2015 REVIEW OF COURSES - Governance...systematic review and evaluation of its activities and a review framework for courses is an integral part of its strategic planning and quality

File Ref F71207

2015 REVIEW OF COURSES

Three-Year Undergraduate Bachelor Degrees:

Bachelor of Arts Bachelor of Commerce Bachelor of Design Bachelor of Science

Review Dates: 18-20 November 2015

FINAL REPORT

11th February 2016

2015 Review of Courses – Final Report Page 1 of 60

TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF CONTENT ...................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3

2 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 6

3 Summary of Recommendations, Commendations and Affirmations ....................... 9

3.1 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Commendations .................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Affirmations ........................................................................................................... 18

4 Report of the 2015 Review of Courses’ Review Panel ............................................. 20

4.1 Distinctiveness of UWA’s Courses ........................................................................ 20

4.1.1 Flexibility ........................................................................................................ 21

4.1.2 Clarity of UWA’s Courses............................................................................... 22

4.1.3 Length of Professional Pathways ................................................................... 24

4.1.4 Minimum ATAR of 80 ..................................................................................... 25

4.2 Degree Structure .................................................................................................. 27

4.2.1 Broadening .................................................................................................... 27

4.2.2 Developmental Progression ........................................................................... 31

4.2.3 Volume of Learning in the Major .................................................................... 33

4.2.4 Complementary Units .................................................................................... 34

4.3 Skills and Learning Opportunities .......................................................................... 37

4.3.1 Communication and Academic Conduct Skills ............................................... 37

4.3.2 Research Skills .............................................................................................. 39

4.3.3 Digital Literacy ............................................................................................... 39

4.3.4 Service Learning ............................................................................................ 40

4.3.5 Study Abroad ................................................................................................. 41

4.4 Disciplinary Areas of Note ..................................................................................... 42

4.4.1 Indigenous Studies ........................................................................................ 42

4.4.2 Languages ..................................................................................................... 43

4.4.3 Bachelor of Design ........................................................................................ 44

4.4.4 Major in Engineering Science ........................................................................ 45

4.5 Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness .......................................................... 49

4.5.1 Balancing High and Low Enrolment Majors .................................................... 49

4.5.2 University Curriculum Development and Approval Processes ........................ 50

4.5.3 Role of Major Coordinators and Faculty Governance ..................................... 52

4.5.4 Student Course Advising ............................................................................... 53

4.6 Additional Matters ................................................................................................. 56


4.6.1 Student Experience and Teaching Quality ..................................................... 56

4.6.2 Alignment of Course Structure and Faculty Structure ..................................... 57

5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 59

APPENDICES

Review of Courses – Approved Proposal and Terms of Reference ....................................... A

Index – Individual Submissions to the Review Panel ............................................................. B

Review of Courses’ Meeting Schedule .................................................................................. C


1 Introduction

In 2012, the University of Western Australia (UWA) introduced a new course structure for all undergraduate and postgraduate courses. The end of 2014 saw the completion of the inaugural implementation of the four, three year undergraduate Bachelor degrees, with the first cohort of students graduating from their Cycle 1 degree. The University subsequently considered it timely to conduct a comprehensive review of this course component, constituting the first phase of a comprehensive Review of Courses which the University will be conducting over a three year period (2015-2017). The University is committed to the systematic review and evaluation of its activities and a review framework for courses is an integral part of its strategic planning and quality assurance. To that effect, the Review of Courses will inform the development of a cyclical review framework to facilitate ongoing performance evaluation of all of the University’s curriculum offerings. The first stage of the Review of Courses focussed on the following four three year undergraduate Bachelor degrees which collectively comprise over 70 majors: The Bachelor of Arts; The Bachelor of Commerce; The Bachelor of Design; and The Bachelor of Science.1

A number of these undergraduate majors are complemented by postgraduate degrees of two or more years’ duration, leading to accredited professions such as medicine, law, architecture and engineering. The philosophy behind this 3+2 new course structure is that students achieve a well-rounded education in their undergraduate degree, followed by specialisation in a professional postgraduate qualification or postgraduate coursework course that builds on these foundations and focuses on more discipline-specific technical depth, as well as professional capabilities.

1 Please note that the University is offering a fifth undergraduate Bachelor degree, the Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours). This integrated honours course (4 years) gives high performing students (minimum ATAR 98) the freedom to choose a major from any field of study within Arts, Commerce, Design or Science while including intensive research as an integral part of the course. Further information can be found on the UWA website. Due to its close affiliation with end-on honours, this degree will be reviewed as part of the second stage of the Review of Courses in 2016.

http://www.studyat.uwa.edu.au/courses-and-careers/undergraduate/phil-honours


The following table, an excerpt from the Review proposal, provides an overview of the Review of Courses’ Framework: Review of Courses Framework 2015 2016 2017 Cycle 1 Courses (AQF Level 7):

• Bachelor of Arts • Bachelor of

Science • Bachelor of

Design • Bachelor of

Commerce

Cycle 1 Courses (AQF Levels 5 - 8):

• Bachelor of Philosophy (AQF 8)

• End-on Honours (AQF 8) • Graduate entry diplomas

(AQF 5) • Advanced diplomas (AQF

6) • Undergraduate transition

plans and courses being taught out.2

Cycle 2 Courses (AQF Level 8 - 9)

• Postgraduate coursework courses (approx. 200), including professional practice doctorates (eg MD, JD)

• Transition to postgraduate courses (including assured entry pathways)

The complete approved proposal for the Review of Courses, including the Terms of Reference is included as Appendix A. The aim of the Review at hand was to determine the degree to which the original objectives of UWA’s new courses have been achieved or subsequently varied in light of changes in the education sector since that time. The visionary objectives of the new courses included meeting the future educational needs of students and the wider community at the highest possible standard, positioning the University well for the future by reinforcing its international reputation and commitment to excellence, as well as achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in teaching and related administrative arrangements for the benefit of both staff and students. Ultimately, the purpose of the 2015 Review of Courses was to evaluate the success of the four three year undergraduate Bachelor degrees and the structural framework that governs them. In mid-2015, an UWA internal Audit Team was appointed, comprising senior academics from across the University who were key stakeholders in the development of the original new courses framework with significant expertise in one of the four undergraduate degrees under review, and tasked with preparing documentation for consideration by a Review Panel. Within the Audit Team, focus groups were established and tasked with preparing a self-assessment report for one of the degrees. Each report robustly triangulates several sources of data, including key University data sets and surveys of staff and students specifically conducted to inform this Review. Collectively, the Audit Team prepared a submission that formed a major source of data for consideration and review by an independent Review Panel comprising both UWA-internal and external members. 2 Including the Diploma in Modern Languages – transition plan to offer Diploma extended to 2016 pending review – Education Committee R8/15


The membership of the 2015 Review of Courses Review Panel was as follows: Professor Grady Venville, Dean of Coursework Studies, UWA - Chair of the Review Panel Professor Philippa Pattison, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education), University of Sydney Professor David Hayward, Dean, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies and Chair, RMIT Academic Board, RMIT University Associate Professor Peter Henry, Head of Pharmacology, Pharmacy and Anaesthesiology Unit, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, UWA Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy, Academic Secretary, UWA Ms Elizabeth O’Shea, Guild President, UWA Ms Kathrin Stroud, Executive Officer to the Review of Courses, UWA

In addition to the Audit Team report, submissions were invited from all members of the University community with regard to the Terms of Reference. Over 20 submissions were received from individuals and groups, including faculties and schools. The Index of the individual submissions made to the Review Panel is included as Appendix B. All submissions, together with the Audit Team report, were provided to the members of the Review Panel prior to the Review Panel meeting.

In the course of a three day face-to-face Review Panel meeting on 18-20 November 2015, the Review Panel interviewed over 120 stakeholders, including members of the UWA Executive, Pro Vice Chancellors, Faculty Deans, Associate Deans (Education), major coordinators, school principals and students. The complete meeting schedule for the 2015 Review of Courses is included as Appendix C.

Collectively, the Review Panel is making 22 recommendations, 10 commendations and 8 affirmations for consideration and noting by the UWA Executive and has prepared this Final Report.


2 Executive Summary

Distinctiveness of UWA’s Courses

The unanimous view of the Review Panel was that the new courses structure is an overwhelming success and bestows on the University a level of distinctiveness that is rare in Australia. The change resulted in a comprehensive and bold curriculum revolution that projects a strong message that an education at UWA is not only for specific disciplinary knowledge and employability skills, but also for broader expertise and wisdom that prepares students for life and careers in a changing, global and culturally diverse environment. It was evident to the Review Panel that the majority of staff endorses and students generally have embraced the flexibility of UWA’s undergraduate course structure, including the flexibility to change majors and degrees, and to take second majors, broadening units and electives from very different disciplines. The Review Panel congratulates the University and their staff for the carefully crafted design of the undergraduate component of the new courses.

Despite the markers of success for the new courses structure, the Review Panel noticed a lack of understanding and a degree of scepticism about the new courses from some school principals, students and even staff. In response, the University needs to take urgent action to communicate more effectively the rationale and benefits of the new courses to all stakeholders within and outside the University. One mechanism of doing so could be the development of exemplar pathways to successful careers, including postgraduate studies, to provide guidance while also encouraging creative choice.

Discussion with stakeholders and among the Review Panel suggested placing greater emphasis on pathways to a career rather than on the undergraduate component of the new courses alone. This could be achieved by reducing the length of professional pathways, for example, by developing Cycle 1 majors in underpinning disciplines that offer advanced standing in Cycle 2 degrees. Further, the University should consider additional Assured Entry Pathways (AEPs) to Cycle 2 degrees and other popular course combinations with a range of ATARs to be made available as choices for Year 12 students through TISC.

Degree Structure

The intrinsic educational benefit afforded by broadening, including the distinct advantage of being able to think from different disciplinary perspectives, as well as students having the opportunity to do a second major was universally acknowledged by staff and students during the Review and potential employers during the initial development of new courses, and is consistent with the overarching principle that UWA educates students for careers and life.

Notwithstanding this universal endorsement of the concept of broadening, the Review Panel received considerable feedback conveying both positive and negative perceptions about broadening units. In particular, there were concerns about the perceived arbitrary nature of the current definition. The Review Panel recognised the need for the University to better operationalise broadening to account for both diversity and proximity of disciplinary knowledge within and between degrees. The Review Panel was not inclined to recommend any specific change to the current definition but to recommend that the University convene a


working party to consider one or more of the options outlined within the body of the report to provide greater flexibility and satisfaction with regard to the broadening component of students’ degrees, particularly for students in the Bachelor of Science. These options include: splitting the knowledge paradigm for the Bachelor of Science for broadening purposes; allowing mathematics and computer sciences to be broadening for all students in a similar way to languages; classifying disciplines into broader categories for broadening purposes; a more fine-grained characterisation of broadening; developing a process for determining what is breadth for a particular degree or degree-specific major; or developing a process for determining further what is regarded as breadth for all students.

A distinct and pervasive tension was identified by the Review Panel with regard to the volume of learning in some majors. Some staff and students were strong advocates of increasing the number of units within majors to allow for the teaching of more content knowledge, or to allow students greater opportunities to participate in practical and laboratory work, fieldwork, internships and industry focussed activities, for example. Other staff and students argued that the majors are sufficient and that within the context of the breadth and depth approach to the new courses, students at UWA developed different qualities that set them apart from students from other universities. Moreover, there was concern expressed that an increase in the number of units available to majors would necessarily decrease the opportunities for students to do a second major, broadening units, or electives.

The Review Panel noticed inconsistencies with regard to the use of complementary units across all majors and was of the view that loosening the definition of complementary units would provide an opportunity for majors to include more units as needed and address the concerns about volume of learning in the major. As such, the Review Panel recommends that complementary units are redefined so that they can be used to add depth and breadth to the degree-specific major, to give students options with regard to practical and laboratory activities or to participate in practicums and work-oriented activities.

The Review Panel found that developmental progression is strong in many majors across all degrees, often with developmental pathways being defined by prerequisites in core units. However, the Review Panel was of the view that developmental progression should primarily be a consequence of the outcomes of the sequence of units in each major and was not supportive of prerequisites being used as a method of enforcing developmental progression within each major.

Skills and Learning Opportunities

The Review Panel was impressed by the University’s inroads into developing and integrating the teaching and learning of skills and learning opportunities into the undergraduate degrees, including communication and academic conduct skills, research skills, service learning and study abroad. With development, these skills and learning opportunities have the potential to significantly improve and differentiate the UWA student experience. Through submissions, the Review Panel identified a number of ways that these skills and learning opportunities could be improved and enhanced but recognised the resources that these improvements would require. The Review Panel further recommended that digital literacy skills should be added to this suite.


Disciplinary Areas of Note

The review process resulted in the Panel becoming aware of disciplinary areas of note. The areas for commendation include Indigenous Studies for the inclusion of Indigenous content and support for Indigenous students in the new courses as well as languages other than English for the outstanding uptake of foreign languages by UWA students. Areas of considerable concern and risk to the University include the major in Engineering Science and the Bachelor of Design where student satisfaction with their course was found to be considerably lower than that of students in other degrees and structural challenges related to the new courses architecture are acute.

Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness

The introduction of the common new courses structure across the University has resulted in considerable efficiencies, including the same course rules for all undergraduate students and a streamlined University curriculum development and approval process. However, the Review Panel identified a number of administrative aspects of the new courses that need to be addressed to improve efficiencies and the quality of the student experience. These included strategies to minimise the number of low enrolment majors and to improve the cohort experience in high enrolment majors; formally recognising the leadership role of major coordinators to monitor and improve the academic quality, student cohort experience and administration of majors; and, greater centralisation of the hub and spokes model for student course advising.

Student Experience

Two areas that were not listed in the Terms of Reference as being within the scope of this Review of Courses persistently came up in submissions, interviews and discussions by the Review Panel as being relevant and important to UWA’s undergraduate Bachelor degrees. The first one was that the student experience and the quality of teaching impacts on the students’ perceptions of the course structure and curriculum in general. It was a pleasure for the Review Panel to hear the many reports from students about their very positive experiences in many majors and units. However, there also were several areas where the student experience and the quality of teaching was reported as being well below that which would be expected from a world class university. The Review Panel urges the University to continue with urgent steps to strengthen the teaching quality and student experience, including students’ perceptions of being part of a cohort.

Alignment of Faculty and Course Structures

The second area outside the scope of this Review was the lack of alignment between the University faculty structure and the structure of new courses. The Review Panel is of the view that stronger alignment between the University faculty structure and the course structure would likely improve the implementation of many of the recommendations in this Review. Since the conclusion of the formal part of the Review, the University has announced a restructure of the faculties and this seems to present an opportunity for enhanced alignment with the new courses structure.


