Download pdf - ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING AGENDA 23 September …web/... · ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING AGENDA 23 September 2015 ... 4 May Senate Evaluation Survey ... A/Prof Sam Hardy

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING AGENDA

23 September 2015

FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING ACADEMIC SENATE AGENDA If you require further clarification of any agenda items or wish to submit apologies for the meeting, please contact Amelia Robinson ([email protected]) or ext 4082 before the meeting.

Academic Senate Papers 23 September 2015 Page 1 of 118

mailto:ameliar

Academic Senate Meetings 2015/16 (Wednesdays, 9:30am)

The following table sets out the Academic Senate meetings for 2015/16 and the scheduled agenda items. There may be additional ad hoc items requiring decisions at each meeting. Standing agenda items: Senior Executive’s Report; Chair’s Report; Executive Dean’s Report. Recurring agenda items: Senate and Senate Sub Committee Membership; Elections & Nominations; UEC, UIC, URC and SCDC Minutes; UOW Dubai Academic Board Minutes; UOW College Academic Board Minutes; Strategic planning updates; Policy endorsement; Course approvals; TEQSA updates; AQF updates; Academic Probation Committee and Academic Promotion Committee nomination approvals.

Meeting Date Scheduled Agenda Items

18 November 2015 • Non-Faculty Academic election results • Student election results

17 February 2016 • Acknowledgement of Country

4 May 2016 • UIC Chair’s Report • Senate Evaluation Survey (scheduled for members to complete

around this date)

27 July 2016 • URC Chair’s Report • Senate Evaluation Survey Report • Significant Course Approvals

14 September 2016 • SCDC Chair’s Report • Significant Course Approvals

26 October 2016 • UEC Chair’s Report

7 December 2016 • Student election results

Council and Senate Sub Committee Meetings 2015/16

UOW Council Chair: University Chancellor

University Education Committee (UEC) Chair: Prof E Leinonen

University Internationalisation Committee (UIC) Chair: Prof J Chicharo

University Research Committee (URC) Chair: Prof J Raper

Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC) Chair: Prof E Leinonen

16 September 30 September 2 September 9 September 9 October 7 October

4 November 25 November 4 December 2 December

2016 5 February

31 March 2016 2 March 2016 22 April 6 April 2016

3 May 2016 17 June

1 June 2016

7 July 2016 6 July 2016 19 August 11 August 2016 3 August 2016

22 September 2016 7 September 2016 7 October 5 October 2016

10 November 2016 2 December

Graduation 2015/16

Business, Engineering and Information Sciences -16-18 December 2015 Science, Medicine and Health, Law, Humanities and the Arts, Social Sciences - 26-29 April 2016

Business, Engineering and Information Sciences - 20-22 July 2016 Science, Medicine and Health, Law, Humanities and the Arts, Social Sciences - 31 October - 4 November 2016

Business, Engineering and Information Sciences - 14-16 December 2016 Science, Medicine and Health, Law, Humanities and the Arts, Social Sciences - TBC. Mar/Apr of 2017


ACADEMIC SENATE AGENDA Wednesday, 23 September 2015 Agenda of the 325th meeting of the Academic Senate to be held at 9:30am on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 in Room 20.5 in the Communications Building. PART A – PRELIMINARY BUSINESS *A1 Welcome, Apologies and Leave of Absence *A2 Arrangement of Agenda A2.1 Confidential Items A2.2 Starring of Items

(i) that the meeting indicate those items to be starred (*) for discussion; and (ii) that a motion be put for the adoption of the draft Resolutions and

Recommendations to Academic Senate in respect of the unstarred items. *A3 Business Arising from the Minutes *A4 Confirmation of Minutes Attachment p9

that the minutes of the previous Academic Senate meeting held on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

*A5 Reports from Senior Executive, Business from Faculties and UOW College *A6 Chair’s Report *A7 Student Members’ Business *A8 Members’ Business *A9 Questions on Notice PART B – GENERAL BUSINESS *B1 Continuing Professional Development Policy Attachment p33 that Academic Senate:

(i) endorse the rescission of the current University Learning and Teaching Course Policy;

(ii) endorse the proposed Continuing Professional Development (Learning and Teaching) Policy;

(iii) note the Implementation and Communication Plan; and (iv) forward the documentation to Council for approval, to be effective immediately.


