the creation, development, application and use of ideas and information. This means that:

• all academic work claimed as original is the work of the author making the claim

• all academic collaborations are acknowledged • academic work is not falsified in any way • when the ideas of others are used, these ideas are

acknowledged appropriately. All academic and professional staff involved in learning, teaching and research are expected to display leadership in this area. One of the University’s objectives is to produce ethically and socially aware graduates, capable of applying the skills and knowledge they have developed at University to all aspects of their lives, as well as to their academic work. Academic dishonesty undermines the integrity of the University’s academic awards and assessment processes, and damages the University’s reputation. It also reduces the effectiveness of a student’s time at the University. Examples of some dishonest behaviours are deception, fabrication, obstruction, plagiarism and sabotage. DEFINITIONS Deception: includes, but is not limited to, false indication of group contribution, false indication of assignment submission, collusion, submission of a work previously submitted, creating a new article out of an existing article by rewriting/reusing it (laundering), using the same data to form the same arguments and conclusion, presenting collaborative work as one’s own without acknowledging others’ contributions, cheating in an examination or using others to write material for examination. Fabrication: includes, but is not limited to, creating fictitious clinical data, citation(s), or referee reports.

Page 26

Obstruction: intentionally impeding or interfering with another student’s academic work. Plagiarism: Using the work or ideas of another person, whether intentionally or not, and presenting this as your own without clear acknowledgement of the source of the work or ideas. This includes, but is not limited to, any of the following acts:

• copying out part(s) of any document or audio-visual material or computer code or website content without indicating their origins

• using or extracting another person's concepts, experimental results, or conclusions

• summarising another person's work • submitting substantially the same final version of any material

as another student in an assignment where there was collaborative preparatory work

• use of others (paid or otherwise) to conceive, research or write material submitted for assessment (eg ghost writing)

• submitting the same or substantially the same piece of work for two different tasks (self-plagiarism).

Sabotage: includes, but is not limited to, theft of work, destruction of library materials.

Scope This Policy applies to all students and to staff of the University involved in learning, teaching and research.

Policy The key principles of this policy are that the University will: • require all students and staff to undertake their academic work

honestly • encourage all staff and students to complete appropriate

training • use a range of approaches to educate students and staff to

practise honesty in their academic work and raise awareness of the importance of ensuring ethical behaviour with respect to research

• take consistent and equitable action to manage dishonest student behaviours by:

o communicating to students that any piece of academic work can be checked at any time using an appropriate process

o implementing a common remedial and penalty framework across the University

o establishing and applying appropriate, consistent procedures for detecting and investigating alleged academic dishonesty, and

o providing and communicating the appeal process • apply the appropriate processes of the Macquarie University

Enterprise Agreement to manage alleged academic dishonesty by staff.

Page 27

The University will engage staff and students by:

• using appropriate mechanisms to advise staff and students of the Policy

• developing educational strategies to promote academic honesty • developing strategies that reduce opportunities for academic

dishonesty • designing strategies to increase student engagement with their

study, and their ability to submit their own work, and • reviewing these strategies at appropriate intervals.

COMPLIANCE AND BREACHES The University may commence applicable disciplinary procedures if a person to whom this policy applies breaches this policy (or any of its related procedures).

Contact Officer Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching, Faculty of

Human Science Date Approved 13 November 2012 Approval Authority Academic Senate Date of Commencement For units with a teaching start date of 1 January 2013 or

later Amendment Dates n/a Date for Next Review December 2013 Related Documents Academic Honesty Procedure / Schedule of Penalties

Assessment Policy / Procedure / Guideline Ethics Statement Macquarie University Enterprise Agreement Staff Code of Conduct Links Academic Integrity Training Allegation – Notice Letter Faculty Discipline Committee – Terms of Reference Notification of Student Breach Form

Policies/Rules Superseded by this Policy

Academic Honesty Policy approved 11 August 2009

Keywords Academic honesty, academic dishonesty, plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, sabotage, deception, academic integrity

Page 28

PROCEDURE

Academic Honesty Procedure

Purpose To outline the steps to be undertaken to implement the Academic

Honesty Policy for a student of the University. Cases of academic dishonesty involving staff will be dealt with under the provisions of the Macquarie University Enterprise Agreement.

Procedure This procedure requires actions by the following: • Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching • Director, Campus Well-being and Support Services • Executive Dean / Dean • Faculty Discipline Committee • Faculty Student Administration Manager • Head of Department • Investigator • Manager, Learning Skills • Manager, Student Administration and Systems • Staff • Student • Unit Convenor

Student RESPONSIBILITIES Act in accordance with the principles of the Academic Honesty Policy. Become familiar with what academic dishonesty is and the consequences of poor practice. Use appropriate referencing techniques. Seek assistance from the unit convenor to remedy any deficits or clarify discipline specific practice. Submit only work of which you are the author or that properly acknowledges others. Do not lend or provide your original work, marked or unmarked, to any other person for any reason. Keep drafts of your own authored work and notes showing the authorship or source of ideas that are not your own. Undertake any remedial or other learning activities as directed by the Faculty Discipline Committee.

Staff RESPONSIBILITIES Cultivate in students and colleagues a climate of mutual respect for the

Page 29

principles outlined in the Academic Honesty Policy. Report suspected breaches of the Academic Honesty Policy to the Unit Convenor providing all relevant materials and evidence of the basis for the allegation. Become familiar with methods to prevent and detect breaches of the Academic Honesty Policy including, but not limited to:

• using copy detection software • random sampling of assessment items to check for similarities • comparing student performance across a number of tasks • requiring students to defend submitted assessment tasks eg by

oral examination or seminar presentation. Become familiar with best practice in assessment design.

Unit Convenor RAISE AWARENESS Ensure that all students, especially commencing students, are informed of the standards and expectations with regard to academic work. Explain expectations about academic honesty. Require that all students confirm that the work submitted for assessment complies with the Academic Honesty Policy. Where a breach is suspected, report it to the Faculty Student Administration Manager. Include all relevant materials and evidence of the basis for the allegation. Where a case is proven implement actions as determined by the Faculty Discipline Committee.

Faculty Student Administration Manager

PROCESS Conduct all administrative arrangements for an investigation into a suspected case of academic honesty, including:

• collating all evidence • working with the investigator • ensuring the student is informed of the allegations • coordinating an interview, if necessary • notifying the Unit Convenor of the Faculty Discipline Committee

decision • notifying the student of the outcome of the case and the

implications of the decision (ie penalty imposed) • taking and keeping a record of meeting notes.

REVIEW HISTORY Where the Faculty Discipline Committee have determined the case is proven, obtain details of a student’s academic honesty breach history from Student One. Provide these details to the Faculty Discipline Committee to allow them to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed.

Page 30

UPDATE RECORDS Where the case is proven, ensure Student One is updated with details of the nature of the breach, the penalty imposed and the level of that penalty.

Head of Department

NOMINATE INVESTIGATOR Arrange for the case to be investigated.

Investigator INVESTIGATE Investigate the case ensuring the principles of procedural fairness are followed by:

• informing the student of the allegation against them in sufficient detail for them to be able to understand the case

• allowing the student a reasonable period of time to respond to the allegation (normally fifteen working days from the date of notification)

• ensuring a recommendation is made to the Faculty Discipline Committee within ten working days from the date the case was reported to the Head of Department

• keeping details of the allegations confidential • ensuring there is no actual or perceived conflict of interest or

lack of impartiality • permitting an observer or support person for the student, who is

not acting as a legal representative nor is legally qualified, to attend any meeting, if the student chooses

• ensuring brief notes of any meetings are kept and made available to the student if requested.

On completion of the investigation, submit a recommendation to the Faculty Student Administration Manager, for the consideration by the Faculty Discipline Committee.

Faculty Discipline Committee

REVIEW OUTCOME OF INVESTIGATION Receive the recommendation from the investigation into a suspected breach of the Academic Honesty Policy. Consider the details of the case undertaking further investigation as appropriate. Where the circumstances are sufficiently serious, refer the case directly to the University Discipline Committee. For all other cases, decide if the case is proven. CASE PROVEN – IMPOSE PENALTY Where the case is proven:

• review the student’s academic honesty breach history as recorded in Student One

• impose a penalty in line with Schedule of Penalties (where this is a second or subsequent proven case of academic dishonesty take this into account when determining the penalty)

• issue a written warning to the student outlining the action that

Page 31

will result from any subsequent breach • arrange for the student to receive counselling • identify any training, remedial or learning activities, or

community service the student is required to undertake, and • refer the student to the support services that are available to

assist (eg Learning Skills). CASE NOT PROVEN Where the case is not proven, advise the Executive Dean and Faculty Student Administration Manager. REPORT Provide a report to the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee by April each year on the number of proven cases of breaches of the Academic Honesty Policy. The report is to include the nature of the proven breach and the penalty imposed, together with details of the strategies being used by the faculty to make students and staff aware of the obligations mandated by the Academic Honesty Policy and what education or other programs are in use or being implemented.