3 Summary of Recommendations, Commendations and Affirmations

3.1 Recommendations3

Recommendation 1 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that an urgent and significant communication strategy explaining the underpinning educational philosophy of the University’s courses be implemented that promotes UWA Courses for Careers and Life. The communication strategy needs to holistically target staff, students, prospective students, schools, industry and the wider community.

Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Community and Engagement) and the Chief Marketing Officer to commission and develop a holistic communication and marketing strategy.

Recommendation 2 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the potential and opportunities of the University’s courses are promoted and realised through development of exemplar pathways to successful careers, including postgraduate studies, to provide guidance while also encouraging creative choice.

Responsibility:

• Dean of Coursework Studies in consultation with Faculty Deans to develop exemplar pathways to enable appropriate promotion and marketing by the Chief Marketing Officer.

3 The Review Panel discussed appropriate time frames for the implementation of the recommendations made in this Final Report and recommends that the assigned time frames be defined as follows: Immediate – within 12 months Mid-Term – within 24 months Longer-Term – within 36 months


Recommendation 3 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that faculties consider reducing the length of professional pathways by offering advanced standing towards the postgraduate cycle 2 degrees to students from new or existing cognate undergraduate majors.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to instigate a review of their respective professional pathways and potential development of shorter professional pathways for consideration and approval by the Faculty and University Committee system.

Recommendation 4 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University creates a suite of targeted course options with a range of ATAR cut-offs for Year 12 students through TISC, for example additional Assured Entry Pathways and other popular course combinations. Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) in consultation with Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Community and Engagement) to investigate the market demand and consider the development and offering of targeted course options.

Recommendation 5 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University considers in detail options for modifying the broadening concept with a view to recognising greater diversity within certain discipline areas and rectifying inequities and inconsistencies in the current implementation of the broadening concept by better operationalising and accounting for both diversity and proximity within and between degrees.

Responsibility:

• Dean of Coursework Studies to convene a working group tasked with considering in detail the Review report’s options for modifying the broadening concept to account for the complexities surrounding broadening and ensure an equitable approach to breadth of studies.


Recommendation 6 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University develops a means of identifying and reporting readily and effectively on units undertaken in different UWA course components (e.g. major units, broadening units, complementary units, electives etc.). Responsibility:

• Director of the Office of Strategy, Planning and Performance (SPP) in consultation with Student Systems and Student Administration to consider and develop robust data sets to enable improved student advising and both curriculum planning and management.

Recommendation 7 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University reviews current unit prerequisite requirements to ensure their relevance and effectiveness as a means to support but not enforce developmental progression within the unit sequence of a major. Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to review relevance and effectiveness of prerequisite requirements.

Recommendation 8 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University better utilizes the four available complementary units to allow up to 12 units of core learning in the degree-specific major with a focus on additional field-work, laboratories, industry linkages, service learning and discipline-related mobility.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to review the effective usage of complementary units and define them as appropriate to incorporate the above into the degree-specific major and thus enhance the student experience.


Recommendation 9 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University:

a. further improves the teaching of communication skills within majors in general; b. ensures that COMM1901 Communication in Practice is reviewed and restructured

with a view to embedding it within the related majors in the Bachelor of Arts; and c. reviews the Communication and Research Skills (CARS) online non-credit module,

its value to students and how it links with communication skills training in the undergraduate majors.

Responsibility:

a. Faculty Deans to review and enhance embedding of communication skills within majors

b. Dean of the Faculty of Arts to review and restructure the complementary unit COMM1901 Communication in Practice

c. The University Librarian to review the CARS module and its linkages to communication skills training within majors

Recommendation 10 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University amends its Educational Principles to include digital literacy to the list of educational values which imbue student learning at all levels, and that major coordinators investigate embedding digital literacy in their major where feasible and appropriate.

Responsibility:

• Academic Council to approve the inclusion of digital literacy in the Educational Principles

• Faculty Deans to support embedding of digital literacy in majors where appropriate.


Recommendation 11 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM The Review Panel recommends that the University supports the refinement and enhancement of the compulsory, not-for-credit online module Indigenous Studies Essentials (ISE), for example via the development of more customised versions for students in each Bachelor degree, as well as versions for academic staff, professional staff and postgraduate research students.

Responsibility:

• Dean of the School of Indigenous Studies to investigate and develop more customised versions of the compulsory, not-for-credit online module Indigenous Studies Essentials (ISE).

Recommendation 12 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University urgently reviews pathways in Architecture and other design disciplines with a view to:

a. rescinding the Bachelor of Design; b. replacing the dual enrolment requirement in the Architecture major and the

Integrated Design major for Architecture students with a double major in Architecture;

c. reviewing all four majors in terms of their curriculum coherence, teaching quality and viability prior to their potential incorporation into other degrees; and

d. immediately suspending intake into the Integrated Design major by students without the Architecture major as their first major due to the major’s lacking integrity as a stand-alone major.

Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) and Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts in liaison with the Dean of Coursework Studies to review and recommend through the Faculty and University Committee system future arrangements for the Bachelor of Design and associated majors.


Recommendation 13 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University urgently reviews the major in Engineering Science to ensure clear and attractive engineering pathways that accommodate the UWA new courses framework, offer an outstanding educational experience, and yield high quality educational outcomes.

Issues in need of attention include:

the level and form of mathematics content; the nature of the Engineering Science major as single or double; the appropriate timing for specialisation into engineering streams; student satisfaction with the foundation units; and the perceived need for greater linkages with industry.

Responsibility:

• Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics to instigate and undertake the review for consideration and approval via the Faculty and University Committee system.

Recommendation 14 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that faculties consider redesigning low enrolment majors with a view to sharing foundation units and/or re-conceptualising them as streams within a broader major.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to identify, review and, where appropriate, redesign low enrolment majors.

Recommendation 15 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University and faculties review the delivery of high enrolment majors to ensure a quality learning and cohort experience.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to identify, review and, where appropriate, redesign high enrolment majors.


Recommendation 16 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University re-aligns data collection and dissemination with the new courses structure, and facilitates annual performance reporting on key course components, including degrees and majors, to ensure continuous quality control and assurance.

Responsibility:

• Director of Office of Strategy, Planning and Performance (SPP) to consider in consultation with Dean of Coursework Studies and establish benchmark data sets for current course structures.

Recommendation 17 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University considers an appropriate mechanism for ensuring the administrative identity and academic leadership of the four undergraduate Bachelor degrees is strengthened.

Responsibility:

• Chair of the University Curriculum Committee to consider an appropriate mechanism.

Recommendation 18 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that each Faculty’s governance structure formalises the responsibilities and accountabilities of major coordinators and ensures that for each major for which it has primary teaching responsibility, a major coordinator is formally appointed to provide academic leadership, ensure curriculum cohesion and continuous quality improvement as well as monitor teaching quality to enhance the student experience.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to review and amend their Faculty governance structure to formalise the responsibilities and accountabilities of major coordinators.


Recommendation 19 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University develops appropriate mechanisms to facilitate effective course advising, pastoral care, communication, orientation and planning to support a cohort identity during students’ first year of study.

Responsibility:

• Director of Student Life in consultation with Associate Director (Student Administration) and the Student Guild to investigate and develop appropriate mechanisms to facilitate effective course advising, pastoral care, communication, orientation and planning to support a cohort identity.

Recommendation 20 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University reviews and strengthens the hubs and spokes model for course advising to ensure consistent, effective and timely course advice (e.g. through coordinated lines of reporting for course advising) for the benefit of students.

Responsibility:

• Dean of Coursework Studies in consultation with the Associate Director (Student Administration) reviews and strengthens the University’s approach to course advising.

Recommendation 21 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University continues to strengthen teaching quality and improve the student experience, in particular students’ sense of belonging to a cohort.

Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education)

Recommendation 22 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University considers closer alignment between the faculty structure and its’ course structure.

Responsibility:

• University Executive


3.2 Commendations

Commendation 1 The fundamental structure of the new courses has been universally endorsed and works for the overwhelming majority of students.

Commendation 2 The University has differentiated itself by taking the bold new courses initiative in an increasingly globalised and competitive higher education environment.

Commendation 3 The Review Panel was impressed with the outstanding calibre of the UWA new courses students it met as part of the Review as they were compelling advocates for the structural flexibility and key features of new courses, the diversity of available pathways and their transformational potential.

Commendation 4 The new courses structure enables students to be bold and creative in their educational choices.

Commendation 5 The Review Panel was impressed with the commitment of University staff to implement new courses, especially those who have holistically reviewed and re-designed their course offerings and embraced innovation in content and delivery.

Commendation 6 The Review Panel commends the School of Indigenous Studies for embracing the new courses model for the benefit of students across all undergraduate degrees.


Commendation 7 The Review Panel commends the unprecedented and nationally recognised uptake of languages by students across the University, preparing students for global citizenship.

Commendation 8 Academic Policy Services is commended for developing and introducing the University’s online Curriculum Approval Information Database (CAIDi) and revolutionising the way in which the University’s curriculum-related information is processed and managed through the University Committee system.

Commendation 9 The Review Panel commends the rationalisation of the University’s committees and the streamlining of the curriculum approval process with a view to achieving administrative effectiveness and efficiencies.

Commendation 10 The Review Panel commends the UWA Student Guild for building and supporting strong undergraduate cohort groups for co-curricular and social activities.

3.3 Affirmations

Affirmation 1 The Review Panel affirms the new courses structure for the intrinsic and widely recognised educational benefit of being able to think from different disciplinary perspectives, and encourages further fine-tuning of the implementation of broadening units.

Affirmation 2 The Review Panel affirms the Review of Assessment Working Party’s recommendation that the Dean of Coursework Studies considers the development of an adjusted weighted average mark (WAM) for all undergraduate Bachelor degrees.


Affirmation 3 The Review Panel affirms the requirement for developmental progression within the unit sequence of majors at UWA as being educationally sound and enabling access to higher levels of learning and appropriate graduate outcomes but recommends more effective use of unit learning outcomes rather than unit prerequisites to support developmental progression.

Affirmation 4 The Review Panel affirms the University’s commitment to educate students to attain high levels of communication skills, along with its approach to embedding communication within majors, but acknowledges that further attention is required in ensuring effective implementation.

Affirmation 5 The Review Panel affirms ACE and CARS not-for-credit modules for providing a basic understanding of academic integrity, communication and research skills and recommends steps to enhance the effective implementation of the latter (recommendation 9).

Affirmation 6 The Review Panel affirms that UWA continues to enhance the embedding of research training within majors.

Affirmation 7 The Review Panel affirms UWA staff and students’ commitment to service learning and expansion in this area via the McCusker Centre for Citizenship.

Affirmation 8 The Review Panel affirms the support for and growth of study abroad for students in the Cycle 1 degrees.


4 Report of the 2015 Review of Courses’ Review Panel

The Review Panel’s final report is presented in six broad sections that focus on the Review Panel’s insights into The University of Western Australia’s (UWA’s) four three-year undergraduate Bachelor degrees (cycle 1 degrees). The five sections include Distinctiveness of UWA’s Courses (section 4.1); Degree Structure (section 4.2); Skills and Learning Opportunities (section 4.3); Disciplinary Areas of Note (section 4.4); Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (section 4.5); and Additional Matters (section 4.6). Each section includes recommendations, commendations, and affirmations where relevant.

4.1 Distinctiveness of UWA’s Courses This section describes the Review Panel’s assessment of the ‘big picture’ of UWA’s new courses structure, of which implementation commenced in 2012. In particular, this section focuses on the degree of distinctiveness the new course structure brings to the University as a world class academic institution.

The unanimous view of the Review Panel was that the new courses structure is an overwhelming success and bestows on the University a level of distinctiveness that is rare in Australia. The change resulted in a comprehensive and bold curriculum revolution that projects a strong message that an education at UWA is not only for specific disciplinary knowledge and employability skills, but also for broader expertise and wisdom that prepares students for life and careers in a changing, global and culturally diverse environment.

The Audit Team report provided strong evidence, reinforced by submissions and interviews conducted by the Review Panel, that current UWA students have very positive attitudes towards UWA’s courses (Audit Team Report, p. 19, 57 & E3). 87% of the 2828 students participating in a survey to inform this Review conducted in August/ September 2015 agreed or strongly agreed that they value UWA’s internationally recognised course structure. At least 80% of the survey participants perceived the course structure as providing them with an excellent education, including both breadth and depth of knowledge and transferable skills, and would recommend UWA’s courses to another student (Audit Team Report, 2015).

Students were compelling advocates for a structure permitting two majors, the first in their degree and the second from across the undergraduate major offerings. They also valued the opportunity to select broadening units outside the area of their degree, including in languages other than English, study abroad and Indigenous Studies. Students who met with the Review Panel reported on different ways in which the architecture of the degrees led them to make choices that had a transformational impact on their later study and likely career paths. Notably, their individual choices reflected an enthusiasm for broad exploration of the disciplines on offer, just as the course structure affords. When asked what they like about UWA’s courses, students’ responses included: “I have pursued parallel passions” (Arts student, 2015); “…depth and breadth” (Science student, 2015); “to think and formulate arguments” (Arts student, 2015); and that “UWA still holds strong the value of academia and research” (Science student, 2015).


4.1.1 Flexibility

It was evident to the Review Panel that the majority of staff endorse and students in general have embraced the flexibility of UWA’s undergraduate course structure, including the flexibility to change majors and degrees, and to take second majors, broadening units and electives from very different disciplines. In the student survey conducted to inform this Review, 77% of students agreed that UWA’s courses provide them with the educational flexibility they seek. Flexibility also was by far the most common response to the open question “What do you like about UWA’s courses?” with 40% of responses indicating flexibility (Audit Team Report, p. 20, E4, E20).

Several structural issues in need of attention were identified in the course of the Review (which will be outlined in greater detail in section 4.2 below) but it was the view of the Review Panel that these did not undermine the overall architecture of UWA’s new courses and could be addressed within it. The Review Panel congratulates the University and their staff for the carefully crafted design of the undergraduate component of the new courses.

As a result of these observations, the Panel made a number of commendations:

Commendation 1 The fundamental structure of the new courses has been universally endorsed and works for the overwhelming majority of students.

Commendation 2 The University has differentiated itself by taking the bold new courses initiative in an increasingly globalized and competitive higher education environment.

Commendation 3 The Review Panel was impressed with the outstanding calibre of the UWA new courses students it met as part of the Review as they were compelling advocates for the structural flexibility and key features of new courses, the diversity of available pathways and their transformational potential.

Commendation 4 The new courses structure enables students to be bold and creative in their educational choices.


Commendation 5 The Review Panel was impressed with the commitment of University staff to implement new courses, especially those who have holistically reviewed and re-designed their course offerings and embraced innovation in content and delivery.