B2 General Course Rules – Course Variation Attachment p45

that Academic Senate: (i) endorse the revisions to Sections 6.6, 6.14, 6.15 and 6.52 of the General Course

Rules, as set out in the agenda paper; and (ii) forward the draft revisions to the General Course Rules to the University Council for

approval.

B3 UOW Graduate Qualities Policy – Proposed Rescission Attachment p57

that Academic Senate: (i) endorse the rescission of the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy, as set out in the

agenda paper; and (ii) forward the documentation to Council for rescission, to be effective immediately.

B4 COPTA Review Progress Report Attachment p65

that Academic Senate note the COPTA Review Progress Report and provide feedback on the proposed Teaching and Assessment policy model, as set out in the agenda paper and attachments, via [email protected] by Friday, 2 October 2015.

B5 TEQSA Re-registration Update p71

that Academic Senate note the TEQSA Re-registration Update as set out in the agenda paper.

PART C – ACADEMIC SENATE COMMITTEE BUSINESS *C1 Business from Academic Senate Committees

Academic Senate committee members and chairs are welcome to provide verbal updates on their committees at this point.

*C2 SCDC Chair’s Report Attachment p79 that Academic Senate note the Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC) Chair’s

Report as attached to the agenda paper, and are encouraged to provide feedback on the issues raised at the Senate meeting, or at any time through the Chair of SCDC, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

C3 Committee Minutes Attachment p83 that Academic Senate:

(i) note the minutes from the following Senate Committee meetings, as attached to the agenda paper:

i. University Education Committee minutes for the meeting held on 15 July 2015 and the extraordinary meeting held on 11 August 2015;

ii. University Research Committee minutes for the meeting held on 17 June 2015; and

(ii) note the minutes from the UOW Dubai Academic Board for the meeting held on 18 June 2015.


mailto:[email protected]

PART D – COURSE APPROVALS *D1 Big Data – 2016EIS24 Cyber Security – 2016EIS25 New Majors p113 that Academic Senate approve the proposals to introduce two new majors in the Bachelor of

Computer Science; (Big Data) and (Cyber Security), as outlined in the agenda papers, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

D2 Education for Change - 2015SOC15 New Major Study p115

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce the new major, Education for Change, as outlined in the agenda papers, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

D3 Master of Education Advanced - 2016SOC16

New Course p117 that Academic Senate approve the proposal to offer a new course, the Master of Education

Advanced, as outlined in the agenda papers, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

PART E – FUTURE MEETINGS AND OTHER BUSINESS E1 Meeting Dates

Wednesday, 18 November 2015 Wednesday, 17 February 2016 Wednesday, 4 May 2016 Wednesday, 27 July 2016 Wednesday, 14 September 2016 Wednesday, 26 October 2016 Wednesday, 7 December 2016

*E2 Other Business



AGENDA ITEMS *A1-*A9

PART A

PRELIMINARY BUSINESS



CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES AGENDA ITEM *A4 The unratified minutes of the 324th meeting of the Academic Senate held on 26 August 2015 are attached. Draft Resolution that the minutes of the previous Academic Senate meeting held on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

ATTACHMENT:

Minutes of 26 August 2015 Academic Senate meeting Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Executive Officer, Academic Senate

Chair, Academic Senate



ACADEMIC SENATE COMMITTEE 26 AUGUST 2015

MINUTES Minutes of the 324th meeting of the Academic Senate held at 9:30am on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 in lecture theatre 20.5 in the Communications Building.

PRESENT: Prof Wilma Vialle (Chair) Prof Greg Rose (Deputy Chair) Mr William Ashford Dr Amir Arjomandi Prof Jenny Beck A/Prof Angela Brown A/Prof Christine Brown Prof Ian Brown Dr Peter Caputi A/Prof Karen Charlton A/Prof Jun Chen Prof Joe Chicharo Prof Chris Cook Prof Lesley Cooper Ms Kailee Cross Ms Melva Crouch Prof Anne Cusick Dr Guy Davidson A/Prof Louise D’Arcens A/Prof Linda Dawson D Anthony Dosseto Dr Debra Dudek Mr Zachary Fitzpatrick Dr Julie Francis A/Prof Andrew Frazer Mr Thomas Griffiths Dr Luis Gomez Romero Prof Lesley Head