Manager, Learning Skills

LEARNING SKILLS Provide remedial and learning activities to students, especially those referred through an investigation into a suspected case of academic dishonesty. Staff a referral point in the Library to provide students with access to learning advisers who can assist the student develop enhanced learning skills.

Director, Campus Wellbeing and Support

PASTORAL CARE Arrange for pastoral care services to be available for all students referred to the University Discipline Committee.

Executive Dean/Dean

COMMUNICATION Promote increased knowledge and awareness of the academic honesty policy across all staff and students. Ensure that policies and procedures on academic honesty are implemented and applied consistently across the faculty, including adoption of best practice in assessment design and in detecting academic dishonesty. ESTABLISH COMMITTEE Establish a Faculty Discipline Committee to:

• consider cases of suspected academic dishonesty • determine the penalty, where the case is proven.

Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching

COMMUNICATION Develop strategies to educate students and staff on the principles of the Academic Honesty Policy. Provide general advice and support to all staff within the faculty with respect to academic honesty.

Page 32

Manager, Student Administration and Systems

RECORD KEEPING Provide a system for recording proven breaches of the Academic Honesty Policy in Student One which includes the student name, the nature of the breach and the penalty imposed.

Contact Officer Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Human Science

Date Approved 17 October 2012 Approval Authority Senate Learning and Teaching Committee Date of Commencement For units with a teaching start date of 1 January 2013 or

later Amendment Dates This document supersedes the Academic Honesty

Procedure approved 16 June 2010 Date for Next Review December 2013 Related Documents Academic Honesty Policy / Schedule of Penalties

Assessment Policy / Guideline Ethics Statement Macquarie University Enterprise Agreement Schedule of Penalties: Academic Dishonesty Staff Code of Conduct Student Misconduct and Discipline Rules Links Allegation – Notice Letter Faculty Discipline Committee – Terms of Reference Notification of Student Breach Form UniWISE

Keywords Academic honesty, academic dishonesty, plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, sabotage, deception, destruction of learning objects

Page 33

SCHEDULE Academic Dishonesty – Schedule of

Penalties

Purpose To detail the minimum penalty to be imposed on a coursework student for proven breaches of the Academic Honesty Policy.

Schedule Once a breach has been proven, the student’s prior history is reviewed to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed according to the following penalty table. The table specifies only the minimum penalties to be applied under certain specific circumstances. Faculty Discipline Committees may determine that a higher level of penalty than the minimum given here is appropriate in specific cases.

Level Penalty Where one of the conditions listed below is met, the penalty for that level is the minimum to be applied.

1 One of: • reduced mark for the

assessment task • required resubmission

with reduced maximum mark

• issuance of a caution.

2 Fail for assessment task (with mark of zero).

• Previous level 1 breach. • Final examination breach

not otherwise escalated to Level 4.

• Cases of copying and plagiarism in which more than 50% of the content of an assessment submission is not the work of the student.

3 Fail for unit (with mark of zero).

• Previous level 2 breach • Suborning or organising

others into a breach of Policy

4 Referral to the University Discipline Committee.

• Previous level 3 or 4 breach.

• Buying or selling any component of an assessment task

Page 34

• Fraud, such as identity fraud in examinations.

• Threatening or violent behaviour.

Contact Officer Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Human Science

Date Approved 13 November 2012

Approval Authority Academic Senate Date of Commencement For units with a teaching start date of 1 January 2013 or

later Amendment Dates This document supersedes the Academic Dishonesty -

Schedule of Penalties approved 11 August 2009 Date for Next Review December 2013 Keywords Academic honesty, academic dishonesty, plagiarism,

cheating, fabrication, sabotage, deception, academic integrity, penalty

Policy Authorisation Academic Honesty Policy

Page 35

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.1.2 Grading Policy For noting and for full discussion at the next meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee

Page 36

POLICY

Grading Policy

Purpose To articulate the principles that underpin the Macquarie University approach to the grading of student learning. These principles will inform the conduct and management of grading used in all coursework units.

Overview The University recognises the importance of producing grades and reports of student learning achievements that are valid, reliable and accurate representations of each student’s capabilities in relation to clearly articulated learning objectives. The University operates on the premise that through assessment students are encouraged to engage in their education, rather than merely pursue grades. As a self-accrediting institution, the University is committed to ensuring these grades are consistent with national and international benchmarks. Equally, the grades must be comparable across the institution and referenced to predetermined standards.

Scope This policy applies to all coursework units offered by or on behalf of Macquarie University.

Policy The University will ensure that students are informed of the expectations and learning outcomes related to each assessment task required for each unit of study. The grade a student receives will signify their overall performance in meeting the learning outcomes of a unit of study. Grades will not be awarded by reference to the achievement of other students nor allocated to fit a predetermined distribution. In determining a grade, due weight will be given to the learning outcomes and level of a unit (ie 100, 200, 300, 800 etc). Each passing grade subsumes and goes beyond the grades lower than it. The University will establish procedures for producing grades that will be consistent, fair and equitable. STANDARDISED NUMERICAL GRADE (SNG) The number assigned to a grade, known as the Standardised Numerical Grade (SNG) reflects the extent to which student attainment

Page 37

matches the descriptors. For example, an SNG of 65 demonstrates performance that shows the achievement of the minimum set of attributes that satisfy the credit standard; an SNG of 70 demonstrates the achievement of a credit standard above the minimum but below the level of the distinction standard; an SNG of 75 is a performance that shows the achievement of the minimum set of attributes that satisfy the distinction standard. In relation to grading, there are two type of units:

• Graded • Non-Graded

Both types of units will have a finite list of University grades that may be awarded. Graded units will use the following grades and be aligned/mapped to the listed numerical range: HD High Distinction 85-100 D Distinction 75-84 Cr Credit 65-74 P Pass 50-64 F Fail 0-49 Non-graded units (ie those assessed on a pass/fail basis only) will use the following grades but will not be assigned a numerical range: S Satisfactory No SNG F Fail No SNG Where a unit is completed at another tertiary institution, it may be recognised on a Macquarie University academic record with the relevant grade. GRADE POINT AVERAGE A Grade Point Average (GPA) is a calculation that reflects the overall grades of a student in a coursework program. It will be calculated on the basis of the units completed at Macquarie University towards the program. It will not take into account credit points granted for credit for previous studies, advanced standing or through non-award study. The calculation will be based on the following: Grades obtained from 2011 and onwards GPA = (4w + 3x + 2y + 0f) divided by e where w is the number of credit points gained at HD and D, x is the number of credit points gained at Cr, y is the number of credit points gained at P, e is the total number of credit points for which a student is effectively enrolled (excluding units with W or S), f is the number of credit points gained with an F grade. Grades obtained from 2001 – 2010 GPA = (4w + 3x + 2y + 1z + 0f) divided by e where w is the number of credit points gained at HD and D, x is the number of credit points

Page 38

gained at Cr, y is the number of credit points gained at P, z is the number of credit points gained at PC, e is the total number of credit points for which a student is effectively enrolled (excluding units with W or S), f is the number of credit points gained with an F grade. Grades obtained prior to 2001 GPA = (4a + 3b + 2c+ 1cq+ 0f) divided by e where a is the number of credit points gained at A grade, b is the number of credit points gained at B grade, c is the number of credit points gained at C grade, cq is the number of credit points gained at CQ grade, e is the total number of credit points for which a student is effectively enrolled (excluding units with W or P), f is the number of credit points gained with an F grade. DESCRIPTORS The following generic grade descriptors provide university-wide standards for awarding final grades. The inclusion of a specific reference to unit learning outcome within each descriptor enables these descriptors to be applied to all coursework units of study. It is expected that the learning outcomes will be differentiated across levels of study to reflect an increasing cognitive complexity throughout a program as students work towards attainment of the graduate capabilities. Although unit conveners may develop criteria and standards for specific assessment tasks, the determination of the final grade must reflect the descriptors given below. High Distinction Provides consistent evidence of deep and critical understanding in relation to the learning outcomes. There is substantial originality and insight in identifying, generating and communicating competing arguments, perspectives or problem solving approaches; critical evaluation of problems, their solutions and their implications; creativity in application as appropriate to the discipline. Distinction Provides evidence of integration and evaluation of critical ideas, principles and theories, distinctive insight and ability in applying relevant skills and concepts in relation to learning outcomes. There is demonstration of frequent originality in defining and analysing issues or problems and providing solutions; and the use of means of communication appropriate to the discipline and the audience. Credit Provides evidence of learning that goes beyond replication of content knowledge or skills relevant to the learning outcomes. There is demonstration of substantial understanding of fundamental concepts in the field of study and the ability to apply these concepts in a variety of contexts; convincing argumentation with appropriate coherent justification; communication of ideas fluently and clearly in terms of the conventions of the discipline. Pass