4.1.2 Clarity of UWA’s Courses

Despite the internal University markers of success for the new courses structure, there was a clear message from the secondary school principals with whom the Panel met and from responses to the 2015 student survey conducted to inform the Review, that the University needs to take urgent action to communicate more effectively the rationale and benefits of the new courses to all stakeholders. School principals suggested that those students with clear vocational intentions were increasingly tending to favour the shorter, more direct pathways offered by other Western Australian universities. They also observed that high achieving students included other international and national universities in their options, and that even some of those contemplating a broad undergraduate education followed by a professional entry program at graduate level were inclined to see the more established pathways at the University of Melbourne as preferable to UWA’s new courses. The principals reported very positive feedback from their alumni on the Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours) program, but were less able to comment positively on the experience of their former students in the four three-year Cycle 1 degrees.

Five themes arguably underpinned their concerns:

• The perceived failure of the University to communicate broadly the rationale and life and career benefits of the new courses design, particularly given the potentially longer commitment to study that it entails;

• The apparent difficulty for students of charting a pathway through the new courses to a successful career;

• The ongoing strong desire of students to realise some immediate tangible educational benefit of a high ATAR;

• The longer time and greater cost required to achieve specific professional outcomes, including in law, engineering and the health professions; and,

• A sense of not yet belonging, particularly in the early years, to a clearly identified intellectual community.

These themes were also echoed in students’ survey responses. Despite positive overall evaluation of the course structure and its educational excellence, substantial proportions of students reported difficulty in understanding UWA’s course structures (32%); difficulty in planning personal course structures (34%); a preference for more obvious professional pathways (70%); and the desirability of quicker professional pathways (61%) (Audit Team Report, Appendix E).


Each of these five concerns can be addressed and are considered in more detailed later in this document. The following recommendations address the first concern listed above:

Recommendation 1 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that an urgent and significant communication strategy explaining the underpinning educational philosophy of the University’s courses be implemented that promotes UWA Courses for Careers and Life. The communication strategy needs to holistically target staff, students, prospective students, schools, industry and the wider community.

Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Community and Engagement) and the Chief Marketing Officer to commission and develop a holistic communication and marketing strategy.

Recommendation 2 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the potential and opportunities of the University’s courses are promoted and realised through development of exemplar pathways to successful careers, including postgraduate studies, to provide guidance while also encouraging creative choice.

Responsibility:

• Dean of Coursework Studies in consultation with Faculty Deans to develop exemplar pathways to enable appropriate promotion and marketing by the Chief Marketing Officer.

Discussion with stakeholders and among the Review Panel suggested placing greater emphasis on pathways to a career and the acquisition of distinctive graduate capabilities rather than on the undergraduate component of the new courses alone. Students are vitally interested in career outcomes as well as ways of furthering their broader intellectual interests, and providing them with compelling examples that illustrate the benefits of combining up to two potentially distinctive undergraduate majors with a professional or research-focussed graduate pathway would serve several purposes.

Firstly, it would underline the added value of UWA pathways to professional or research careers that derives from: the breadth of intellectual foundations provided by the Cycle 1 degree; the depth of intense, Masters-level professional preparation offered by the Cycle 2 degree; and the potential relevance of the undergraduate majors and broadening units to professional or research practice.

Secondly, they would illustrate the exceptional flexibility of the new courses structure and provide suggestive exemplars of how a personally tailored pathway can be constructed and lead to realisable career benefits. The handfuls of students with whom the Review Panel met


provided some excellent examples (e.g. the student combining an Environmental Engineering stream with an undergraduate major in Indigenous Studies). A combination of pathway ‘narratives’ based on popular choices (e.g. Politics/Law, Microbiology & Immunology/Medicine) as well as more unusual but compelling actual choices could provide a very effective set of real-life exemplars for communication with stakeholders.

Thirdly, exemplar pathways would not only illustrate the flexibility of UWA’s courses structure but provide guidance to those students who may feel overwhelmed by the choice and flexibility afforded by the new courses and, upon commencement of their degree, do not have a clear understanding of their career aspirations. As such, the provision of exemplar pathways and student profiles could be an effective means to educate and guide students about different career options as well as demonstrate that UWA’s course provisions are well-aligned with the future skills needs of industry (by including both popular major combinations and unique combinations which may provide students with food for thought). The Review Panel was of the view that the University should do more to assist students with the pursuit of upcoming opportunities, fostering innovation and making highly thought-after career choices.

Lastly, the Review Panel felt that exemplar pathways and student profiles would allow UWA to emphasise and promote its academic strength as a STEM university and the fact that the new courses structure opens up fantastic opportunities for global careers, e.g. inclusive environmental engineering unmatched in Australia. To that effect, the Review Panel encourages the University to take pride in its academic strengths and the new courses structure, and invites staff to see both as an opportunity to attract students from other states and market UWA interstate.

4.1.3 Length of Professional Pathways

The student survey feedback suggested a significant level of concern with the time taken to obtain professional qualifications under UWA’s new courses structure. As noted above, 61% of students reported a preference for quicker professional pathways (Audit Team Report, Appendix E). However, it is difficult to ascertain whether this concern arises because the case for added value of the new courses structure (and its additional length) has not been effectively made, or because, in the eyes of the students and their key advisors, including parents, teachers and career counsellors, it cannot be made at all. The Review Panel recommends urgent attention to the effective communication of the benefit of the new courses structure.

The Review Panel was mindful of the success of graduate professional pathways at other Australian universities, most notably at the University of Melbourne, but also in disciplines such as medicine and veterinary medicine at other universities. Nonetheless, it may be prudent to give this issue further consideration (as part of the 3rd stage of the Review of Courses which will focus on postgraduate courses), not least because of the increasing focus of students nationally and internationally on both career outcomes and the cost of higher education.


As background to this consideration, it is worth noting that many students are already choosing at least one of their Cycle 1 majors in an area relevant to their intended Cycle 2 professional pathway. In some cases, this choice is hard-wired in the form of pre-requisite or advanced standing arrangements for the Cycle 2 degree (e.g. in engineering, teaching and architecture). In other cases, there are no assumptions in the Cycle 2 degree about prior learning in the Cycle 1 degree (e.g. law, medicine); rather, applicants are assumed only to have a bachelor level qualification. In the latter case, large numbers of students are nonetheless choosing to study in profession-relevant undergraduate domains.

There may be merit in contemplating options for reducing the length of professional pathways, for example, by the development of Cycle 1 majors in underpinning disciplines that offer advanced standing in Cycle 2 degrees, particularly in the longer Cycle 2 degrees such as Medicine. In this case, it would be important to: (a) ensure that the Cycle 1 major is coherent and of value as a stand-alone component of an undergraduate degree; and (b) consider carefully whether to set the Cycle 1 requirements as pre-requisites for the Cycle 2 degree (possibly with bridging courses on offer); or to offer advanced standing and a reduced study time to students who have completed the Cycle 1 major, requiring the management of full- and reduced course cohorts of Cycle 2 students.

Recommendation 3 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that faculties consider reducing the length of professional pathways by offering advanced standing towards the postgraduate cycle 2 degrees to students from new or existing cognate undergraduate majors.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to instigate a review of their respective professional pathways and potential development of shorter professional pathways for consideration and approval by the Faculty and University Committee system.

4.1.4 Minimum ATAR of 80

The minimum ATAR of 80 for entry into the four UWA Cycle 1 degrees (Bachelor of Arts, Commerce, Design and Science) was raised by school principals as a disincentive for some students to put these courses as a first preference in their Tertiary Institutions Service Centre (TISC) applications. These students see their higher ATAR with a sense of ‘currency’, the value of which is not realised by accepting a position into a course with a minimum ATAR of 80.

This was the subject of vigorous discussion between the Review Panel and representatives of the Business School. For the Business School, the minimum ATAR is seen as a quality signal and the School would like to raise the minimum ATAR for the Bachelor of Commerce degree. The Review Panel did not discuss admission standards at length, but had no academic arguments against ‘floating’ the minimum ATAR separately for each course given


that effective programs appear to be in place to ensure access to all degrees for students who have experienced personal, social or educational disadvantage.

The Review Panel did not consider Assured Entry Pathways (AEPs) to Cycle 2 degrees, but further fine-tuning of guaranteed pathways to Cycle 2 degrees on the basis of either Year 12 ATAR or Cycle 1 Weighted Average Mark (WAM) is a possible means of further recognising high achievement at secondary level.

Recommendation 4 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University creates a suite of targeted course options with a range of ATAR cut-offs for Year 12 students through TISC, for example additional Assured Entry Pathways and other popular course combinations. Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) in consultation with Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Community and Engagement) to investigate the market demand and consider the development and offering of targeted course options.


4.2 Degree Structure This section of the report provides the Review Panel’s perspective on features of the structure of the undergraduate degrees that were raised as an issue as part of this Review, including: broadening (section 4.2.1), developmental progression (section 4.2.2), volume of learning in the major (section 4.2.3) and complementary units (section 4.2.4). The Panel became aware of a common tension that ran through these features of the degree structure which manifested as a type of competition for time in the taught curriculum. This tension is addressed for each feature in this section of the report.

4.2.1 Broadening

The intrinsic educational benefit afforded by broadening, including the distinct advantage of being able to think from different disciplinary perspectives, was universally acknowledged by students, staff and potential employers, and is consistent with the overarching principle that UWA educates students for careers and life.

Affirmation 1 The Review Panel affirms the new courses structure for the intrinsic and widely recognised educational benefit of being able to think from different disciplinary perspectives, and encourages further fine-tuning of the implementation of broadening units.

The Review Panel endorsed the current approach of conceptualising ‘broadening’ in terms of areas of knowledge outside a student’s degree as this appears to be working in principle for many students, and, as far as could be determined, students generally appear to be exercising their choice effectively. However, the Review Panel acknowledges the considerable and varied feedback it received on the broadening concept during the Review, especially with regard to the Bachelor of Science, and while it was not inclined to recommend any holistic or specific changes to the current definition, recognises that some urgent action is required from the University in response to the feedback to ensure the educational benefits of broadening are being perceived equitably across all degrees. The Review Panel discussed a number of options which are outlined below but felt that these required further consideration by a dedicated working group to account for the complexities surrounding broadening and ensure that unintended adverse consequences potentially associated with the implementation of one or a combination of the proposed options are carefully considered and minimised.

By way of providing context for the options discussed below and a summary of the feedback received by the Review Panel, the survey of UWA students conducted in 2015 to inform this Review indicated that broadening as applied in the Cycle 1 degrees is perceived in both positive and negative terms, with broadening being an equally common and strong theme in student responses to the survey questions “What do you like about UWA’s courses?” and “What can be improved about UWA’s courses?” (Audit Team Report, Appendix E).

For some students, the taking of broadening units out of interest has proven to be transformative, changing the direction of their studies and career ambitions. However, some students aimed to select less-challenging or ‘easy’ broadening units as a strategy to boost


their weighted average mark (WAM) or to have a lighter workload, with mixed results. For other students, the selection of broadening units is a random process, made with little thought or guidance from UWA staff.

Many staff and students across all degrees consider the current definition of broadening units as arbitrary. The identification of broadening units along degree lines can lead to outcomes that do not reflect the intention of the broadening experience such as broadening selections that are too close to or too far away from students’ degree-specific major. For example, it is possible for students majoring in Economics within the Bachelor of Commerce to take broadening units in Agricultural Economics offered in the Bachelor of Science, but not possible for students with a degree-specific major in Physics to learn about genetics as broadening or for students with a degree-specific major in Marine Science to take Mathematics as broadening. This raises equity issues pertaining to the implementation of the broadening concept.

The approach of conceptualising ‘broadening’ in terms of areas of knowledge outside a student’s degree was seen as problematic, especially by students in the Bachelor of Science who, in responses to the student survey conducted to inform this Review, requested that access to areas of study outside their discipline but within the Bachelor of Science should be allowed. The Review Panel recognised that students in the Bachelor of Science currently have the smallest number of units available in the other three degrees from which they can select their broadening units (an issue which would become even more pertinent if the Bachelor of Design was to be rescinded).

The Review Panel was also concerned about the broadening experience of some students in the Bachelor of Arts, given the special status of languages within the current broadening approach, allowing students to take a degree-specific major in the Bachelor of Arts such as Asian Studies and a language as a second major and thereby fulfilling their broadening requirements. The Review Panel felt that these students effectively do not study units that broaden their education in the way the broadening concept is intended, which raises equity issues regarding the current implementation, especially in comparison to students in the Bachelor of Science, as discussed above.

The Review Panel acknowledges that any definition is going to be difficult to defend conceptually, but the current approach does have some advantages:

• It is easily evaluated: it is easily determined whether or not a specific unit is broadening for a particular degree;

• It ensures that the broadening load is available to other parts of the University (except in the case of LOTE); and,

• It avoids incentivising the creation of broadening units within an area of knowledge and hence duplication of expertise in different parts of the University.

However, given the strong feedback received during the Review, the University may wish to consider further modifying the concept of broadening with a view to recognising greater diversity within certain discipline areas and rectifying inequities and inconsistencies in the current implementation of the broadening concept by better operationalising and accounting for both diversity and proximity within and between degrees.


The Review Panel discussed the following options:

Option 1: Splitting the knowledge paradigm for the Bachelor of Science for broadening purposes

The Review Panel believes that splitting the knowledge paradigm for the Bachelor of Science would be an option to enhance the operationalisation of the current broadening definition without changing its intent while accounting for the diversity of disciplines currently accommodated by that degree and the subsequent small number of broadening units available to students enrolled in it. The Review Panel discussed a split of natural versus health sciences as an option.

Option 2: Allowing Mathematics and Computer Sciences to be broadening for all students

The Review Panel discussed the option of treating mathematics and computer sciences in the same way as languages and allowing them to be broadening for all students. The Review Panel felt that this would achieve a number of desirable outcomes and enhance the operationalisation of the current broadening concept: (1) it would introduce more Arts/Science symmetry into the model; (2) it would encourage study in areas relevant to digital literacy (refer to section 4.3.3 Digital Literacy for further detail); (3) it would encourage study in areas where future demand is likely to be strong; (4) it would demonstrate UWA’s strength in and focus on STEM disciplines; and (5) it would recognise the broad relevance of mathematical and computational approaches across the science, social science, humanities and design disciplines.

The Review Panel acknowledged that it would be important to define mathematics and computer science cleanly, i.e. whether units that apply mathematical and computational approaches in specific contexts are treated as broadening or whether that would undermine the broadening intention. The Review Panel further acknowledged that such a change would result in some students studying mainly mathematics and physics and felt that similar limits should be used to those currently in place for students studying mainly languages. All students would still be required to do a Category A broadening unit.

Other options would be more holistic changes to the current definition, and might include:

• A classification of disciplines into broader categories for the purpose of defining broadening (noting that there is no agreed classification);

• A more fine-grained attempt to characterise what is broadening for each discipline, perhaps relying on characterisations of distance in discipline space4;

• A University-defined process for determining, recording and communicating what is breadth for a particular degree or degree-specific major; or,

• A University-defined process for determining what is regarded as breadth for all students (at present, languages other than English (LOTE), Indigenous Studies units and study abroad, but this set could be expanded in a variety of ways, e.g. with interdisciplinary units or, as discussed under option 2 above, by expanding the

4 For example, Börner, K. (2015). The Atlas of Knowledge – Anyone Can Map. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.


“languages as broadening” concept to include mathematics and/or computing languages).

Recommendation 5 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University considers in detail options for modifying the broadening concept with a view to recognising greater diversity within certain discipline areas and rectifying inequities and inconsistencies in the current implementation of the broadening concept by better operationalising and accounting for both diversity and proximity within and between degrees.

Responsibility:

• Dean of Coursework Studies to convene a working group tasked with considering in detail the Review report’s options for modifying the broadening concept to account for the complexities surrounding broadening and ensure an equitable approach to breadth of studies.

While broadening is educationally sound in principle, it is recognised that broadening units are pedagogically more demanding to create and deliver, and require a greater emphasis on learning design due to students’ potential absence of any pre-requisite knowledge. Most broadening units are also offered as electives, and many are also offered as part of a major sequence, with no distinction made with regard to the alphanumeric code used (e.g. the code for the unit Human Biology II: Being Human is ANHB1102 irrespective of whether it is taken as a Category A broadening unit, an elective, or as a core or complementary unit in a major sequence). This practice makes it impossible to readily track students’ broadening choices and has contributed to the paucity of detailed information surrounding broadening units across UWA, and the lack of certainty surrounding recommendations pertaining to broadening. For example, the absence of data made it difficult for the Review Panel to evaluate the impact of broadening on students undertaking a Bachelor of Arts degree (especially those already committed to studying a language).

Recommendation 6 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University develops a means of identifying and reporting readily and effectively on units undertaken in different UWA course components (e.g. major units, broadening units, complementary units, electives etc.). Responsibility:

• Director of the Office of Strategy, Planning and Performance (SPP) in consultation with Student Systems and Student Administration to consider and develop robust data sets to enable improved student advising and both curriculum planning and management.


Lastly, the Review Panel discussed means by which students’ perceptions of the broadening requirement could be enhanced and was of the view that there may be merit in considering the development of an adjusted weighted average mark (WAM) which would give students the confidence to undertake broadening units they are actually interested in without being concerned that they could adversely impact their WAM. Some students were reported to “shop around” for broadening units that were perceived to be easy to allow them to maximise their WAM, which unfortunately indicates that they do not appreciate the educational benefits of broadening and are trying to “game” the system.

The Review Panel was made aware of a recent Review of Assessment at UWA and affirms the Review of Assessment Working Party’s recommendation that the Dean of Coursework Studies considers the development of an adjusted WAM for all undergraduate Bachelor degrees. However, the Review of Courses’ Review Panel considered it important that the number of units excluded from calculating the total WAM should not equate to four as this would imply that students could potentially exclude all four broadening units from counting in their WAM which could potentially undermine the broadening concept as a key feature of the new courses.

Affirmation 2 The Review Panel affirms the Review of Assessment Working Party’s recommendation that the Dean of Coursework Studies considers the development of an adjusted weighted average mark (WAM) for all undergraduate Bachelor degrees.

Within the architecture of the undergraduate degree structure, it became apparent to the Review Panel that the clear educational benefits of taking broadening units is often in tension with the necessity to develop appropriate levels of disciplinary skills and conceptual understanding, particularly within the physical sciences. It is intended that students can acquire this level of depth in their Master’s level degree (Cycle 2). It is not clear that staff, generally, support this concept in practice; overwhelmingly, however, they understand and support the concept itself. Moreover, it is not clear whether the mixed views of staff about the broadening concept are affecting the views of students. This issue is further considered in the following sections on developmental progression, volume of learning in the major and complementary units, as it is a complex and broad issue.

4.2.2 Developmental Progression

The Review Panel found that developmental progression is strong in many majors across all degrees, often with developmental pathways being defined by prerequisites in core units. However, there were some issues relating to the requirement for developmental progression in majors that were raised with the Review Panel by various stakeholders.

The first issue was closely associated with majors in the Bachelor of Arts and more specifically in the humanities. On one hand, some major coordinators expressed a strong view that the requirement for developmental progression in their major had resulted in unexpected benefits for staff and students. These benefits included, for example, enabling


more sophisticated learning at the higher levels and an improved ‘cohort feel’ which, in one instance, resulted in the launch of a new UWA Guild affiliated club.

On the other hand, the strict enforcement of prerequisites to ensure developmental progression in majors was seen to be “overly restrictive” and “somewhat artificial” by some major coordinators in the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Design. The primary reasoning behind these views was that a broad introduction to the disciplinary field and the associated generic skills was adequate preparation for higher level units and that specific prerequisites were unnecessary in many majors and resulted in less choice and narrowed pathways for students. It was argued in some responses to the major coordinator questionnaire conducted to inform this Review that the current rules do not acknowledge learning “which does not progress linearly and chronologically”. Moreover, the developmental requirements were viewed by a few academic staff members to undermine interdisciplinary fields because they don’t “allow any fluid transverse movement between” majors and units with similar disciplinary norms and conventions.

The Review Panel was strongly of the view that the requirements for developmental progression within the unit sequence of a major is an academically sound approach that is likely to enable access to higher levels of learning as students progress through their major and ensure appropriate and consistent graduate outcomes. The Review Panel also was of the view that developmental progression should primarily be a consequence of the outcomes of the sequence of units in each major. The Review Panel understands the necessity and/or value of very specific prerequisites for some units, but was not supportive of prerequisites being used as a method of enforcing developmental progression within each major. Major coordinators and unit coordinators should be responsible for ensuring developmental progression by setting increasingly high standards for unit outcomes and assessment items at each level within each major.

Affirmation 3 The Review Panel affirms the requirement for developmental progression within the unit sequence of majors at UWA as being educationally sound and enabling access to higher levels of learning and appropriate graduate outcomes but recommends more effective use of unit learning outcomes rather than unit prerequisites to support developmental progression.

Recommendation 7 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University reviews current unit prerequisite requirements to ensure their relevance and effectiveness as a means to support but not enforce developmental progression within the unit sequence of a major. Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to review relevance and effectiveness of prerequisite requirements.


4.2.3 Volume of Learning in the Major

Some concerns were expressed by some major coordinators that the volume of learning enabled by the 2+2+4 or 2+3+3 unit structure of the major does not allow adequate developmental progression. These major coordinators felt the eight units of a major sequence did not allow “very deep study into a single discipline”, that “graduates are not job ready”, that learning “material is also very dense in some units… to meet accreditation requirements”, and the small number of units is “negatively perceived by some external and internal stakeholders” as “very inadequate for a major”. These concerns mostly were voiced by academic staff and students in the science, engineering, mathematics and design disciplines. These problems and the specific majors concerned are further outlined on page 141 of the Audit Team’s Report (2015).

The Review Panel noted that some academic staff focused on what was perceived to have been ‘lost’ from previous, strongly discipline-focused courses. For example, “They have ‘dumbed down’ the academic standards of our BSc”; “A great deal of practical skill development and research involvement was lost in the development of the New Courses and the associated Cycle 1 degree ‘concept’”; and “The main weakness of the NCF [new courses framework] is the reduction in actual content in the Bachelor’s degree, especially at Level 3”. The Review Panel also noted concerns expressed by some staff about students’ preparation for honours and postgraduate degrees: “…[T]he number of units at third year level are very inadequate for a major…” and “…the reduced time spent in the study and broadening of in-depth [major content] results in students being much less prepared when they enter the master’s program”.

In contrast, other academic staff indicated a greater awareness and positive perception of what the new course structure was designed to achieve and the advantages for students. For example, one major coordinator said that when he had the opportunity to compare UWA’s students with students from the same discipline from a university in the UK, it was evident that the UWA students had different strengths such as exposure to other disciplines and creativity. Another major coordinator made the following comments about the breadth component of the course structure:

The requirement for breadth within any degree has, in my experience and that of my colleagues, been generally very beneficial. Some of these benefits are at the level of the individual student, who has been compelled to engage with a variety of disciplinary approaches, but others are at the class level. The diversity of students’ academic backgrounds and approaches has contributed to a more dynamic and vibrant classroom environment, which (while sometimes posing challenges for teaching) has been largely positive and enriching. (Major Coordinator Questionnaire response)

Some staff reflected on their colleagues’ inability to ‘let go of the content’ and expressed the view that there is more to building a good student than covering more discipline-based content. Another major coordinator expressed the opinion that the amount of knowledge in the world today is vast, we can “never fit it all in”, and that we need to be selective about what content is included in each major to ensure students are engaged and continue learning the discipline even when they leave the University.


The student survey conducted to inform this Review provided some insight into the students’ perspective on the issue of volume of learning. The findings from the survey showed that high percentages of students agreed or strongly agreed that their degree specific major is distinctive (80%); increases in depth of knowledge as they progress through the major (86%); is coherent (79%); provides engaging content (82%); and that they learnt a lot in their major (84%). Similarly, students responded very positively to questions about their second major and strongly agreed that they valued having the option to do a second major (96%) (Audit Team Report, 2015, Appendix E).

The Review Panel met with a number of students who generally were strong advocates for the new course structure, and, with a few exceptions, were very positive about their majors. The Review Panel noted that these students were highly representative of the qualities of an excellent, broad education. For example, one student with an Engineering Science major said that his second major in management had made him “think differently”, made him “more employable” and, in his view, had “opened up opportunities”.

Another student commented:

I love my major in Anatomy and Human Biology and very much enjoy my second major in Biochemistry, however, I also enjoy Greek mythology and astronomy. Although I would never pursue either of these fields individually, the UWA system allowed me to take them as electives and broadening units that were very fun and also interesting. (UWA Science Student, 2015)

The tension identified here is that to increase the volume of learning in any major would imply decreasing the opportunities for students to do a second major or broadening units. The issue of volume of learning within a major also related to complementary units and is discussed further in the following section.

4.2.4 Complementary Units

By way of background, the current University Policy on: Undergraduate Degree Courses explains that: “a degree-specific major may be supplemented by no more than four complementary units, which must be necessary adjuncts to the major.” Complementary units do not have to be taken by students who take a major as a second major.

The tension regarding volume of learning discussed in the previous section is also related to complementary units. The Review Panel was curious about the inconsistent use of complementary units across the University. For example, while some of the most vocal concerns about the volume of learning in the majors came from the School of Mathematics and Statistics, Appendix K in the Audit Team’s Report (2015) indicated that the major in Quantitative Methods does not include any complementary units and the major in Mathematics and Statistics only has one complementary unit.

To further illustrate this inconsistency, the Review Panel noted that within the Bachelor of Science, a total of three majors do not have any complementary units, some majors, such as Anatomy and Human Biology, only have one complementary unit, many majors include a communication-focused unit as a complementary unit while others do not, and some clusters


of majors, for example, in the biological and agricultural science area, each have four complementary units. It is not clear, for example, why the major in Anatomy and Human Biology only requires one complementary unit (and only if students don’t have a suitable background), but a major in Zoology requires four.

The Review Panel wondered if, in some majors, such inconsistencies may have arisen from decisions that were based on financial constraints within schools, attempts to maximize enrolments and revenue, as well as academic staff preferences and expertise rather than thoughtful consideration of academic matters related to specific disciplinary requirements and the learning needs of students within the new courses structural framework and philosophy of breadth and depth. Additionally, the Review Panel was concerned that the inconsistencies in the utilisation of complementary units across majors and degrees are evidence that certain key features of the new courses framework are not consistently well understood, and that sound academic oversight and leadership at the major/ degree level is lacking which adversely impacts the design and delivery of the majors (refer to section 4.5.3 Role of Major Coordinators and Faculty Governance for more details).

Many staff and students lamented limited opportunities for activities that are of benefit to the majors such as laboratory activities, excursions, practicums, fieldwork and links with industry. For example, it is “challenging to achieve the necessary themes of continuous development of laboratory skills and computational skills”; “It is harder to incorporate practicum units”; and “the rigidity of the degree structure resulted in reduction in our fieldwork offerings”. Students also expressed this view as was evidenced by their responses to the student survey conducted to inform this Review (2015 Audit Report, p. 57 and Appendix E) where the fourth most common response to the question about what can be improved about UWA’s courses was making the majors more practical, with improved connections to industry. Comments in the student survey included: “More complementary units that are related to your degree-specific major” and “being more practical and applicable,” reflected students’ views expressed to the Review Panel.

It appeared to the Review Panel that there is an opportunity to address some of the concerns raised by staff and students by loosening the current definition of complementary units so that these units can be used not only as ‘necessary adjuncts’ but simply as ‘adjuncts’ to the major sequence and that flexibility to have optional complementary units be permitted. The Review Panel recommends that complementary units are used to add depth and breadth to the degree-specific major, to give students options with regard to practical, field-based and laboratory activities or to participate in practicums, mentoring, service learning and other work-oriented activities. Faculties managing the majors would need to be careful that this did not lead to additional theoretical content units (as students are not required to complete complementary units when taking the major as a second major) or proliferation of expensive, low enrolment units that unnecessarily restricted flexibility in students’ course structure.


Recommendation 8 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University better utilizes the four available complementary units to allow up to 12 units of core learning in the degree-specific major with a focus on additional field-work, laboratories, industry linkages, service learning and discipline-related mobility.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to review the effective usage of complementary units and define them as appropriate to incorporate the above into the degree-specific major and thus enhance the student experience.


4.3 Skills and Learning Opportunities This third section considers issues raised during the Review with regard to skills and learning opportunities that are features of UWA’s new courses, including communication and research skills, academic conduct, digital literacy, service learning and study abroad.

4.3.1 Communication and Academic Conduct Skills

The requirement that communication skills are integrated into every major has been implemented in different ways. Some majors have a dedicated unit as part of the major sequence or as a complementary unit, other majors have embedded communication skills into the major. The majority of students who responded to the student survey conducted to inform this Review indicated that they value communication skills being taught in their major (79%), in particular international students (83%) and students enrolled in the Bachelor of Design (90%) and Bachelor of Commerce (82%) (Audit Team Report p. E14, E15).