Page 39

Provides sufficient evidence of the achievement of learning outcomes. There is demonstration of understanding and application of fundamental concepts of the field of study; routine argumentation with acceptable justification; communication of information and ideas adequately in terms of the conventions of the discipline. The learning attainment is considered satisfactory or adequate or competent or capable in relation to the specified outcomes. Fail Does not provide evidence of attainment of learning outcomes. There is missing or partial or superficial or faulty understanding and application of the fundamental concepts in the field of study; missing, undeveloped, inappropriate or confusing argumentation; incomplete, confusing or lacking communication of ideas in ways that give little attention to the conventions of the discipline. Satisfactory Used for units where grading is on a pass or fail basis only. The learning attainment is considered satisfactory in relation to the specified outcomes. S Satisfactory No range F Fail No range Results The University will not issue paper-based result notifications except for students who qualify for an award. Students will be responsible for accessing the online student system (Student One) to determine their unit result. STATUS The University can also endorse student records with a status: I Indicates the unit is incomplete IS Indicates the unit is incomplete and a special examination is

granted K Indicates that a postgraduate unit or honours program

continued over more than one half year W Denotes withdrawn without penalty Z Indicates a thesis or dissertation has been submitted and is

being assessed COMPLIANCE AND BREACHES The University may commence applicable disciplinary procedures if a person to whom this policy applies breaches this policy (or any of its related procedures).

Contact Officer Chair, Academic Senate Learning and Teaching

Committee Date Approved 3 August 2010 Approval Authority Academic Senate

Page 40

Date of Commencement For units with a teaching start date of 1 January 2011 or later

Amendment Dates November 2011 – updated with compliances and breaches statement

Date for Next Review August 2013 Related Policies, Procedures, Guidelines, Forms or Templates

Academic Transcript Request Procedure Assessment Policy / Procedure / Code of Practice Grade Appeal Policy Grade Point Calculator Unit Guide Policy / Procedure

Policies/Rules Superseded by this Policy

Bachelor Degree Rule 9 (1), (2), (3) Certificate Rule 5 Diploma Rule 7 Graduate Certificate Rule 6 Graduate Diploma Rule 6 Master by Coursework Rules 7 (2), (3), (4), (5) Postgraduate Certificate Rules 7 (2), (3), (4), (5) Postgraduate Diploma Rules 7 (2), (3), (4), (5)

Keywords Grade, Grading, Assessment

Page 41

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.1.3 Student Feedback on Learning, Teaching and Curriculum Policy For noting and for full discussion at the next meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee.

Page 42

POLICY Student Feedback on Learning,

Teaching and Curriculum Policy

Purpose To articulate the principles that underpin the Macquarie University approach to obtaining feedback from students about their experience of learning, teaching and curriculum.

To provide the basis for the procedures to be used in the collection, analysis, reporting and use of student feedback. The policy and procedures together provide a foundation for embedding student evaluation and feedback processes into a continuous cycle of quality enhancement at individual, unit, program, department, faculty and University levels.

To demonstrate Macquarie University’s commitment to enhancing learning and teaching through student-centred evaluation and feedback practices.

Overview Macquarie University is committed to providing outstanding learning environments and programs that lead to excellent outcomes for graduates, enabling them to work in, and guide, a world characterised by increasing change.

Macquarie University supports and encourages a learning environment of mutual trust, contributed to by students and academics, which includes rigorous assessment of student performance and evaluation and feedback by students about aspects of their learning environment.

This policy and the associated procedures and guidelines recognise that student views about their experience at Macquarie, their programs of study, units and the teaching within those units and programs are an essential part of the quality enhancement cycle as detailed in the Quality Enhancement Framework Policy:

A student-focused approach whereby students are engaged and student feedback data informs all phases of the Quality Enhancement Cycle.

Student feedback on learning, teaching and curriculum forms a component of a system for quality improvement, quality assurance and reward and recognition of teaching quality. Student feedback contributes to:

• confirming to students and the community that Macquarie University is committed to the achievement and maintenance of effective teaching and learning

• providing a basis for individual and collaborative critical reflection on teaching and curriculum

Page 43

• identifying aspects of teaching and curriculum that are successful examples of effective practice, present opportunities for enhancement or require development

• providing evidence to guide review processes and decisions at University, Faculty, Department, Discipline, Program and Unit levels

• informing strategic development of learning and teaching capacity across the University

• informing Performance Development and Review (PDR), probation, promotion, reward and recognition schemes and processes

• providing evidence for reporting the effectiveness of learning and teaching initiatives and projects, and

• providing evidence of learning and teaching performance to professional, statutory and regulatory bodies.

Scope This policy sets out the principles underpinning the University’s approach to obtaining feedback from students on their experience of learning, teaching and curriculum. This approach comprises the following activities:

• planning, administering and reporting on student surveys, including those currently administered by the Teaching Evaluation for Development Service (TEDS) and Macquarie Analytics (MQA)

• developing and implementing systematic student evaluation and feedback schedules at individual teacher, unit, department, faculty and University levels

• integrating student feedback data and other evaluative information with quality enhancement processes at all levels (formative purposes)

• where appropriate, using student feedback for summative purposes, and

• providing students with information about teaching and curriculum enhancements made in response to student evaluation data.

The policy and associated procedures apply to:

• staff with responsibilities for planning, delivery and/or leadership of learning and teaching in Macquarie University programs, including casual, sessional, fixed-term and contract teaching staff

• staff with administrative responsibilities relating to learning and teaching in Macquarie University programs

• all organisational units involved with student experience of learning, teaching and curriculum, who might from time to time wish to seek student feedback about their services, and

• staff of the Learning and Teaching Centre (LTC) and MQA. The policy and associated procedures must be applied in accordance with the University’s obligations under legislative and regulatory

Page 44

requirements and workplace agreements.

Policy Student feedback will focus on the development and enhancement of student learning and experience, underpinned by the following principles:

• The primary purpose of collecting student feedback is to enhance the quality of learning, teaching and curriculum. Student feedback may be used for teaching award applications, but these purposes are secondary to quality enhancement.

• Obtaining student feedback is one component of each Faculty and Department’s systematic learning and teaching evaluation plan, formulated in alignment with the Macquarie University Quality Enhancement Framework Policy and Quality Enhancement for University Structures and Activities Schedule.

• Formal student evaluation is considered as one of many sources (such as small group discussions) of information on teaching and curriculum effectiveness and will not be used in isolation.

• The interpretation of student feedback data must take into account the influence of contextual factors.

• Student evaluation processes will be undertaken in alignment with published policies, procedures and guidelines and within the Ethical Framework of the University.

STANDARDS AND BENCHMARKING Academic Senate will determine standards for student feedback on teaching and units. Unit evaluation standards will provide a basis for benchmarking in Unit and Program quality assurance and review processes. The standards will take into account known contextual factors. EVALUATION AND REPORTING CYCLE Each Faculty will plan and establish a cycle of evaluation at Unit, Department and Program levels. This evaluation cycle will obtain, review and report on information about learning, teaching and curriculum. One component of this information is student feedback. COORDINATION, ADMINISTRATION AND USE OF SURVEYS To prevent survey fatigue and duplication of information, MQA will maintain a register of all student surveys, although they may be administered locally by an appropriate organisational unit. INTEGRITY OF STUDENT EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK SYSTEMS In accordance with Principle 1, student feedback should above all inform the development and enhancement of learning, teaching and the student experience. This requires a high level of trust in the systems used to obtain, analyse, store and report on the data collected. Data integrity must be maintained by developing systematic approaches to collection and management at all levels in the

Page 45

University. CONFIDENTIALITY AND ANONYMITY OF RESPONDENTS Reporting process must not identify any individual student survey respondent unless the latter’s permission is explicitly sought and granted. Respondents must be informed of the uses that may be made of the data, including the level of aggregation used in analysis and reporting of results and the possible use of de-identified quotes in staff teaching portfolios, applications for promotion, probation and rewards and information provided to prospective students. EVALUATION OF TEACHING, UNIT AND PROGRAM While the University recognises the importance of obtaining student feedback in standard forms (i.e. surveys), it also appreciates the limitations of such standardised approaches. Therefore the evaluation of teaching and curriculum should encompass a broader range of feedback mechanisms. When evaluating and reviewing curriculum and teaching practices, staff with learning and teaching responsibilities (including the planning, administration and leadership of learning and teaching activities) are expected to consider diverse sources of information, as well as the context in which the activities under review were undertaken. NOTE: Results from Learner Experience of Teaching (LET) surveys on their own provide insufficient information about teaching quality and must not be used as the sole determinant of judgments about an individual’s teaching performance. REPORTING STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS Student survey results may be aggregated at different levels, including individual, unit, discipline, department, faculty, program and University. The appropriate level of aggregation for reporting of student survey results depends on the specific purpose(s) of the particular instrument used. Details of reporting frameworks and appropriate levels of aggregation for survey instruments administered by TEDS and the MQA are provided in the accompanying Procedures and Guidelines. FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS It is important for faculties, departments and individual teachers to demonstrate the University’s commitment to learning, teaching and curriculum enhancement by informing students about changes made in response to feedback from previous students. This also serves to build student awareness of, and constructive engagement with, student feedback mechanisms. Summary information on previous student feedback and changes made in response to this feedback will be included in Unit Guides. COMPLIANCE AND BREACHES The University may commence applicable disciplinary procedures if a person to whom this Policy applies breaches this Policy (or any of its related procedures).