Affirmation 4 The Review Panel affirms the University’s commitment to educate students to attain high levels of communication skills, along with its approach to embedding communication within majors, but acknowledges that further attention is required in ensuring effective implementation.

Not-with-standing this affirmation, the Review Panel was concerned that only about half (52%) of the students who responded to the student survey (Audit Team Report, 2015, Appendix E) agreed that the quality of communication skills training in their major is excellent. One of the most pressing issues is the use of the complementary unit COMM1901 Communication in Practice by 19 of the 28 majors in the Bachelor of Arts as a means to teach communication skills. The unit has been identified, and was confirmed by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, to be problematic with regard to its delivery.

However, removal of this unit as a complementary unit may not be an easy option. It may require a significant level of restructure of each of the 19 majors with a view to including one or more units within which explicit teaching of communication skills can be situated. The Review Panel acknowledges that the Faculty of Arts is in the process of addressing this problem by way of restructuring COMM1901 Communication in Practice in a way that would enable its effectiveness in the future. The Review Panel recommends reviewing this unit and other complementary communication skills units with a view to better integrating communication skills into each major.

Relatively few students (26%) agreed that their communication skills were enhanced by taking the compulsory, not-for-credit online Communication and Research Skills (CARS) unit. A greater proportion of students (63%) agreed that the compulsory, not-for-credit online Academic Conduct Essentials (ACE) unit enhanced their understanding of academic integrity, with more international students (79%) than domestic students (61%) perceiving the benefits. On meeting with the Review Panel, the University Librarian explained that the


CARS and ACE modules were not intended to be stand-alone units, and that the intention was that students’ academic programs within their major/s would build on the concepts conveyed in these units. Currently, the CARS online module lacks clarity with regard to how the different components are connected and linked with communication skills training provided via the majors.

Some people who submitted their views to the panel commented on the usefulness of the ACE module, particularly with regard to making students aware of plagiarism. Moreover, students generally agreed the unit made them more aware of plagiarism (domestic: 65%; international: 80%). About half of the student survey respondents felt there should be more information and training in their degree about academic integrity. This and interviews during the Review Panel meetings affirmed the Review Panel’s view that the coordinator of each major should take responsibility for the embedding of appropriate communication skills and ensuring students are well informed and trained with regard to academic integrity and for the connection and development of the concepts initially introduced within the CARS and ACE modules.

Affirmation 5 The Review Panel affirms ACE and CARS not-for-credit modules for providing a basic understanding of academic integrity, communication and research skills and recommends steps to enhance the effective implementation of the latter.

Recommendation 9 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University:

d. further improves the teaching of communication skills within majors in general; e. ensures that COMM1901 Communication in Practice is reviewed and restructured

with a view to embedding it within the related majors in the Bachelor of Arts; and f. reviews the Communication and Research Skills (CARS) online non-credit module,

its value to students and how it links with communication skills training in the undergraduate majors.

Responsibility:

a. Faculty Deans to review and enhance embedding of communication skills within majors

b. Dean of the Faculty of Arts to review and restructure the complementary unit COMM1901 Communication in Practice

c. The University Librarian to review the CARS module and its linkages to communication skills training within majors


4.3.2 Research Skills

The Review Panel acknowledged the new courses have made some inroads with regard to embedding research skills in majors across the four three-year undergraduate degrees under review. A large majority of the students who responded to the student survey conducted to inform this Review valued research skills being taught in their major (88%) and could identify when research skills were being taught (83%) (Audit Team Report, 2015, Appendix E). Overall, about two thirds of the students surveyed (64%) felt that the research training in their major was of excellent quality (compared with 52% for communication skills).

However, the Review Panel recognised that there were still very few opportunities for students within certain degrees to develop or be introduced to research skills needed for postgraduate study. The Review Panel was concerned that students enrolled in the Bachelor of Design were comparatively negative about the research training in their majors, with only 36% agreeing that research training in this degree is excellent (refer to section 4.4.3 for further details on the Bachelor of Design).

Affirmation 6 The Review Panel affirms that UWA continues to enhance the embedding of research training within majors.

4.3.3 Digital Literacy

One issue that emerged during the Review relates to the recognition that UWA students should also develop digital literacy skills during their undergraduate degree. Digital literacy is the ability to find, evaluate, utilize, share, and create content using information technologies and the Internet. The Review Panel acknowledges that digital literacy is an important issue because technology is changing faster than society. The same advances that enhance leisure and make our work easier—those that make it possible for us to search online databases, text friends, and stream media—also present urgent challenges to the social norms, market models, and legal frameworks that structure our society. The rules of appropriate behaviour in these digital contexts may be unknown or unknowable.

The Review Panel was made aware that the University Library is enabling students to access an online training module on digital literacy developed by an external provider by providing free login credentials. The training module aims to teach students to:

• Effectively achieve in an environment increasingly reliant on information and communication technologies (ICT);

• Better achieve teaching and learning goals/objectives; and,

• Better prepare themselves to transition into working life.

While the Review Panel recognised this as a good starting point, it questioned students’ overall awareness of this module’s availability and recommended that the University considers taking more visible, holistic steps to equip its graduates with digital literacy skills in

http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/information-resources/guides/digital-literacy


order to recognise their broad relevance across the range of disciplines offered at UWA and emphasise UWA’s strength in and focus on STEM disciplines.

Recommendation 10 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University amends its Educational Principles to include digital literacy to the list of educational values which imbue student learning at all levels, and that major coordinators investigate embedding digital literacy in their major where feasible and appropriate.

Responsibility:

• Academic Council to approve the inclusion of digital literacy in the Educational Principles

• Faculty Deans to support embedding of digital literacy in majors where appropriate.

4.3.4 Service Learning

The Review Panel noted the very high levels of satisfaction from students who had participated in service learning units and the high percentage of students (85%) who agreed that there should be more opportunities for service learning in UWA’s undergraduate courses (Audit Team Report, p. E18-E19). The Review Panel also noted a strong level of personal and academic commitment from a small team of discipline-based academics that participate in and coordinate service learning units. While enrolments in service learning units have grown, the total proportion of students who participate for academic credit remains low because exposure to service learning is not compulsory or integrated into all majors.

Since 2012, the total number of service learning units in the University has increased from 5 to more than 30, however, only 12 of these units are offered at the undergraduate level. The Review Panel acknowledges that teaching of service learning units requires considerable resources to establish and maintain productive collaborative partnerships with outside organisations as well as to support and monitor students while participating in service learning placements.

The Review Panel was informed of the recent establishment of the McCusker Centre for Citizenship that will support and promote service learning within the University. One submission to the Review Panel suggested some innovative possible methods of increasing the participation and engagement with service learning, including an online module similar to ACE or ISE, a service learning minor program of study and the establishment of a Service Learning Week, similar to Research Week. The Review Panel supports and commends the current approach to service learning in the University and recognises the additional resources that would be required to increase staff and student participation in service learning.


Affirmation 7 The Review Panel affirms UWA staff and students’ commitment to service learning and expansion in this area via the McCusker Centre for Citizenship.

4.3.5 Study Abroad

The number of domestic Bachelor graduates who studied abroad during their course nearly doubled from about 6% in 2010 to about 11% in 2014 (Audit Team Report, p. 48-49). While this increase is impressive, the Review Panel understands that it will require a number of cohorts of new courses students to complete their degree to accurately understand how many students do participate in study abroad. The current data do, however, indicate that those students who participated in study abroad strongly valued the opportunity to do so (Audit Team Report, p. 48-49). Not-with-standing this strong value, there are a number of challenges for study abroad, including the additional expense for students, fitting study abroad into the course structure without lengthening the degree, timing the study abroad experience so as to not interfere with the developmental progression in the student’s major/s or risk the student’s opportunity to score well for entry into Honours and postgraduate courses.

Affirmation 8 The Review Panel affirms the support for and growth of study abroad for students in the Cycle 1 degrees.


4.4 Disciplinary Areas of Note The Review Panel necessarily focused the review at the University level and noted the excellent, detailed information provided in the Audit Team Report (2015) on the degrees and the majors within the degrees. This information is of importance to various parts of the University and the Review Panel recommends that it be shared with faculties and divisions for their scrutiny and action as appropriate. The review process resulted in the Review Panel becoming aware of disciplinary areas of note for commendation and recommendation and this section of the report discusses four of these areas, including Indigenous studies, languages, the Bachelor of Design and the Engineering Science major in the Bachelor of Science.

4.4.1 Indigenous Studies

Data presented in the Audit Team’s Report on Indigenous Studies at the University was affirmed by interviews conducted by the Review Panel. The inclusion of Australian Indigenous content within the curriculum across all degrees is growing and the number of UWA students participating in units with Indigenous content is increasing (Audit Team Report, p. 23). Moreover, it was noted by the Review Panel that support for Indigenous students studying at UWA is very strong. While Indigenous students are actively participating in the new course structure with success, there are challenges related to the duration of study required to achieve professional status, in particular the pathway to become a qualified lawyer through the Juris Doctor. The School of Indigenous Studies personnel reported that they were already considering stronger marketing of UWA’s professional degrees to Indigenous people who already have a degree and the Review Panel endorses this way forward.

The inclusion of the compulsory, not-for-credit online module Indigenous Studies Essentials (ISE) for all commencing students at UWA was seen by the Review Panel as an innovative and effective method to introduce students to Australian Indigenous people, their knowledge, history and heritage. In the student survey conducted to inform this Review, about half the respondents (54%) agreed or strongly agreed that ISE enhanced their understanding of Indigenous people (Table J) and this was greater for international students (75%) than domestic students (51%). The School of Indigenous Studies commented to the Review Panel that, in their view, the ISE unit could be refined and enhanced to include different versions for students in different degrees, as well as versions for professional and academic staff and for postgraduate research students. The Review Panel endorses this future vision for ISE but recognises it will require additional support and funding to realise.

Commendation 6 The Review Panel commends the School of Indigenous Studies for embracing the new courses model for the benefit of students across all undergraduate degrees.


Recommendation 11 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM The Review Panel recommends that the University supports the refinement and enhancement of the compulsory, not-for-credit online module Indigenous Studies Essentials (ISE), for example via the development of more customised versions for students in each Bachelor degree, as well as versions for academic staff, professional staff and postgraduate research students.

Responsibility:

• Dean of the School of Indigenous Studies (SIS) to investigate and develop more customised versions of the compulsory, not-for-credit online module Indigenous Studies Essentials (ISE).

4.4.2 Languages

Data included in the Review of Courses’ Audit Team Report demonstrated that language units offered in the Bachelor of Arts have been particularly successful in attracting students enrolled in other degrees who are taking language units as broadening units (2015 Audit Team Report, p. 79). Of those units in the BA that attract 80% or more of their enrolments from outside the BA, half are language units.

The success of Languages at UWA has been recognised by John Hajek, President of the Languages and Cultures Network for Australian Universities in Mapping the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences in Australia:

The universities of Western Australia (UWA) and of Melbourne are well known, for instance, for restructuring degrees to guarantee students in any undergraduate course (e.g. engineering) access to study outside their faculty at all year levels. Enrolments in languages have risen dramatically as a result, particularly at UWA, which has gone furthest in opening out language study to all students. (2014, p.22)

Commendation 7 The Review Panel commends the unprecedented and nationally recognised uptake of languages by students across the University, preparing students for global citizenship.

http://www.humanities.org.au/PolicyResearch/Research/MappingtheHumanitiesArtsSocialSciences.aspx

http://www.humanities.org.au/PolicyResearch/Research/MappingtheHumanitiesArtsSocialSciences.aspx


4.4.3 Bachelor of Design

Throughout the Review, the Bachelor of Design stood out as a significant risk for the University. The degree has a small number of only four majors, with a small total enrolment compared with the other degrees. Student feedback from the survey conducted to inform this Review was very negative and considerably weaker in comparison with the other degrees (Audit Team Report, 2015). During interviews with the Review Panel, some staff expressed indifference, and sometimes a lack of commitment to, or knowledge of, the philosophy of the new courses. The isolation of this degree in one of the smallest faculties in the University not located on the main campus concerned the Review Panel. There are fewer opportunities for academic and administrative staff to interact with staff from other schools and faculties and it appears that these factors have adversely impacted on the implementation of the degree.

One of the major issues with the Bachelor of Design is the Integrated Design major. It appears that this major was conceptualised to achieve two different things for two different cohorts, the architecture students and the design students, both of whom enrol in this major. According to some students, this major is, at best, a source of frustration and, at worst, a waste of their time and money, and/or academically compromised.

For the architecture students, the Integrated Design major is too far removed from the architectural discipline and is lacking in depth and relevance. In interviews with the Review Panel, some students questioned the relevance of the majority of units in the Integrated Design major to their architecture studies, and expressed the opinion that their undergraduate study requirements were artificially expanded by the requirement to complete both the Architecture major and the Integrated Design major as a prerequisite for admission to the Master of Architecture without any apparent value-add by the latter.

For the design students, the Integrated Design major is too focussed on architectural content and these students often feel as if they are inadequately prepared for much of the content and unfairly compared with the architecture students enrolled in the same major. In interviews with the Review Panel, students enrolled in the Integrated Design major but not the Architecture major reported that some of the units in the former assume prerequisite knowledge, e.g. architectural drawing, which students not concurrently enrolled in both majors could not possibly have obtained. Hence, the Integrated Design major clearly fails to accommodate both types of students and the synergies between the Architecture major and the Integrated Design major are misaligned. Other concerns raised during the Review included studio units, which both staff and students acknowledge have too much content for six point units; lack of flexibility; workload problems; unavailability of units; as well as concerns with broadening units and how they fit into the degree, amongst other things.

Another issue raised was a concern about the articulation between the Bachelor of Design and the Master of Architecture. Some students reported having to wait a year to complete one final unit in their Bachelor degree before they were permitted to enrol in the Master of Architecture. It is not clear to the Review Panel why this happened when concurrent and conditional enrolment is working in other parts of the University, for example for the engineering students. Such administrative difficulties seem to be having a significant adverse impact on the student experience in this degree.


The Review Panel discussed the problems with Bachelor of Design representatives and came to the view that the University needs to urgently review pathways in Architecture and other design disciplines and decide which form such a degree should take, if a strategic decision is made to continue an Architecture degree.

The Review Panel recommends that the University considers rescinding the Bachelor of Design and considers the offering of a double major in Architecture to replace the current dual enrolment requirement in both the Architecture and the Integrated Design major for Architecture students. Furthermore, all four majors in the degree should be reviewed in terms of their curriculum coherence, teaching quality and viability prior to their potential incorporation into other degrees. The Review Panel expressed serious concerns about the Integrated Design major and recommends that intake into the major by students without the Architecture major as their first major be suspended with immediate effect due to the major’s lacking integrity as a stand-alone major.

Recommendation 12 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University urgently reviews pathways in Architecture and other design disciplines with a view to:

e. rescinding the Bachelor of Design; f. replacing the dual enrolment requirement in the Architecture major and the

Integrated Design major for Architecture students with a double major in Architecture;

g. reviewing all four majors in terms of their curriculum coherence, teaching quality and viability prior to their potential incorporation into other degrees; and

h. immediately suspending intake into the Integrated Design major by students without the Architecture major as their first major due to the major’s lacking integrity as a stand-alone major.

Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) and Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts in liaison with the Dean of Coursework Studies to review and recommend through the Faculty and University Committee system future arrangements for the Bachelor of Design and associated majors.

4.4.4 Major in Engineering Science

The Review Panel also identified the Engineering Science major in the Bachelor of Science as a serious risk for the University. In particular, significant decreases in enrolments in this major indicate that many students are choosing to undertake engineering courses at other universities. The problems with this major seem to be related to: a) the length and nature of the Bachelor/Master structure of the degree compared with competitor courses; b) constraints on the design of the engineering science major within the new courses structure; and c) strong student dissatisfaction with the content and teaching quality in some of the units within the major.


The five-year pathway to becoming a qualified engineer at UWA compared with four-year pathways at some other universities seems to be a major problem for some students. In the view of the Review Panel, however, this is a perceptual problem that can be addressed with appropriate marketing and coordinated and concise communication outlining the value of the UWA approach by emphasising the more advanced graduate capabilities obtained by students at the Master’s level and that combined degrees usually take the same amount of time to complete (refer to section 4.1.3 Length of Professional Pathways).

Parenthetically, it was also of concern to the Review Panel that the five year engineering degree at UWA, comprising the Engineering Science major in combination with the Master of Professional Engineering (MPE), yields the same level of accreditation with Engineers Australia as four-year undergraduate Bachelor degrees in engineering offered by competitors such as Curtin University. The current accreditation status of UWA’s engineering degree is provisional accreditation at the professional level, which is granted based on an assessment of the extent to which the degree facilitates students’ acquisition of a set of graduate capabilities/ competencies on completion of the degree. Engineers Australia does not differentiate between undergraduate/ postgraduate degrees and assesses both degrees against the same set of graduate capabilities. Hence, there is no competitive advantage via a higher level of accreditation to be gained by offering a five year Master’s level engineering degree compared to a four year undergraduate engineering degree. Subsequently, it becomes even more pertinent to concisely communicate the value proposition of the fifth year of study at UWA.

For example, it might be beneficial to communicate Engineers Australia’ commendation following the last accreditation visit in August 2015 that the 3+2 model is commended as a sound model for engineering education and that some units at the Master’s level, especially the two part design and research units, contribute to the graduate capabilities/ competencies defined by Engineers Australia being achieved to a very high level/ exceeded as they are going beyond the expectation of undergraduate engineering degrees, which comprise the majority of engineering degrees in Australia and hence constitute the benchmark for assessment.

The second problem with this major was identified as a series of perceived constraints placed on the design of the Engineering Science major by the new courses framework which include:

• The perceived need to limit the Engineering Science major to 8+4 = 12 units, including mathematics, as required by the new courses structure;

• The desire to accommodate second majors, for example, in areas such as physics, mathematics, computer science, biology and commerce disciplines;

• The need to accommodate four broadening units, as required by the new courses architecture; and

• The decision to delay students’ choice of engineering stream until the third year.

The Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics explained that these constraints mean there is very limited volume of learning within the major to address all of the engineering and mathematics content that needs to be taught, both in preparation for the


Master of Professional Engineering and for accreditation purposes. Many students agreed with this perspective, but affirmed their value of broadening units and access to a second major. The Review Panel also agreed with the Faculty that this combination of constraints is limiting. However, it did not agree that the most effective response would be to relax the first constraint and permit a single major of more than 12 units (8+4), since this would adversely impact on core features of the new courses structure.

Rather, the Review Panel discussed two other options that the Faculty could undertake to improve the major. Firstly, relaxing the final constraint, i.e. allowing students to stream earlier in the major would deepen the coverage of each engineering specialisation within the major. This view was reinforced in discussion with students. While students reportedly valued the opportunity to study broadly as facilitated by the new courses structure, at the same time they were keen to get started on their preferred engineering specialisation and immerse themselves into more discipline-specific engineering content. Earlier commencement of engineering specialisations in the Engineering Science major may further address students’ feedback that the “jump” from undergraduate to postgraduate studies is currently too big and that the Engineering Science major does not adequately prepare students for units in the MPE.

A second option is for the Faculty to change the Engineering Science major into a double major. This would allow 14 units for more in-depth coverage of mathematics and engineering content. The problem with this proposed option is that it would potentially limit students’ options with regard to second majors. In its deliberations, the Review Panel considered it pertinent that the Faculty carefully considers popular second majors for engineering students and consults widely with a view to maximising opportunities for students to take an Engineering Science double major with a second major.

The third issue with the Engineering Science major is strong student dissatisfaction with the content and teaching quality in some of the units within the major. During interviews with the Review Panel, students described the broad nature of the first two years of the Engineering Science major as a source of considerable frustration. Moreover, students were of the view that they do not gain enough practical experience and that there are not enough linkages with industry throughout the major. Inspection of data on student satisfaction indicates there are a number of core units in the major that urgently need attention to improve organisation, relevance to the major and assessment strategies. In particular, the four foundation units in the major received considerable negative feedback, with students questioning their relevance, the linkages between them, and their delivery format. The Panel wondered if these units would be better delivered later in the Engineering Science major, or in the Master of Professional Engineering course when students have gained more theoretical knowledge and practical engineering experience, as, despite their name, they may not be suitable for a first introduction to engineering education.

Overall, the Review Panel was aware of the close interdependencies between some of the issues discussed above and other structural features of the new courses framework, in particular broadening and acknowledges that some of the changes to the Engineering Science major may be contingent on potential changes to the implementation of the broadening concept. It is likely that the Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics will need to know the specific nature of any changes with regards to broadening before they can be expected to determine the best way to restructure the Engineering Science major.


Recommendation 13 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University urgently reviews the major in Engineering Science to ensure clear and attractive engineering pathways that accommodate the UWA new courses framework, offer an outstanding educational experience, and yield high quality educational outcomes.

Issues in need of attention include:

the level and form of mathematics content; the nature of the Engineering Science major as single or double; the appropriate timing for specialisation into engineering streams; student satisfaction with the foundation units; and the perceived need for greater linkages with industry.

Responsibility:

• Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics to instigate and undertake the review for consideration and approval via the Faculty and University Committee system.


4.5 Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness The Review Panel recognised that the University has been engaging in ongoing efforts to contain and reduce costs and enhance effectiveness, while retaining academic excellence at the highest international standards. This section of the report considers administrative efficiency and effectiveness with regard to high and low enrolment majors, the role of major coordinators and faculty governance, and student course advising. There were a couple of issues that were outside the scope of this Review but persistently were seen as relevant by the Review Panel, namely the student experience of the teaching quality at UWA and the alignment of course structures and organisational structures. These issues are also considered in this section of the report.

4.5.1 Balancing High and Low Enrolment Majors

Enrolments in majors vary considerably: in 2015, they ranged from less than five equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) in some Arts and Science majors to 761 EFTSL in the Accounting major in the Bachelor of Commerce and 1662 EFTSL in the Engineering Science major in the Bachelor of Science. Both extremes are perceived as potentially problematic by staff and students. At the high enrolment end, the challenge is to ensure a high quality learning experience and build a sense of cohort identity. At the low enrolment end, there are inevitable staffing and/or workload pressures in maintaining a full and viable major. Several majors have already been rescinded because of low enrolments. For financial viability, the distribution of unit enrolments is arguably more important than major enrolments per se and there is therefore value in:

• Contemplating whether small enrolment majors can be more effectively redesigned to share foundational units or be reconceptualised as streams within a broader major;

• Focussing educational redesign efforts on large enrolment units to improve learning and the quality of the student experience; and

• Contemplating recognition of sub-major course components.

The Review Panel felt it would be particularly important for faculties and relevant committees to monitor effectively both the viability and the educational quality of the student experience of each major and its constituent units. Ideally, all majors and units will attract robust numbers of interested students and will be delivered to a high quality through effective resourcing and teaching models. However, data collection and aggregation continues to occur at the faculty and school level which may be useful for financial reporting but seems to be an anachronism that doesn’t allow easy evaluation and planning consistent with the new courses structure, as experienced by the Review of Courses’ Audit Team during its preparation of evidence-based self-assessment reports for each degree and the majors contained therein which constitute a key component of this Review. The Review Panel therefore recommends that University reporting mechanisms be re-aligned with the new courses structures to facilitate annual performance reporting on key course components, including degrees and majors, to ensure continuous quality control and assurance.


Recommendation 14 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that faculties consider redesigning low enrolment majors with a view to sharing foundation units and/or re-conceptualising them as streams within a broader major.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to identify, review and, where appropriate, redesign low enrolment majors.

Recommendation 15 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University and faculties review the delivery of high enrolment majors to ensure a quality learning and cohort experience.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to identify, review and, where appropriate, redesign high enrolment majors.

Recommendation 16 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University re-aligns data collection and dissemination with the new courses structure, and facilitates annual performance reporting on key course components, including degrees and majors, to ensure continuous quality control and assurance.

Responsibility:

• Director of Office of Strategy, Planning and Performance (SPP) to consider in consultation with Dean of Coursework Studies and establish benchmark data sets for current course structures.

4.5.2 University Curriculum Development and Approval Processes

The Review Panel notes that the University has come a long way in developing a system that enables the smooth processing of curriculum-related proposals for approval via the University’s committee system. It recognises that over recent years, the University’s online Curriculum Approval Information Database (CAIDi) has become one of the cornerstones of its curriculum management and quality assurance arrangements, along with annual monitoring and periodic review. Fundamentally, its purpose has been to secure the quality and management of information relating to curriculum delivered to students.


Commendation 8 Academic Policy Services is commended for developing and introducing the University’s online Curriculum Approval Information Database (CAIDi) and revolutionising the way in which the University’s curriculum-related information is processed and managed through the University Committee system.

The Review Panel also recognised that the University’s governance arrangements for approving curriculum have undergone significant change since implementation of new courses commenced in 2012. In particular, rationalisation has resulted in a reduction in the number of University committees. All curriculum matters relating to each of the four undergraduate degrees are now managed and administered by the University’s Curriculum Committee. The Panel agrees that this change has benefits, in particular for ensuring consistency across the four undergraduate degree courses. At the same time, it acknowledges that specific arrangements could be put in place within the Curriculum Committee to ensure that the administrative identity of each of the four undergraduate degrees is not lost. To that effect, the Review Panel recommends that the University considers an appropriate mechanism for ensuring the administrative identity and academic leadership of the four undergraduate Bachelor degrees is strengthened. The Review Panel was of the opinion that formalising and strengthening academic leadership at both the degree and the major level (refer to section 4.5.3 Role of Major Coordinators and Faculty Governance below) would ensure that academic matters of relevance to groups of majors within a degree are being dealt with holistically and consistently, benefitting both staff and students.

Commendation 9 The Review Panel commends the rationalisation of the University’s committees and the streamlining of the curriculum approval process with a view to achieving administrative effectiveness and efficiencies.

Recommendation 17 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University considers an appropriate mechanism for ensuring the administrative identity and academic leadership of the four undergraduate Bachelor degrees is strengthened.

Responsibility:

• Chair of the University Curriculum Committee to consider an appropriate mechanism.


4.5.3 Role of Major Coordinators and Faculty Governance

The Review Panel noted that current arrangements within faculties provide for the appointment of an academic major coordinator. It appears, however, that these arrangements are ad hoc in nature and, therefore, the roles and responsibilities of a major coordinator vary quite significantly across faculties. In some instances, an academic may provide only basic administrative support for coordinating a major, and, in other instances, there is a sense of strong academic leadership in coordinating a major. It was also noted that an academic may have multiple majors to coordinate, which may pose workload issues and lack of capacity to adequately provide academic leadership. These differences became apparent in responses to a questionnaire which was sent to all major coordinators to inform this Review with a request to complete the questionnaire with reference to the major for which they have responsibility.

The Review Panel recognised that coordinators of majors in the undergraduate degrees play a key role in monitoring and assuring the overall quality of the major in terms of curriculum coherence, quality of delivery and facilitating student success. The importance of the role of the major coordinator has become very apparent during the process of this Review. As such, the Review Panel recognises the need for a more formalised arrangement through faculties’ governance arrangements whereby there is stronger academic leadership and accountability for major coordinators who, in close liaison with the relevant Associate Dean (Education), should be responsible for:

• Planning and designing the major; • The quality assurance of the major; • The academic coherence of the major, including its learning outcomes and the units

offered within the major; • The embedding of research and communication skills within the major; • The student experience within the major and evaluation of the major; and, • Conducting annual review of the major in the context of the University’s annual

curriculum review process with a view to ensuring any issues arising from student feedback via SURF and SPOT are being responded to swiftly and its alignment with relevant University policies.

The Review Panel was made aware that the University is currently developing a University-wide workload model and the Review Panel believes that as part of formalising the role of major coordinators, it would be pertinent to assign a workload weighting for the major coordinator role to ensure it is formally recognised as an important leadership role with significant workload implications.


Recommendation 18 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that each Faculty’s governance structure formalises the responsibilities and accountabilities of major coordinators and ensures that for each major for which it has primary teaching responsibility, a major coordinator is formally appointed to provide academic leadership, ensure curriculum cohesion and continuous quality improvement as well as monitor teaching quality to enhance the student experience.

Responsibility:

• Faculty Deans to review and amend their Faculty governance structure to formalise the responsibilities and accountabilities of major coordinators.

4.5.4 Student Course Advising

Two specific issues were identified by the Review Panel with regard to student course advising, the first issue is the timeliness of students nominating their degree-specific major, and the second issue is with regard to the hubs and spokes model for course advising. Both these issues are further elaborated below.

When students enter the University, some already have a firm intention to pursue a particular major or majors and may remain committed to that choice and others do not. There is currently no obligation for a student to designate a degree-specific major until the beginning of a student’s second year (completion of 48 points or 8 units of study). For those who are still uncertain at that stage, their choice of a degree-specific major may not be finalised, and their options for any change would be kept open. For those who do not nominate a degree-specific major at enrolment, they are asked to nominate an ‘area of interest’ that aligns with the University’s majors. If no ‘area of interest’ is chosen, then allocation takes the TISC code for the acceptance into account. If no matching admission ‘area of interest’ or TISC code information can be found, then an allocation is based on the enrolled course code.