Page 46

Contact Officer Director, Learning and Teaching Centre Date Approved ~draft 25June 2013 Approval Authority Academic Senate Date of Commencement 1 June 2010 Amendment Dates August 2011 – Date for Next Review extended Date for Next Review March 2013 Related Documents Assessment Policy / Procedure / Guideline

Evaluation of Teaching Procedure Evaluation of Unit and Program Procedure Macquarie University Strategic Directions Quality Enhancement Framework Policy / Schedule Reviews Procedure Teaching Evaluation for Development Service (TEDS) Procedure Unit Guide Policy / Procedure

Policies/Rules Superseded by this Policy

TEDS policy (Learning and Teaching Centre)

Keywords Student Evaluation, Learning and Teaching, Student Surveys, Quality Enhancement.

Page 47

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.1.4 Learning Technologies Policy and Procedure For noting and for full discussion at the next meeting of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee.

Page 48

POLICY

Learning Technologies Policy

Purpose To define the use and management of learning technologies at Macquarie University.

Overview There are a variety of learning technologies used to support learning and teaching at Macquarie University. They cover a broad range of digital tools used to support the learning and teaching processes embedded in the curriculum. Learning technologies include software, electronic devices (eg mobile phones, PDAs) and Internet-based applications. At Macquarie, learning technologies are to be used wisely and effectively to enable and enhance the student experience through:

• seamless connections between people and places across the globe

• efficient and effective access to information and resources • new ways to participate, interact, communicate and collaborate • creative opportunities to generate, present and disseminate

knowledge The use of technologies for learning and teaching is not regarded as a distinct and separate eLearning occurrence. Rather, the Macquarie approach is for a fully integrated experience, in which technologies are seamlessly integrated into the curriculum and the environment in which they are situated. The University maintains a university-wide Learning Technologies Platform (MLTP) which houses:

• the University’s Learning Management System (LMS) for the online delivery of units; and

• a range of applications that support specific learning and teaching processes.

In addition to the learning technologies available on the MLTP, some Faculties and Departments maintain their own learning technologies or enable staff to make use of applications hosted on sites external to the University to support learning and teaching in the programs they offer.

Scope This policy covers the management and use of learning technologies on the MLTP, as well as those managed by Faculties and Departments for learning and teaching purposes. It will be of relevance to all staff involved in learning and teaching and the management of learning technologies, and all students of Macquarie University.

Page 49

Policy TECHNOLOGIES FOR LEARNING AND TEACHING Learning technologies are provided to enable access and enhance the student learning experience. Their use will take into account the right of students to privacy and the confidentiality of the work they produce as part of their studies. The University aims not to disadvantage students in their learning through lack of access to the technologies or knowledge and skills in their use. Decisions about the technologies to be used for learning and teaching are vested with unit convenors in accordance with Faculty and Departmental arrangements. LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES ON THE MLTP The learning technologies on the MLTP will support the learning and teaching goals of the University. Access to Learning Technologies The learning technologies on the MLTP will be available to Macquarie staff involved in learning and teaching and students enrolled in accredited Macquarie University units. Access to learning technologies on the MLTP by staff and students will:

• be subject to any applicable licensing agreements and hosting arrangements

• be managed via appropriate authentication and authorisation mechanisms

• require appropriate authentication and authorisation of users Management of Learning Technologies The University will endeavour to provide a robust and reliable service for learning technologies. In accordance with accepted commercial guidelines, the University will endeavour to provide a service that is available 99.9% of the time, excluding scheduled outages. The University recognises that technology failure is unavoidable and will advise staff and students to consider this when undertaking their work. In the event of unscheduled outages due to extreme or unforseen circumstances, students will not be disadvantaged. Risk management procedures, including backup and disaster recovery, will be in place and documented for all MLTP learning technologies. Resources will be provided by the University for the development and maintenance of learning technologies (systems and applications) on the MLTP to ensure a reliable and robust resource for use in learning and teaching. Resources will be provided by the University for the provision of training and support to staff and students using applications on the MLTP to ensure capability in their use.

Page 50

Clearly articulated arrangements for compliance with University policies and relevant legislative requirements will be documented for all MLTP learning technologies. Quality Assurance Quality assurance procedures will be in place to ensure both the technical and academic integrity of the learning technologies on the MLTP. The learning technologies on the MLTP will be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they are fit for purpose. New learning technologies will be added to, or retired from the MLTP based on demonstrated need and the availability of sufficient resources to properly manage and maintain them. LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES NOT ON THE MLTP Faculties and Departments may make other learning technologies available to their staff to support specific learning and teaching requirements. This may be through hosting on their own servers or authorisation of hosting on sites external to the University. The technologies may be made available if there is a demonstrated need that cannot be met by the MLTP. A register of learning technologies not hosted on the MLTP will be maintained. All learning technologies made available to students will have documented processes and procedures, similar to technologies on the MLTP, covering:

• adequate resourcing • compliance with University policy and relevant legislative

requirements • risk management • quality assurance • training and support • appropriate authentication and authorisation of users

Students will be informed of hosting arrangements outside the MLTP and any implications for their learning will be made transparent. COMPLIANCE AND BREACHES The University may commence applicable disciplinary procedures if a person to whom this policy applies breaches this policy (or any of its related procedures).

Page 51

Contact Officer Director, Learning and Teaching Centre

Date Approved 8 June 2010

Approval Authority Academic Senate

Date of Commencement 8 June 2010

Amendment Dates December 2011 – updated with compliances and breaches statement

Date for Next Review June 2013

Related Policies, Procedures, Guidelines, Forms or Templates

Academic Honesty Policy Acceptable Use Policy Assessment Policy Learning Technologies Policy / Procedure Quality Enhancement Policy Technologies in Learning and Teaching - Guidelines for Good Practice Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

Policies/Rules Superseded by this Policy

None

Keywords Learning Technologies Platform, Learning Management System, Online Units, Systems, Software Applications, Distance Education, eLearning, Learning Technologies, Teaching

Page 52

PROCEDURE

Learning Technologies Procedure

Purpose To facilitate the management and use of learning technologies on Macquarie University’s Learning Technologies Platform (MLTP) as well as learning technologies managed by Faculties, Departments and Offices.

Procedure This procedure requires actions by the following: • Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching • Chief Information Officer • Department Information Technology Manager • Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost) • Director, Learning and Teaching Centre • Faculty Information Technology Manager • Head of Department • Management Advisory Committee for Academic Learning

Technologies • Program Director • Unit Convenor

This procedure consists of the following topics:

• Governance of Learning Technologies • Management of Learning Technologies • Management and Use of Learning Technologies on the MLTP • Management and Use of Learning technologies not on the MLTP

Management Advisory Committee for Academic Learning Technologies

GOVERNANCE OF LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES The Management Advisory Committee for Academic Learning Technologies (MACALT) advises the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost) and other Deputy Vice-Chancellors on the creation of a learning technology environment that:

• supports learning and teaching and research, and • enriches the student experience

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost)

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost), with advice from MACALT, is responsible for:

• developing and monitoring the Technologies in Learning and Teaching Plan which complements the University’s Learning and Teaching Plan. The aim is to provide a balanced and integrated approach to the incorporation of technologies into learning and teaching at Macquarie University.

• ensuring adequate resourcing for (i) innovation and (ii) recurrent funding for the maintenance and development of the MLTP

• aligning the resourcing of learning technologies with strategic directions and budget processes

• monitoring the quality of learning technologies on MLTP

Page 53

• monitoring the ‘fitness for purpose’ of learning technologies through a 3-5 year cycle of review of learning technologies on the MLTP

• monitoring the quality and use of learning technologies not on the MLTP through an annual report for the first MACALT meeting of the year from Faculties on the learning technologies being used for learning and teaching purposes in their Faculty

MANAGEMENT OF LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES The management of learning technologies is a shared responsibility across the University. An overview of responsibilities is given below and further elaborated in Section 3, Management of Learning Technologies on the MLTP and Section 4, Management of Learning Technologies not on the MLTP. Informatics is responsible for providing the University-wide technical infrastructure upon which learning technologies reside. The Learning and Teaching Centre (LTC) is responsible for developing and maintaining the MLTP which hosts the University’s Learning Management System (LMS) and a range of specialised technologies to support specific learning and teaching processes. Faculties and their Departments are responsible for the management and quality assurance of the learning technologies (other than those on the MLTP) that they support for learning and teaching on their programs and courses. Unit convenors are responsible for the use of learning technologies in their course units.