This fluid approach to nomination of a major causes some issues for the University, particularly with regards to administering effective course advice and other aspects of students’ life such as pastoral care, orientation, and supporting a cohort identity. It also limits the ability of the University and faculties to plan for the future or to note trends in the numbers of students interested and enrolling in particular majors. The Audit Team found this issue to be a major problem when preparing the self-assessment report for this Review.

Notwithstanding the above, the Review Panel acknowledged that allowing students to be flexible in exploring their potential academic interests during their first year of study is an integral feature of the new courses framework and requiring students to nominate a degree-specific major upon enrolment, even an indicative one, may adversely impact that flexibility as well as constitute additional workload and complexities to managing students’ enrolment. However, the Review Panel acknowledged that the subsequent loss of a cohort identity during students’ first year and difficulties pertaining to managing effective course advising, communication and pastoral care were unintended consequences of the new courses


framework. Feedback from both staff and students indicated that these were significant issues adversely impacting students’ experience of the new courses. The Review Panel recommends that the University develops appropriate mechanisms to facilitate effective course advising, pastoral care, communication, orientation and planning to support a cohort identity during students’ first year of study.

Recommendation 19 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University develops appropriate mechanisms to facilitate effective course advising, pastoral care, communication, orientation and planning to support a cohort identity during students’ first year of study.

Responsibility:

• Director of Student Life in consultation with Associate Director (Student Administration) and the Student Guild to investigate and develop appropriate mechanisms to facilitate effective course advising, pastoral care, communication, orientation and planning to support a cohort identity.

The second issue identified by the Review Panel relates to the current service delivery model for course advising, the so-called ‘hubs and spokes’ approach. It was recognised by the Review Panel that one of the objectives of the new courses framework was to ensure the provision of consistent advice to students across central administration and faculty offices. With the current approach, the “hub” comprises a group of administrative areas: Admissions, the Graduate Research and Scholarships Office (GRSO), international student advisors, Student Administration and Student Support Services. The “spokes” are the faculty student offices and the School of Indigenous Studies’ student office.

The Review Panel recognised that there are reservations from both students and staff that students may not receive the appropriate levels of advice, especially students with majors provided by different faculties, and with regard to broadening, second majors, electives and study abroad. Students reported that they were being sent to different hubs for different enquiries and that the responsibility for collating advice clearly rested with the student rather than a central administrative entity responsible for implementing an end-to-end process covering all aspects of course advising. The Review Panel was concerned about the inconsistency of course advising practices across the five undergraduate degrees and the adverse impact current proceedings have on the student experience.

While there is strong in-principle support for the hub-and-spokes concept within the University, the Review Panel feels that this concept has not been fully realised to the extent of ensuring administrative efficiencies and effectiveness. The Review Panel is of the view that there is insufficient coordination between administrative course advising and academic course advising. While the Review Panel acknowledges the devolved nature of the University, course advising and the provision of services to students could be more effective if they were well coordinated from the centre (such as Student Administration).


Recommendation 20 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University reviews and strengthens the hubs and spokes model for course advising to ensure consistent, effective and timely course advice (e.g. through coordinated lines of reporting for course advising) for the benefit of students.

Responsibility:

• Dean of Coursework Studies in consultation with the Associate Director (Student Administration) reviews and strengthens the University’s approach to course advising.


4.6 Additional Matters Two areas that were not listed in the Terms of Reference as being within the scope of this Review of Courses persistently came up in submissions, interviews and discussions by the Review Panel as being relevant and important to UWA’s undergraduate Bachelor degrees. The first one was that the student experience and the quality of teaching impacts on students’ perceptions of the course structure and curriculum in general. The second area outside the scope of this Review was the lacking alignment between the University faculty structure and the structure of new courses. Both matters are discussed in greater detail below.

4.6.1 Student Experience and Teaching Quality

The student experience and the quality of teaching at UWA were not within the scope of this Review of Courses, however, from submissions to the Review Panel as well as interviews with students, staff and external stakeholders, it was abundantly apparent that the student experience and the quality of teaching impacts on students’ perceptions of the course structure and the curriculum in general. In many majors and units, the student experience is overwhelmingly positive and the quality of teaching is clearly outstanding. It was a pleasure for the Review Panel to hear the many reports from students about their enthusiastic, innovative teachers who demonstrated care and concern for their students’ learning and respect for them as individuals as they undertake a significant educational experience.

However, the Review Panel did note that in some areas, for example the Engineering Science major in the Bachelor of Science and the Bachelor of Design discussed above, as well as other areas across all degrees, the student experience and students’ perception of the quality of teaching is generally well below that of what would be expected in a world class university. One concern consistently raised during the Review was the ‘cohort experience’ referring to students’ sense of belonging to a group with similar academic interests and with whom they can associate with for informal learning and social activities.

Both staff and students expressed concerns about students’ loss of a clear cohort identity as a result of the new undergraduate degree structure due to a corresponding “decoupling” of majors, degrees and faculties and students subsequently tending to identify more by major than degree or faculty. Within majors, the problem is compounded by the presence of students taking units as broadening units so that the student cohort by default is rather more diverse than it was previously.

The Review Panel was strongly of the view that the cohort experience is of paramount importance to the overall student experience and that attention needs to be paid to this particular issue rather urgently. The Bachelor of Philosophy was recognised by the Review Panel as a good model where a strong identity feel had been developed and maintained.

In that context, the Review Panel acknowledged the reality of social media and the way in which students are increasingly self-organising to help themselves and connect with each other rather than wait for the University to facilitate the establishment of cohort identities within the new courses structure. It conceded that a different mindset is required for addressing and creating cohort identity, one that encourages and enables students to do this themselves via the Student Guild and other student clubs and societies rather than solely


relying on the University, as may have been the case in the past prior to the extensive usage of social media and electronic devices.

Notwithstanding the above, the Review Panel was made aware of a number of strategies the University is currently putting in place to address issues with regard to the student experience, cohort experience and quality of teaching. For example, a new approach to orientation is being trialled. Moreover, the UWA Student Guild and associated faculty societies are also actively addressing some aspects of the problem with co-curricular and social activities, for example for undergraduate law students, in response to a shift in students’ activities away from solely faculty-based societies to an expanded suite of discipline-related clubs and societies, indicating where students ‘identities’ perhaps most strongly lie.

The Review Panel supports these strategies and is of the view that an improved student experience, including the cohort experience and enhanced quality of teaching will further enhance the already positive perceptions of UWA’s new courses structure.

Commendation 10 The Review Panel commends the UWA Student Guild for building and supporting strong undergraduate cohort groups for co-curricular and social activities.

Recommendation 21 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University continues to strengthen teaching quality and improve the student experience, in particular students’ sense of belonging to a cohort.

Responsibility:

• Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education)

4.6.2 Alignment of Course Structure and Faculty Structure

The Review Panel noted that many of the issues raised in section 4.5 about administrative efficiency and effectiveness and other issues raised in other parts of the Review are related to, or in some instances are exacerbated by, the current lack of alignment between the University’s organisational or faculty structure and the structure of the undergraduate curriculum. It appears to the Review Panel that the new courses structure was introduced without considering in detail the interdependencies between the faculty structure that was in place at the time and the proposed new courses structure and that there was no identified need/ attempt to bring the two structures into alignment. The situation now is that no faculty is responsible for any particular degree as ‘ownership’ of the undergraduate degrees rests with the University. It is apparent that this approach has advantages, for example, the degree rules are the same for all undergraduate students across the University and individual faculties cannot change the rules without approval from all other faculties. On one


hand, this has enabled the flexibility, broadening and other features of the new courses framework that are academically distinctive for students and administratively advantageous for the University. On the other hand, as discussed in sections 4.5.2 University Curriculum Development and Approval Processes and 4.5.3 Role of Major Coordinators and Faculty Governance, the lack of ownership and leadership for each of the degrees and many of the majors, has contributed to a less than ideal student experience.

The Review Panel is of the view that the advantages of the University-wide course structure could be maintained and enhanced through greater alignment with the faculty structure. Such an alignment would support and facilitate implementation of many of the recommendations in this report. For example, with greater alignment between the undergraduate degrees and the faculty structure, the role of major coordinators and the academic oversight of majors within a degree would more clearly become the responsibility of a particular faculty (Recommendation 18). Moreover, students enrolled in a particular degree would have a more logical and apparent allegiance with the corresponding faculty and this would enhance opportunities to improve the cohort experience (Recommendations 18 and 21) as well as improve course advising, pastoral care, communication and orientation (Recommendations 19 and 20).

Since the conclusion of the formal part of the 2015 Review of Courses, the University has announced a restructure of the faculties and this seems to present an opportunity for enhanced alignment with the new courses structure. While this large organisational issue is clearly outside the scope of this Review of Courses, the Review Panel has recommended the University rescind the Bachelor of Design (Recommendation 12) and consider an option to split the Bachelor of Science for broadening purposes. The Review Panel is of the view that this final report and the associated recommendations may be relevant to the restructure of the faculties. Importantly, the Review Panel recommends that closer alignment between the faculty structure and the new courses structure is considered by the University during the restructure process.

Recommendation 22 IMMEDIATE MID-TERM LONGER-TERM It is recommended that the University considers closer alignment between the faculty structure and its’ course structure.

Responsibility:

• University Executive


5 Conclusion

The Review Panel appreciated the high level of engagement and the invaluable amount of feedback it received from staff and students in the course of this Review. In particular, the Review Panel would like to thank the Audit Team for its comprehensive and evidence-based submission which constituted a valuable source of background information for the Review Panel meetings. Additionally, the Review Panel would like to thank all staff and students who met with the Review Panel to provide input into this important Review.

As outlined in the body of the Final Report, the Review Panel universally endorsed UWA’s new courses structure but also identified several structural issues in need of attention, such as broadening, developmental progression, volume of learning in the major and complementary units. The Review Panel became aware of a common tension that ran through these features of the degree structure which manifested as a type of competition for time in the taught curriculum. However, the Review Panel was of the view that these structural issues did not undermine the overall architecture of UWA’s new courses and could be addressed within it as they relate to enhancing their individual and collective operationalization and contribution rather than questioning their existence within the new courses structure per se.

Given the complex nature of the new courses framework under Review, the suite of recommendations by default is also complex. The Review Panel would like to emphasise the need to consider all of the recommendations collectively and holistically to account for their interdependencies and ensure that their implementation further enhances the University’s curriculum offerings, the teaching quality and overall student experience and UWA’s reputation as an institution of excellence. This was the spirit in which this Final Report and the recommendations therein were formulated. The Review Panel wishes the University well with the implementation.

Proposed Review of Courses TRIM FILE REFERENCE: F71207

DOCUMENT STATUS

Draft Ready for Review Final

DOCUMENT MODIFICATION HISTORY

Version Number

Primary Author(s) (name and position)

Description of Version

Date Completed

Provided To

0.1 Sue Smurthwaite, Director, Academic Policy Services

Initial proposal 19th February 2015

Grady Venville, Dean of Coursework Studies, Kabilan Krishnasamy, Academic Secretary, Jan Cardy, Manager, Curriculum Management


Amended proposals

26th February – 9th March 2015

Grady Venville, Dean of Coursework Studies, Kabilan Krishnasamy, Academic Secretary, Jan Cardy, Manager, Curriculum Management


Amended proposal

12th March 2015 Grady Venville, Dean of Coursework Studies, Kabilan Krishnasamy, Academic Secretary, Jan Cardy, Manager, Curriculum Management, Jon Stubbs, Director, Student Services


Final proposal 17th March 2015 Grady Venville, Dean of Coursework Studies, Alec Cameron, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education).


Proposal 27 March 2015 Paul Johnson, Vice-Chancellor, Dawn Freshwater, Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Cara MacNish, Chair of the Academic Board

DOCUMENT APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION

Approved By Title Date

Professor Alec Cameron Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) 18th March 2015

For Information and Noting Date

Education Committee clarification added at footnote 1 25th May 2015

Academic Council 3rd June 2015

Curriculum Committee 10 June 2015

Associate Deans Network 19th June 2015

1

A1

Background In 2012, the University of Western Australia implemented a new course structure for all undergraduate and postgraduate courses (NC2012). In 2014 the majority of the first cohort of students to experience the new courses completed their Cycle 1 degree and it is timely to conduct a comprehensive review of the undergraduate component. Purpose The University is committed to the systematic review and evaluation of its activities and a review framework for courses is an integral part of its strategic planning and quality assurance.

The purpose of the review is to evaluate the success of NC2012 and provide feedback to the University Executive, Academic Board and ultimately the Senate, and to inform future policy and practice with regard to the University’s curriculum framework. Context With the implementation of its new courses in 2012, the University held in abeyance its cyclical review of courses (occurring every seven years), in anticipation of graduating the first cohort of Cycle 1 students in 2014. Review of courses by way of professional accreditation has however continued as normal practice.

It is proposed that, commencing in 2015, the University conducts a comprehensive review of its new courses over a three year period from 2015-2017 with a view to reintroducing a cyclical review framework. The Audit Team will consider and formulate appropriate policy, procedures and timelines for future reviews, for example, undergraduate (Cycle 1) courses might be reviewed on a five to seven year cycle, whereas postgraduate coursework courses (Cycle 2) might be reviewed annually / biennially by faculties.

It is further suggested that the University review both transition plans for pre-2012 students and courses being taught out to ensure appropriate educational opportunities for all UWA students. Review Framework

2015 2016 2017 Cycle 1 Courses (AQF Level 7): • Bachelor of Arts • Bachelor of Science • Bachelor of Design • Bachelor of Commerce

Cycle 1 Courses (AQF Levels 5 - 8): • Bachelor of Philosophy (AQF 8) • End-on Honours (AQF 8) • Graduate entry diplomas (AQF 5) • Advanced diplomas (AQF 6) • Undergraduate transition plans

and courses being taught out.1

Cycle 2 Courses (AQF Level 8 - 9) • Postgraduate coursework

courses (approx. 200), including professional practice doctorates (eg MD, JD)

• Transition to postgraduate courses (including assured entry pathways)

2022 Annually/Biennially

Review Cycle 1 Courses Review Cycle 2 Coursework Courses Aim Determine the degree to which the original objectives of UWA’s new courses have been achieved or subsequently varied, (within the context of Education for Tomorrow’s World: Courses of Action (September 2008)), and in the light of changes in the education sector since that time. In particular the visionary objectives of NC2012: • “To meet the future education needs of students, and therefore the needs of the wider community at

the highest possible standard; • To position the University well for the future by reinforcing its international reputation for a

commitment to excellence; • To achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in teaching and related administrative arrangements,

for the benefit of staff and students”2

1 Including the Diploma in Modern Languages – transition plan to offer Diploma extended to 2016 pending review – Education Committee R8/15 2 Each objective is elaborated in the Education for Tomorrow’s World document pp 3-4

2

A2

Scope With a focus on the 2015 review, the following context and components are suggested:

Context Components • Relevant UWA Rules and Policies • Educational principles and learning outcomes • Quality assurance processes, including the

student ‘life-cycle’ approach informed by historic, current and predictive data

• Perceptions of peers - nationally and internationally

• Graduate destinations • TEQSA/Higher Education Standards

Framework requirements

• Structure of the major (2+2+4 / 2+3+3) • Complementary units • Broadening units • Electives • Study Abroad • Service Learning • Embedded communication / CARS3 • Embedded research / CARS • Embedded Indigenous studies / ISE4 • Academic Conduct Essentials (ACE)5

Process - 2015 It is proposed that the review be undertaken as a two stage approach: Stage One: A review Audit Team is established to prepare a submission, as would be the case with a Faculty, School or Division review. In 2015, the Audit Team would review the four Cycle 1 degree courses, request and review data, undertake appropriate stakeholder input and prepare documentation for consideration by a Review Panel. In addition, the Audit Team would consider and propose appropriate policy, procedure and timelines for cyclical reviews of courses beyond the 2015-2017 review. The Audit Team would comprise internal-to-UWA representation with expertise in the four degrees.

Membership – Audit-Team6 Professor Grady Venville, Dean of Coursework Studies - Convener Professor Alan Dench, Dean, Graduate Research and Postdoctoral Training Professor Brendan Waddell, Deputy Dean, Faculty of Science Professor Mark Israel, Deputy Chair, Academic Board Mr Jon Stubbs, Director, Student Services Dr Kabilan Krishnasamy, Academic Secretary, Academic Policy Services Emeritus Professor Izan H.Y Izan Professor Elizabeth Geelhoed, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences Dr Kate Hislop, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts Dr Nicholas Letch, UWA Business School Mr Grant Revell, School of Indigenous Studies Mr Tom Beyer, Guild Education Council President Ms Kathrin Stroud, Academic Policy Services – Executive Officer Stage Two: A Review Panel is established to undertake a three day review, with membership that can provide impartiality/objectivity, expertise in the area concerned, ability to comment from a national and international perspective, awareness of policy and policy-making, awareness of UWA Futures and Leadership in Education.

Proposed Membership – Review Panel Dean of Coursework Studies – Convener External Consultant with relevant expertise Nominee of the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor Nominee of the Chair of the Academic Board Academic Secretary Guild President Co-options – as required Executive Officer The Executive Officer to the Audit Team and Review Panel will be supported by an APS course review team, established to provide support, guidance and expertise in the area of curriculum management.

3 CARS – Communication and Research Skills online unit - http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/learning/resources/cars 4 ISE Indigenous Studies Essentials online unit - http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/learning/resources/ise 5 ACE – Academic Conduct Essentials online module - http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/learning/resources/ace 6 Membership finalised in May 2015

3

A3

http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/learning/resources/cars

http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/learning/resources/ise

http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/learning/resources/ace

Resources – 2015 Process Item Approximate

Cost The Audit Team will be drawn from within the University and Guild.

Within existing resources

The Review Panel will be drawn, in the majority, from within the University. There will be costs associated with the External Consultant – honoraria, travel and accommodation. Approximately:

$ 5,000

An Executive Officer will need to be appointed / seconded for nine months as an additional resource, to support both the Audit Team and the Review Panel. 0.4 FTE at Level 8; or 0.4 FTE at Level 9

$37,000, or $42,500

Infrastructure – office, computer, consumables, etc. for Executive Officer.

$ 5,000

Academic Policy Services will provide guidance to the Executive Officer, with the formulation of an APS Course Review Team, to manage, guide and support the Executive Officer. The team will comprise – Director, APS, Academic Secretary, Manager – Curriculum Management and Senior Project Officer (Technical).

Within existing resources

There will be costs associated with the three day review, including a pre-review dinner for the panel, meeting room, refreshments, etc during the three day review. An approximate cost is provided.

$ 2,500

Approximate Total

$55,000

Funds for 2015 have been allocated from the Education Committee’s annual budget. It is anticipated that approximately $55,000 will be required in 2016 and 2017 to undertake the three year review cycle.

Preparation and First Steps 1. Confirm available resources 2. Appoint an Executive Officer 3. Finalise Terms of Reference and membership for the Audit Team 4. The first meeting of the Audit Team would identify:

• Document preparation requirements; • Parameters for the submission and establish who would write what components; • A list of data requirements – both existing data and customised data; • Relevant stakeholders for interviews/invite submissions; • Survey data both existing/pre-existing and new survey(s); • Benchmarking – local, national, international; • Key changes since Education for Tomorrows World – 2008; • Key changes within the sector since 2008.

The Executive Officer, working with the APS Course Review Team, would then set in motion the data requirements, any surveys, consultations or focus group meetings.

4

A4

Timing Stage One – 3 months Audit Team and Preparation of Submission; July - September inclusive Dissemination of Submission Early October Stage Two – 6 months Review Panel: Preparation by Panel October Three day review Early November Report preparation, including policy development November Submission of Report to Executive: December Submission of Report to Academic Board/Senate: February/March 2016 2016 Preparation During the nine month period, preparations will also take place for appropriate data collection, surveys etc for the 2016 program of reviews and early consideration of the parameters for that review. In addition, the Audit Team will provide input and guidance to the formulation of a University Policy on Course Reviews, including process and timelines, which will be drafted by the APS Course Review Team and the Executive Officer. The proposed policy will be referred to and approved by Academic Council.

5

A5

2015 Review of Courses

Three-Year Undergraduate Bachelor Degrees

INDEX: INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE REVIEW PANEL1

Prof Murray Maybery, Head of School, School of Psychology ............................................... 1

Prof Thomas Braeunl, Electrical and Electronic Engineering ................................................. 2

Prof Paul Lloyd, Sub-Dean UWA Business School ............................................................... 3

Environmental Science Major Working Party ........................................................................ 4

Geography Major and Human Geography and Panning Major Working Party ....................... 5

Service Learning - Donella Caspersz (with Doina Olaru, Denese Playford and Ania

Stasinska) ............................................................................................................................. 6

Presbyterian Ladies' College ................................................................................................. 7

School of Mathematics and Statistics (Prof Lyle Noakes) ...................................................... 8

Zoology Major - Dr Jane Prince ............................................................................................. 9

Marine Science Major - Dr Jane Prince ............................................................................... 10

Global Learning Office - Joel Wittwer .................................................................................. 11

Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics - Faculty Leadership Team ............... 12

University Library - Dawn McLoughlin (Associate University Librarian) ............................... 13

Science Communications - Julian Partridge and Miriam Sullivan ........................................ 14

School of Plant Biology - Dr Patrick Finnegan (Deputy Head of School) ............................. 15

Faculty of Science - Peter Hammond .................................................................................. 16

School of Physics - Peter Hammond ................................................................................... 17

Ms Jennifer O’Neil, Director of the UWA Albany Centre ...................................................... 18

Ms Rachel Twiss – Psychology double major student ......................................................... 19

Perth Modern School – Ms Rachel Miller ............................................................................ 20

Iona Presentation College – Ms Anne Pitos (Principal) ....................................................... 21

1 Listed chronologically based on receipt date

B1

Start Finish Session Attendees Location

8:00 9:00 Panel Convenes Panel members onlyProf Paul Johnson, Vice-ChancellorProf Cara MacNish, Chair Academic Board

10:00 11:00 Private Panel Session Panel members only (includes m/tea)Prof Alison Preston, Deputy Dean, UWA Business SchoolProf Mike Johns, Deputy Dean (Education), Faculty of Engineering, Computing and MathematicsProf Wendy Erber, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health SciencesDr Brenda McGivern, Deputy Dean, Faculty of LawDr Natalie Skead, Associate Dean (Teaching and Learning), Faculty of Law

12:00 12:15Deputy Vice Chancellor (Community & Engagement)

Prof Kent AndersonThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

Prof Simon Anderson, Dean, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts Prof Krishna Sen, Dean, Faculty of ArtsProf Jill Milroy, Dean, School of Indigenous Studies

13:00 14:00 Lunch Panel members only

Prof Mike Johns, Deputy Dean (Education), Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics

Prof Peter Hammond, Associate Dean (T&L), Faculty of ScienceProf Phil Hancock, Associate Dean (T&L), UWA Business SchoolProf Sandra Carr, Associate Dean (T&L), Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health SciencesProf Jane Heyworth, Sub Dean, MDHSAssoc/Prof Helene Jaccomard, Associate Dean (Education), Faculty of ArtsAssoc/Prof Grant Revell, Associate Dean (T&L), School of Indigenous StudiesMs Sophie Giles, Associate Dean (Education), Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts

Assoc/Prof Grace Oakley, Course Coordinator, Faculty of Education

15:30 16:00 Private Panel Session Panel members only (includes a/tea)

16:00 16:15 Director, Student Life Mr Chris MasseyThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

Mr David Bean, Deputy Headmaster and Director of Curriculum, Hale School

Ms Margaret Brophy, Director of Studies, Christ Church Grammar School

Ms Lisa Fogliani, Dean of Teaching and Learning, Newman College

Mr Christopher Hill, Associate Principal: Innovation & Learning, Shenton CollegeMs Rachael Keenan, Deputy Principal, La Salle College

17:00 17:30Private Panel Session (Summary of Day 1)

Panel members only

17:30 Day 1 Concludes


8:30 9:00 Panel Convenes Panel members only

Ms Carolyn Wood, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual ArtsMs Sabbia Tilli, Faculty of ArtsMr Paul Lloyd, UWA Business School

Ms Lisa Beckley, Faculty of Engineering, Computing and MathematicsA/Prof Tracey Atkins, Faculty of Law

The Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

Day 2 - Thursday, 19th November 2015

School PrincipalsThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

9:00 9:30 Faculty Sub Deans

Day 1 - Wednesday, 18th November 2015

12:0011:00Faculty Deans - Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Science

Faculty Deans - Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Design

13:0012:15


9:00 10:00 Entry Interview

15:30Associate Deans (Teaching and Learning) - Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Design





14:00 14:45

Associate Deans (Teaching and Learning) - Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Commerce

14:45

16:15 17:00

Review of Courses - Review Panel Schedule - FINAL C1


Ms Deborah Leicester, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health SciencesDr Barbara Goodwin, Faculty of ScienceMs Anita Creasey, School of Indigenous Studies

Dr Nazim Khan - Mathematics & Statistics, Quantitative Methods (BSc)Dr Chris McDonald - Computer Science and Data Science (BSc)Dr Lara-Louisa O'Sullivan - Classics and Ancient History (BA)Dr Nicole Jones - Engineering Science (BSc)Prof Peter Robertson - Economics (BCom)Asst/Prof Matthias Leopold - Environmental Science (BSc)Asst/Prof Leo Langa - Accounting (BCom)Assoc/Prof Marwin Wee - Finance(BCom)Assoc/Prof Peter Hammond - Associate Dean (Teaching & Learning), Faculty of Science; Physics (BSc)Dr Martha Ludwig - Genetics (BSc)Dr Miriam Sullivan - Science Communication (BSc)Dr James Fogarty - Natural Resource Management (BSc)Dr Renae Barker - Law and Society (BA)

Prof Tony Blackwell – Discipline Chair, Landscape ArchitectureAssoc/Prof Fernando JerezMr Romesh Goonewardene – Discipline Chair, ArchitectureAssoc/Prof Nigel Westbrook, Associate Dean (Research)Dr Kate HislopDr Jon Tarry - Discipline Chair, Visual ArtDr Claire Mcllroy - Research Development Adviser

10:30 11:00 Private Panel Session Panel members only (includes m/tea)Ms Di Regan-Roots, Associate Director, Student Services (Student Administration)

Ms Siri Barrett-Lennnard, Team Leader, StudySmarter (Student Services)

Mr Rick Ackerman, Manager, Undergraduate Admissions

11:30 11:45Pro Vice Chancellor (Research)

Prof Peter DaviesThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

11:45 12:00Director, UWA Albany Centre

Ms Jennifer O'NeilThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

12:00 12:15Pro Vice Chancellor (Education Innovation)

Prof Gilly SalmonThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

Prof Mark Reynolds, School of Computer Science and Software EngineeringProf Alison Preston, Deputy Dean, UWA Business SchoolProf Colleen Fisher, School of Population HealthProf Lyle Noakes, School of Mathematics and StatisticsProf Ian McArthur, School of PhysicsProf Matthew Tonts, School of Earth and Environment

Prof Shane Maloney, School of Anatomy Physiology and Human Biology

Prof Tim Colmer, School of Plant Biology

Assoc/Prof Kieran Dolin, Deputy Head of School, School of Humanities

Assoc/Prof Joanna Elfving-Hwang, Deputy Head of School, School of Social Sciences

13:00 14:00 Lunch Panel members only

14:00 14:15Deputy Dean, Faculty of Science

Professor Brendan WaddellThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

14:15 15:00 Current students Name tags will be provided to studentsThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

15:00 15:30Engineering Science major students

Name tags will be provided to studentsThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

15:30 16:00 Private Panel Session Panel members only (includes a/tea)

16:00 16:30 Bachelor of Design students Name tags will be provided to studentsThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

Heads of School12:15The Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

13:00




10:00 10:30Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts

11:00 11:30 Student Services

9:30 10:00 Major Coordinators



16:30 17:00Private Panel Session (Summary of Day 2)

Panel members only

Prof John Dell, Dean

Prof Mike Johns, Deputy Dean (Education)17:30 Day 2 Concludes


8:00 8:30 Panel Convenes Panel members onlyProf Jill Milroy, DeanProf Darlene Oxenham, Deputy DeanMs Marilyn Strother, Director of Student Services

9:00 9:15Pro Vice Chancellor (International)

Prof Iain Watt

9:15 9:30 University Librarian Ms Jill BennThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

9:30 12:30 Private Panel Session Report Writing (includes m/tea)The Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

12:30 13:30 Lunch Panel members onlyThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

13:30 14:00Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education)

Prof Alec CameronThe Meeting Room (JG24), University Hall

14:00 14:30 Private Panel Session Report WritingProf Paul Johnson, Vice Chancellor

Prof Dawn Freshwater, Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor and Registrar

Prof Cara MacNish, Chair, Academic Board15:30 Review Complete

14:30 15:15 Exit Interview

17:00 17:30Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics

8:30 9:00 School of Indigenous Studies

Day 3 - Friday, 20th November 2015





Documents

2015 REVIEW OF COURSES - Governance...systematic review and evaluation of its activities and a review framework for courses is an integral part of its strategic planning and quality