MANAGEMENT AND USE OF LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES ON THE MLTP The Learning and Teaching Centre (LTC) and Informatics are responsible for working together to ensure that the requirements of the MLTP can be catered for within the University’s information technology (IT) infrastructure.

Chief Information Officer

Informatics is responsible for providing the University-wide technical infrastructure upon which the MLTP resides including:

• the policy, standards and guidelines to guide the enterprise systems of the University

• robust and reliable infrastructure and services as detailed in Service Level Agreements eg o back-up o security of systems and data o hosting arrangements o software licenses

Scheduled outages for regular maintenance and upgrades are to be negotiated with the LTC and all organisational units involved in the delivery of learning and teaching. Organisational units, students and staff are to be informed of scheduled outages in advance so appropriate arrangements can be put in place.

Page 54

Director, Learning and Teaching Centre

All learning technologies have different capabilities, licensing agreements, technical and compliance related requirements which need to be taken into consideration in their management and use by staff and students. The LTC has overall responsibility and accountability for the management of technologies on the MLTP and enabling their use for learning and teaching. These responsibilities cover: Technical infrastructure Partnerships and service level agreements are to be established, where appropriate, with the service providers, organisational units and / or faculties to include but not necessarily be restricted to:

• operating requirements eg hosting arrangements, licenses, patches, upgrades

• interoperability with related university systems eg Academic Management Information System (AMIS), Human Resource (HR) systems

• identification and management of risks • compliance with Macquarie policies and legislative requirements • management of quality assurance over the lifecycle of

technologies • management of the integration of new and retirement of old

technologies Access to and use of learning technologies Arrangements are to be in place and documented for the management of users. Macquarie students and staff are eligible to have access to learning technologies on the MLTP via an authenticated account which is only valid for the duration of their employment or enrolment. Authentication and authorisation decisions should take into account software licensing agreements, the teaching context, the need to respect the privacy of students and staff, and compliance with Macquarie policy and legislative requirements. Access may be restricted on the basis of:

• compliance with software licenses and hosting arrangements. • the availability of LTC and Informatics staff to accommodate any

additional workload involved in the customisation, administration, maintenance and support of the learning technologies application

In setting up access rights and privileges to various technologies:

• Heads of Departments have access to units and technologies for quality assurance and enhancement purposes or as defined in faculty and departmental level procedures.

• software administrators and support personnel identified by the manager of the MLTP may be are assigned access to units and technologies for administrative and troubleshooting purposes.

• unit convenors control all other access to learning technologies being used in their units, including access by other staff members and guests

Relevant operating procedures are to be in place for:

• the management and administration of user information and

Page 55

content • activation, deletion and archiving of online units on the Learning

Management System (LMS) • activation, deletion and archiving of information and content on

other learning technologies deployed at an enterprise level through the MLTP

Support and training for staff and students First level support and training for MLTP technologies is to be available for staff including:

• resources and training to enable technical competence in the use the systems and applications

• pedagogical support and guidelines to enable effective curriculum design, teaching and learning

• just-in-time help-desk technical support during working hours Second level support for students is to be provided to Student IT Help and other service units supporting students in the use of technologies on the MLTP. Compliance with academic policies and legislative requirements It is recognised that the learning and teaching context in which the learning technologies are being used will determine the level of compliance. To support academics in complying with academic policies and legislative requirements, the LTC will provide guidelines for good practice in using technologies in teaching and learning. They will also advise staff on the implications for learning and teaching so that they can make informed decisions on the use of the technologies. Examples include but are not necessarily limited to: accessibility, privacy and confidentiality, information management, assessment, Intellectual Property (IP) and copyright. Content developed for use by staff and students should comply with the relevant web content accessibility requirements. Learning technologies and software used needs to comply with the relevant authoring tool accessibility requirements. Evaluation, reviews and reporting As part of the quality assurance and enhancement cycle, a summary report of usage and performance of key technologies on the MLTP is to be tabled at MACALT meetings. A consolidated annual report on the MLTP is to be tabled at the first MACALT meeting of the year and include:

• performance of learning technologies on the MLTP • support and training for staff and students • issues arising in relation to maintenance, development and

compliance • quality enhancement initiatives including the addition and

retirements of technologies • resource and funding implications

MACALT MACALT will instigate a review of technologies on the MLTP on a 3-5

Page 56

year cycle in relation to their: • relevance to the goals of the University • robustness (reliability and security) • effectiveness in supporting learning and teaching • efficiency for staff and students to use • compliance with University policy and legislative requirements (eg

IP, copyright, accessibility, information management, confidentiality, privacy)

Director, Learning and Teaching Centre and Chief Information Officer

Provision of data for research and planning purposes A range of data can be automatically collected from server logs of systems and applications on the MLTP.

The LTC, in collaboration with Informatics, is responsible for ensuring: • confidentiality and privacy of systems data pertaining to

technologies on the MLTP, including technologies hosted by Informatics, LTC or contracted hosting agencies

• the ethical use of this data for planning and development purposes within the University

• requests to use the data for research purposes have been pre-approved by the University Ethics Committee prior to its release

MANAGEMENT AND USE OF LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES NOT ON THE MLTP Faculties and Departments are responsible for the resourcing management and quality assurance of learning technologies not on the MLTP that are used for learning and teaching in the programs and units they offer. It is recognised that the resourcing requirements and the conditions around the use of learning technologies will vary depending on the particular technology and the learning and teaching context in which it is being used. Nevertheless it is expected that any learning technologies made available for learning and teaching will offer a commensurate level of security and service to that available through the MLTP and as outlined in Section 3. Within this context the particular roles and responsibilities of faculties, departments and individual staff members are outlined below.

Associate Dean, Learning and Teaching

A register of the learning technologies used in the Faculty that are not supported by the MLTP is to be maintained. At a minimum the register should identify:

• the learning technology • the unit in which the technology is being used • the unit convenor • technical integrity - compliance and compatibility with other

university systems to ensure integration into the University’s IT infrastructure.

• evidence that the unit convenor has considered and made appropriate arrangements for: o Management of risks o Training and Support – for staff and students

Page 57

o Access and accessibility - as required by legislation o Authentication and authorisation of users o Confidentiality and privacy of user information and content o Assessment processes and outputs

The required information will be collected as a component of the online unit information system. An annual report on the learning technologies supported within the Faculty is to be tabled at the first MACALT meeting of the year. A full report will be required when online unit information system is available.

Head of Department

Arrangements are to be in place for: • resourcing the development, maintenance and implementation of

the learning technologies they support. • ensuring the quality of the technologies and the learning and

teaching experience of staff and students Procedures and guidelines will be established and monitored to ensure:

• the LTC has been consulted to ascertain that needs cannot be met by the existing learning technologies on the MLTP

• the LTC, IT managers and Informatics have been consulted in regard to technical integrity – interoperability with the University’s IT infrastructure, the learning technologies on the MLTP and compliance with University IT policies

• compliance with academic policies and legislative requirements • Technologies and software are compliant with the relevant

authoring tool accessibility requirements • information is entered into the Faculty’s Learning Technologies

register • students are informed of any implications for their learning

including the privacy and confidentiality of the work they produce as part of their studies

• students are informed that the technologies are not part of the MLTP and are being supported by the Department or Faculty

• students are not be disadvantaged in using the technologies through lack of knowledge of, or access to the technologies

Unit Convenors, Program Directors

Every teaching context is different and the way in which the technologies are used will depend on a range of interrelated factors including: the capabilities of the technologies, unit / programs aims and outcomes, class size, enrolment modes, students’ backgrounds and experiences. Decisions about which technologies and how they are used are therefore best placed with those responsible for teaching and learning on particular units and programs. Unit convenors and program directors are responsible for:

• the integration of learning technologies into the curriculum including academic content, teaching and learning processes

• adherence to the LTC guidelines and procedures pertaining the use of technologies on the MLTP

• adherence to Faculty and/or Departmental procedures pertaining to the use of learning technologies not on the MLTP

• considering and making arrangements for compliance with

Page 58

University policy and legislative requirements appropriate to the learning and teaching context

• considering and making arrangements for compliance with the relevant web content accessibility requirements, as appropriate to the learning and teaching context

Faculty or Department IT Managers

The Faculty or Department IT Managers are responsible for: • the development and maintenance of the learning technologies

supported within their Faculty or Department • advising on the technical integrity of any learning technologies

being hosted on sites external to the University If the technology has not been previously registered in the Learning Technologies Register, or there have been significant upgrades to existing technologies on the Register, they should consult with the LTC and Informatics to ascertain:

• compatibility with the University’s IT infrastructure • implications for compliance with policy and legislative

requirements

Contact Officer Director, Learning and Teaching Centre Date Approved 8 July 2010 Approval Authority Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost) and Deputy Vice-

Chancellor, Chief Operating Officer Date of Commencement 1 January 2011 Amendment Dates March 2012 – Date for Next Review extended to standard

3 years Date for Next Review June 2013 Related Policies, Procedures, Guidelines, Forms or Templates

Academic Honesty Policy Assessment Policy Information Technology Rules and Conditions of Use Learning Technologies Policy Quality Enhancement Policy Technologies in Learning and Teaching - Guidelines for Good Practice Legislation Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

Keywords Learning Technologies Platform, Learning Management System, Online Units, System, Software Applications, e-Learning, Distance Education, eLearning

Page 59

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.2 Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – Annual Review of the Terms of Reference. It was agreed at the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee held on 18 February 2013 that the inclusion of ex-officio membership of the Head of Warrawarra, or a representative, is considered in the annual review of the SLTC Terms of Reference. For review

Page 60

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee

Charter and Terms of Reference The Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (SLTC) is established by the Academic Senate.

This charter sets out the Committee’s objectives, authority, composition and tenure, roles and responsibilities, reporting and administrative arrangements.

1. Objective

The Senate Learning and Teaching Committee (the Committee) is responsible for working with the Academic Senate, the Provost and the Executive Deans of Faculty to establish an academic culture of excellence in which teaching matters and students are actively engaged in their learning. In this regard, its activities serve to evaluate and foster the development and implementation of research-inspired, evidence-based and student-focused learning and teaching practices throughout the University.

The Committee is responsible for driving the discussion and dissemination of the learning and teaching policies of the University, for consulting broadly within the University community on these matters and for recommending the adoption of such policies to Senate. While it is not in itself an audit body, it is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the University’s learning and teaching policies and procedures. Furthermore, it is responsible for advising Senate and the wider University on the interpretation of learning and teaching policy and for reviewing and revising those policies to respond to new educational and regulatory challenges.

The Committee is also tasked with identifying and responding to emerging educational challenges (both internal and external), with promoting pedagogical excellence and with encouraging the adoption of good practice in scholarly learning and teaching across the University

2. Authority

The Committee has powers delegated to it by Senate as detailed in this Charter.

3. Role and responsibilities

The Committee is directly responsible and accountable to Senate for the exercise of its responsibilities.

The committee is to advise the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost) and Academic Senate on:

• matters relating to the University’s educational programs and activities;

• the activities of bodies established within the University to support learning and teaching;

• strategic planning and quality enhancement in learning and teaching, most particularly by providing input into the University’s Academic Operational Plan and relevant support plans; and

Page 61

• on developments in learning and teaching, including the implications of changes in educational technology.

In regard to the University’s policies and procedures in learning and teaching, the Committee is to:

• consult widely with the University community on the formulation and review of the University’s policies, procedures and plans in learning and teaching;

• drive the development and review those of the University’s policies and procedures that relate to learning and teaching;

• undertake the regular review and revision of all learning and teaching policies and procedures, ensuring that all such reviews are undertaken in a timely manner;

• recommend new and revised learning and teaching policies for approval by Academic Senate, subject to legal review and sign off by the University Policy Reference Group;

• recommend new and revised learning and teaching procedures for adoption, subject to approval of the associated policy and sign off by the University Policy Reference Group;

• provide advice on the interpretation and application of policies and procedures in learning and teaching.

Furthermore, the Committee is to:

• facilitate informed debate within the University community on topics and issues that are relevant to the Committee objectives (as laid out in this document);

• support the University’s pursuit of its strategic objectives in learning and teaching;

• provide advice to and obtain information or reports from any Faculty, Office, group or unit whose roles or activities relate directly to the Committee objectives (as laid out in this document), and;

• communicate with other committees of Academic Senate, and with other committees of the University and its Faculties and Offices where appropriate, in order to ensure the effective sharing of information about the University’s Learning and Teaching activities.

In pursuit of these terms of reference, the Committee may require any of the University’s Faculties, Offices or Units to report on their activities as they relate to the Committee objectives (as laid out in this document).

4. Composition and Tenure

The composition of this committee shall be as follows:

4.1. Appointed Members

a. The Chair, who shall be appointed by the Chair of Academic Senate.

b. One member per Faculty, who shall be nominated by the Executive Dean and who must be the holder of a University or national learning and teaching award

Page 62

or a past or present holder of a University or national teaching fellowship at any level of appointment.

c. An Undergraduate Student Representative, who shall be appointed by the Chair in consultation with the student representatives on Senate.

d. A Postgraduate Student Representative, who shall be appointed by the Chair in consultation with the student representatives on Senate.

e. An HDR Student Representative, who shall be appointed by the Chair in consultation with the student representatives on Senate.

The committee may also co-opt additional members as it sees fit.

4.2 Ex-Officio Members

f. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost)

g. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students) and Registrar

h. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Social Inclusion)

i. The Chair of Academic Senate

j. The Associate Deans of Learning and Teaching of each Faculty

k. The Director of the Learning and Teaching Centre

l. The Director of the Centre for Open Education

m. The Director of the First Year Experience Program

n. The University Librarian

4.3 Tenure

• The term of appointment of all members appointed under clauses 4.1(a) or 4.1(b) above is to be 2 years.

• The term of appointment of all co-opted members is to be 1 year.

• The term of appointment of all members appointed under clauses 4.1(c), 4.1(d) and 4.1(e) above is to be 1 year.

Any such term may be renewed.

4.4 Responsibilities of members

Members of the Senate Learning and Teaching Committee are expected to:

• Contribute the time needed to study and understand the papers provided;

• Apply good analytical skills, objectively and with sound judgment;

• Express opinions frankly, ask questions that go to the fundamental core of the issue and pursue independent lines of enquiry;

• Ensure that colleagues in the Faculty or Office that they represent are made aware of the activities and decisions of the Committee in a timely fashion;

• Work collaboratively with other members of the Committee to ensure that its duties are discharged in a timely fashion; and

Page 63

• Attend Committee meetings and make themselves available, from time to time, to serve on working parties and sub-committees established by the committee.

• Actively contribute to driving the process of policy formation.

5. Chair

The Chair of Academic Senate will appoint a member to the Committee to Chair its meetings. In the absence of the Chair, the Committee can appoint one of its members to Chair a meeting.

The role of the Chair is:

• Leading the Committee;

• Overseeing the Committee in the effective discharge of its role;

• Efficient organisation and conduct of the Committee’s functions and Meetings;

• Facilitating the effective contribution of all Committee members;

• Developing and maintaining a relationship with appropriate members of staff and the Secretariat to ensure appropriate reporting;

• Ensuring adequate reporting to Academic Senate

• Promoting constructive and respectful relations between members; and

• Committing the time necessary to discharge effectively his/her role as Chair.

6. Attendance at Meetings

Any member who is unable to attend a meeting of the Committee may nominate an alternate to attend the meeting on his or her behalf. The Secretary of the Committee must be informed of any such nomination at least three working days before a meeting of the Committee. Nominated alternates must gain the approval of the Chair and must be subject to agreement of the meeting in order to act in that capacity.

If an appointed or co-opted member is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Committee, of which reasonable notice has been given, and if the Committee has not approved his or her absence within six weeks of the last of these absences, he or she ceases to be a member of the Committee.

An alternate to a member under clause 4.1(b), 4.1(c) or 4.1(d) above must be a person who would otherwise be eligible to be chosen as a member of the Committee under the same category of membership.

An alternate has the same rights and obligations as the substantive member in whose place the alternate attends the meeting.

Acting appointments to roles that have ex-officio membership of the Committee have full Committee membership rights.

Attendance by invitation for particular items will be determined by the Chair prior to meetings and will be subject to the agreement of the meeting.

The Chair may confer speaking rights in respect of non-members who attend meetings by invitation.

Page 64

7. Delegation to Working groups and Sub-Committees.

The Committee may establish working groups and sub-committees, from time to time, to assist in fulfilling its functions.

A working group may be established to complete a particular task, say the revision of a Learning and Teaching Policy, over a short and pre-determined period of time. A sub-committee may be established on a continuing basis to advise the Committee on some ongoing aspect of its portfolio of responsibilities.

The Committee remains responsible for activities and decisions it delegates to working groups and sub-committees.

Working groups and sub-committees will submit a report on their meetings to the meeting of the Committee immediately subsequent to those activities.

The Committee will ensure each working group or sub-committee is established according to a clear terms of reference.

Working groups and sub-committees will consist of members appointed by the Committee and can include persons who are not members of the Committee.

8. Administrative arrangements

8.1 Meetings

The Committee will meet as frequently as required.

A meeting plan, including meeting dates and agenda items, will be agreed by the Committee each year. The meeting plan will cover all of the Committee’s responsibilities as detailed in these Terms of Reference.

8.2 Attendance at meetings and quorums

A quorum will consist of half of the total number of Committee members plus one. All questions must be decided by the majority of the voting members present. The Chair carries the casting vote only.

8.3 Observers

The Chair of the Committee can approve the attendance of observers at meetings. Any observers may only attend the meeting for non-confidential items and may not participate in the proceedings of the meeting. A request to attend as an observer must be submitted to the Secretary at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

8.4 Attendees

The Committee also admits a class of attendees. Such individuals are not voting members of the committee, but they are invited to attend all meetings and may participate freely in the proceedings of those meetings.

Attendees may gain this status on an ex-officio basis or may be co-opted by the Committee for a fixed term (generally 2 years) as it sees fit.

Page 65

8.4.1 Ex-officio attendees

a. The Manager of the Policy Unit

b. The Executive Officer of the Office of the DVC (Provost)

c. The Director of Wellbeing and Support Services

d. The College Director and Principal of SIBT

e. The Principal of the Macquarie City Campus

8.5 Dispute resolution

Members of the Committee should maintain an effective working relationship, and seek to resolve differences by way of open negotiation. However, in the event of a disagreement between members, the Chair may, as a last resort, refer the matter to Senate.

8.6 Secretariat and minutes

The Registrar of University or nominee is Secretary to the Committee. The Secretary will ensure the agenda for each meeting and supporting papers are circulated, after approval from the Chair, at least one (1) week before the meeting, and ensure the minutes of the meetings are prepared, maintained and published on the Senate website.

Draft minutes must be prepared and initially reviewed by the Chair of the Committee and then circulated to members within ten (10) working days of the date of the meeting of which they are a record.

A report from the Committee will be submitted to each Senate meeting following a Committee meeting.

The minutes of the Committee meetings shall be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

8.7 Conflicts of interest

It is recognised that members will have an interest in some matters before the Committee. However, it is each member’s obligation to act in the best interests of the Committee and the University not in the interests of the group (faculty, department, students etc) to which they may belong. Members can present the interests of that group in the deliberations of the Committee but must make decisions in the best interests of the Committee and University.

Members must declare any conflicts of interest at the start of each meeting in relation to an agenda item or before discussion of any subsequent matter arising during the course of the meeting.

Where members or observers at Committee meetings are deemed to have a real or perceived conflict of interest it may be appropriate that they are excused from the Committee deliberations on the related matter.

Page 66

8.8 Review of terms of reference

At least once a year the Committee will review its Terms of Reference. Any subsequent changes to the Terms of Reference will be recommended by the Committee and formally approved by Senate.

8.9 Assessment arrangements

Senate will establish a mechanism to review and report on the performance of each Committee at least annually. The review will be conducted on a self-assessment basis (unless otherwise determined by the Senate) with appropriate input sought from the Senate, relevant management and any other relevant stakeholders, as determined by Senate. The assessment will be conducted by the Senate Secretary.

Page 67

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.3 Evaluation of Student Experience: This paper was presented and endorsed by PSG on the 14th May and approved by Executive on 19th June. A/Professor Solomonides is now expected to develop an implementation plan for the recommendations. For noting

Page 68

Macquarie University Executive Group

May 2013

Framework for Evaluating Student Experience Issues

A framework that describes the student experience, endorsed methods of measurement and associated protocols needs to be established. This is required to provide direction to staff, resolve operational issues, and to ensure that evaluation sources may be reliably fed into institutional research, planning and reporting.

Student experience is multi-faceted being inextricably linked to teaching and non-teaching activities. No single instrument or method can alone provide a comprehensive view. Discussion

Student experience includes and inter-relies on elements of the following domains1:

1. Academic (learning and teaching, curriculum, programs, assessment, learning outcomes, information, advising, online systems (e.g. iLearn, units))

2. Para-academic (L&T support and facilities - learning support, Library, Numeracy Centre, MQAS, iLearn Help, etc.)

3. Student support and welfare (well-being services, advocacy, student representation, accommodation)

4. Amenity, extra-curricular and social (transport, food and beverages, retail, childcare, sport and leisure activities and facilities, clubs and societies, social events)

5. Administration (enrolment, assistance, advice, AskMQ etc.)

The student experience includes both tangible and intangible factors such as access and suitability of facilities or institutional habitus and perception of teaching. Further, the student life cycle is such that evaluation can take place at the pre-study, undergraduate, postgraduate and alumnus levels. There is no single instrument (e.g., AUSSE, UES, ISB, CEQ, PREQ, GDS etc.) or method that can comprehensively cover all these aspects.

Evaluation of the student experience is undertaken for a range of reasons. Institutionally,

it is required for compliance and reporting requirements by government through TEQSA and MyUnivesity. It is also used for internal quality assurance and improvement, supporting the planning process and internal and external benchmarking.

Currently the majority of evaluation is carried out through internal and external paper-based and online questionnaire instruments consisting of scaled and open-ended responses. The attached appendix gives an overview of the surveys organised centrally. Population and samples targeted are inconsistent and there are varying degrees of completion, validity, reliability and generalisability. There is a limited amount of qualitative evaluation carried out through focus group and peer review type research with varying degrees of credibility and transferability.

Policy is available on student feedback2 to guide practice but there is lack of conformity

and unclear lines of responsibility. This is compounded by uncontrolled use of non-standard evaluation ranging from simple ad hoc in-class surveys through to whole of Faculty/Office surveying by third party commercial entities. Students are being over surveyed and privacy

1 Information Technology facilities, services and support, rather than constituting a separate aspect, is deeply embedded in each of these four experience domains. 2 http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/student_feedback/policy.html

Page 69

and confidentiality may be compromised. To manage these risks it is suggested that a framework and protocols are adopted to guide practice.

Whilst sophisticated surveying instruments, systems and reporting are internally available through the Analytics and LTC, changes to mode of delivery, sporadic use and other factors have led to a degradation of data quality which is impacting on our ability to provide discriminatory, benchmarked evidence about course and teaching quality to internal and external stakeholders.

The University works in collaboration with other entities to apply a variety of external standard surveys, including the International Student Barometer, the Course Experience Questionnaire (as part of the Australian Graduate Survey), the Australasian University Survey of Student Engagement, and now the University Experience Survey. Whilst these all offer external benchmarking opportunities, each has its limitations in terms of scope, reach and ability to discriminate at the program level or lower. This could be redressed through application of a centrally coordinated local whole-of-institution survey.

With the growing availability of online education and the impact of disruptive technologies, there is increasing interest in data mining. This includes the development of ‘at-risk’ early warning systems and staff and student dashboards to show levels of engagement. There are currently several University projects in this area but issues remain relative to underlying enabling technology, identifying critical variables, ethics, and governance. There is a need for a strategic approach for decision-making and resource allocation in this area.

Resulting survey data, regardless of source, should be used appropriately. Essentially this means that changes to practice as a consequence can only be made in the light of a broader set of information about the student experience. Clearly multiple data sets are required for triangulation but there is also a need to evaluate the data against context and, it may be argued, to involve students in a partnership and dialogue around the data and actions occurring. Student experience data should be reviewed annually in line with any broader student engagement strategies. Recommendations

1. Establish a framework based on the five domains, together with protocols and a compliance regime for surveying students within the institution;

2. Consider reinstating a University wide, comprehensive experience questionnaire in lieu of the AUSSE and possibly ISB, to be delivered using a sampling approach;

3. Through central and local management, clearly schedule the timing, mode and application of all paper based and online surveys across the student life-cycle;

4. Ensure that any student survey is conducted through the new framework with appropriate and timely approval mechanisms;

5. Develop marketing practices for surveys and provide resources for their implementation where appropriate; and,

6. Ensure underlying technologies are sufficiently developed and robust to enable the further development of comprehensive student and staff facing dashboards.

Page 70

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.4 For discussion and recommendation to Academic Senate CRIT II SENATE RESOLUTION Background The CRIT II working party was established by the Provost in response to the operational review of Macquarie’s Undergraduate degrees undertaken during the first half of 2012. That review report concluded that:

Implementation of the new curriculum commenced in 2010. While the renewal process has delivered many benefits, the view has emerged that the level of flexibility remaining in the program structure is driving excessive complexity in enrolment and re-enrolment processes and administrative systems, and causing confusion for students and staff alike. Students have difficulty understanding what is required to complete a degree, and can readily find that they have failed to fulfil requirements within the time frame they thought necessary. Importantly, even when successfully completed, the level of flexibility allowed may result, in some cases, in a degree which cannot compete in terms of depth of disciplinary understanding with a similarly named degree from another university. This can then affect employability. What began as a student centred strategy is now seen to be having a negative effect on the student and staff experience, and is detrimental to efficiency and the overall perception of the University.

This report was distributed to Faculties and Departments for feedback in May and June 2012 and its findings and detailed recommendations were considered at a joint meeting of SLTC and ASQC held on the 26th of June 2012. The recommendations of that meeting were noted at the Academic Senate meeting held on the 7th of August 2012. The work of CRIT II has been motivated by a number of core aspirations in regard to the operation of Macquarie’s degree programs:

• The simplification of degree structures and processes, with a view to making our programs more easily navigable for staff and students alike.

• The provision of better support and more accurate advice to Undergraduate students as they progress through their programs.

• The introduction of a more comprehensive suite of online advising, enrolment and transfer processes.

Furthermore, the CRIT II group has adopted the overarching philosophy that programs, expressed at the level of majors and minors, should become the University’s primary unit of curriculum. In other words, rather than thinking of programs as aggregates of pre-existing, stand-alone units, this reimagines the curriculum in terms of programs and program level learning outcomes. Of course, this principle lies at the heart of a range of other measures, beyond CRIT II itself, which are currently

Page 71

subjects of Academic Senate’s work plan, including its recent resolution to require the articulation of program level learning outcomes in all degrees. That policy, in turn, is well aligned with AQF compliance measures currently in development. While this might seem like an unremarkable shift of emphasis, its implementation will drive significant changes of both a philosophical and practical nature. Not least amongst these are:

• A more coherent approach to team based, program level curriculum development. • A greater coherence of program structures and less overlap between constituent units. • Unit level learning outcomes and assessment practices driven by, publicly available, program

level curriculum statements. • Enrolment processes standardised to provide the majority of students with easy to

understand, template based program level enrolment. • All students to enrol in a qualifying major, in part to ensure that accurate and timely

program advice may be given, both online and in person, by appropriately trained professional staff.

• Greater standardisation in the structure and size of majors and minors, at least partly with a view to encouraging and supporting greater take up of double major and major / minor combinations.

• Simplification of transfer rules and processes and some changes to the rules surrounding People and Planet units to allow for easier transitions between majors, Departments and Faculties.

Flexibility has always been a cornerstone of Macquarie’s degree programs. So while the changes detailed below will see some variation in the nature of that philosophy, they have been carefully designed as a package to preserve the best aspects of a flexible approach to discipline choice. They are motivated by the recognition that the current transfer, advising and enrolment processes introduce complication, risk and anxiety into the lives of individual students. In turn, these issues manifest themselves at the institutional level in an increasing workload of appeals, deeming and savings cases. At the level of professional and academic staff, program complexity and uncertainty about each student’s major specialisation leads to excessive time spent on technical program advice and much less time spent on traditional, high value academic mentorship. It is only by reducing the complexity of these processes and moving to the use of automated and online program management systems that we can hope to eliminate this excess workload and avoid the pitfalls of inaccurate program and completion advice. Recommendation That Academic Senate adopts the following resolutions and approves changes to its policies and to the degree rules, where appropriate, to put into effect the following changes to the operation of the University’s degree programs. 1. All generic, un-named, 3 year Bachelor degrees shall have majors of a standard size

1.1. This will apply to the Bachelor of Arts, the Bachelor of Science, the Bachelor of Human Science and the Bachelor of Commerce.

1.2. Majors in these degrees will either comprise 24 or 36 credit points of study. 1.3. Extended majors of 36 credit points in duration will only be approved under conditions to

be developed by ASQC.

Page 72

2. All other Bachelor degrees shall each have a single standard size to which all majors in that degree will conform. 2.1. Academic Senate will determine the number of credit points that comprise all majors in

each named Bachelor degree on the recommendation of ASQC. 3. The rule that stipulates that all minors must contain at least 6 credit points of study at 300

level shall be repealed. 3.1. All minors within each Bachelor degree will be of a standard size. 3.2. Academic Senate will determine the number of credit points that comprise the minors in

each Bachelor degree on the recommendation of ASQC. 3.3. All minors will comprise subsets of corresponding Majors. This restriction will be reviewed

by ASQC in 2015. 4. ASQC shall develop a document, for approval by Academic Senate, describing the criteria that

shall be applied to the development and approval of Majors and Minors. As a minimum this will: 4.1. Articulate the conditions under which extended majors will be approved. 4.2. Describe how the distinctiveness of majors and minors will be assessed. 4.3. Specify the standards to be applied to the development and expression of program level

learning outcomes and associated commentary. 4.4. Provide annotated templates and exemplars to support the development of majors and

minors in Departments and Faculties. 5. The rules governing People and Planet units shall be amended as follows:

5.1. The following rule shall be repealed “One of those units must be taken outside the Department administering the qualifying major which the student is admitted to, and the other unit must be taken outside the Faculty administering the qualifying major which the student is admitted to.”

5.2. That rule shall be replaced by the following rule “Those units must be taken in two different Faculties.”

5.3. The following rule shall be repealed “Units which are already a required unit of the student's program of study will not satisfy the People unit requirement or Planet unit requirement.”

5.4. That rule shall be replaced by the following rule “Units which may be counted as a required unit of the student’s degree or qualifying major will not satisfy the People or Planet unit requirement of that program of study.”

6. All students will be registered into a specific degree and qualifying major. 6.1. Students will only be able to graduate with the degree and qualifying major in which they

are registered at the end of their program of study. 6.2. The process of transfer between qualifying majors within a given degree will not be subject

to academic approval. 6.3. It is envisaged that transfer between degrees and qualifying majors will be an online

process, the practicalities of which are currently being considered by the DVC Students and Registrar’s office.

6.4. Certain practical limitations may need to be placed upon this transfer process, these will be notified to ASQC once further work has been undertaken by the DVC Students and Registrar’s office to map this process.

7. Transfer into the generic Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees will not be subject to a transfer requirement. 7.1. Current transfer hurdles can lock students with low GPAs into programs from which they

have no realistic chance of graduating. This rule change will provide these students with the opportunity to transfer into a generic Bachelor degree.

8. All other transfer criteria will be reviewed by ASQC with a view to rationalisation and simplification.

Page 73

9. The Chair of Academic Senate will work with the DVC Students and Registrar’s office to develop a position paper clarifying the distinction between program advice and academic advice. 9.1. Program advice may be delivered by appropriately trained professional staff. 9.2. It is envisaged that IT systems will be introduced to support the accurate delivery of

program advice, the practicalities of which are currently being considered by the DVC Students and Registrar’s office.

9.3. Academic Senate will consider the adoption of these recommendations on the advice of ASQC.

The CRIT II working party to develop a process and timeline for the implementation of these changes which it will present to the 6th August 2013 meeting of Academic Senate. Communication Strategy The Chair of the CRIT II working party will work with the Chair and Deputy Chair of Academic Senate to develop a detailed communication strategy addressed dually at imparting the philosophical and practical changes involved in the CRIT II process to staff and students. In the first instance, this will focus on articulating the strategy outlined above in regard to program level curriculum design, major and minor structures, enrolment requirements and transfer process to academic and professional staff. This will be undertaken through a number of complementary channels, including the Associate Deans and Faculty LTCs, the Learning and Teaching Centre and Academic Senate’s emerging direct communication process. The details of a student-facing component of this communication strategy will only be developed once the DVC Students and Registrar’s office have undertaken a more detailed process and systems analysis. It is likely that this will involve direct to student communications channels managed variously by the First Year Experience Unit, Marketing and Communications, and the Registrar’s office. Professor D Verity Professor J Greely Chair, Academic senate Executive Dean, Faculty of Human Sciences Chair, CRIT II

Page 74

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.5 Retention of iLearn units At present the iLearn units in the current session and the two previous sessions are retained. These two archival copies are stored ‘as ‘read only’ A decision needs to be made with regards to assessment data, as some academics would like to use the same i.e. repeat quizzes. There are two types of assessment: controlled and non-controlled thus if the quizzes are ‘open’ and available as read only then the information is in the ‘wild’. The University exam policy states that final exams should be published but are other pieces of assessment treated the same? Quizzes can be ‘closed’ but the various options needs to be considered as a matter of learning design principle. There may also be legal obligations regarding the retention of iLearn units and these are currently being explored and a discussion paper on this will be presented at a later date. For discussion

Page 75

Senate Learning and Teaching Committee – 8 July 2013 ITEM 5.6 Gradebook There are discussions about increasing the use of Gradebook for all marks but the current functionality needs improvement. At present, Gradebook is mandated in some Faculties but not all. I am concerned that staff members may resent the mandating of another system before it is fully functional. Currently there is a pilot of Gradebook run by Tina Piccione and support team in FBE which is gathering data on the use and usability of Gradebook and providing Drop-in style support. I recommend no further mandating of Gradebook whilst the FBE project and LTC evaluate the current issues and have time to resolve them. For discussion

Page 76