A/Prof Markus Hagenbuchner A/Prof Sam Hardy Prof Marc in het Panhuis Ms Megan Huisman Dr Zenobia Jacobs Ms Margie Jantti A/Prof Stuart Johnstone Dr Aelee Jun Prof Karl Kautz Dr Julie Kiggins Dr Natascha Klocker Dr Tracey Kuit A/Prof Romy Lawson Prof Eeva Leinonen Prof Roger Lewis Mr Paul Mazzola A/Prof Grace McCarthy Prof Tim Marchant Prof Elena Marchetti Prof Tim McCarthy A/Prof Katina Michael Prof Sarah Miller Dr Attila Mozer A/Prof Gary Noble Mr Brad Parkinson Dr Dominique Parrish Dr Alisa Percy Dr Ian Piper Dr Prashan Premaratne

Prof Will Price A/Prof Stephen Ralph Dr Melanie Randle Prof Judy Raper A/Prof James Reveley Dr Ann Rogerson Ms Alyssa Royters A/Prof Jun Shen Dr Lynnaire Sheridan Dr Ciorstan Smark Dr Sarah Sorial Ms Alexis St George Mr John Steele Dr Gerard Stoyles Dr Marcelo Svirsky Dr Sharon Tindall-Ford Prof Susan Turnbull Dr Reetu Verma A/Prof Rodney Vickers Prof Simon Ville A/Prof James Wallman Dr Margaret Wallace Prof Paul Wellings Prof Graham Williams Prof Ian Wilson Prof Heather Yeatman A/Prof Khin Win

UNABLE TO ATTEND: Dr Tillmann Bohme A/Prof Brogan Bunt Prof Paul Chandler Dr Phillip Ciufo A/Prof Robbie Collins A/Prof Chao Deng

Prof John Glynn Prof Alison Jones Prof Amanda Lawson Ms Julie Renwick Dr Montse Ros Prof Nan Seuffert

A/Prof James Wallman Prof Robin Warner A/Prof Ping Yu

IN ATTENDANCE: Dr Simon Bedford, Senior Lecturer Learning, Teaching & Curriculum Mr Ian Butler, Course Co-ordinator, Academic Quality & Standards Ms Maureen Dibden, Senior Manager, Strategic Planning Unit Ms Bec Dyson, Research Fellow, School of Medicine Ms Antoinette Faddoul, Acting Senior Manager, Governance Unit


Ms Tori Funnell, Academic Quality & Policy Specialist, Academic Quality & Standards Ms Tenille Hoppo, Marketing Communications Coordinator, Strategic Marketing & Communications Unit Dr Nancy Huggett, Director, Governance and Legal Division Ms Jeanette Kost, ESOS & Course Management Officer, Academic Quality & Standards Ms Emma Purdy, Quality Officer, Academic Quality & Standards Ms Amelia Robinson, Policy & Governance Coordinator, Governance Unit Ms Jan Sullivan, Manager, Academic Quality & Standards Ms Sally Towse, Executive Officer Ms Viji Venkat, Course Co-ordinator, Academic Quality & Standards Dr Ruth Walker, Senior Lecturer, Learning, Teaching & Curriculum PART A – PRELIMINARY BUSINESS The Chair welcomed members to the 324th meeting of Academic Senate. *A1 Apologies

Dr Tillmann Boehme, Associate Professor Brogan Bunt, Prof Paul Chandler, Dr Phillip Ciufo, A/Prof Robbie Collins, A/Prof Chao Deng, Prof John Glynn, Prof Alison Jones, Prof Amanda Lawson, Dr Alisa Percy, Ms Julie Renwick, Dr Montse Ros, Prof Nan Seuffert, A/Prof James Wallman, Prof Robin Warner, A/Prof Ping Yu Leave of Absence:

Nil

*A2 Arrangement of Agenda

A.2.1 Confidential Items

There were no confidential items of business.

A.2.2 Starring of Items

The following items were starred for discussion: A1 – A10 Preliminary Business B1 Strategic Plan Refresh B2 Academic Integrity Review B3 UOW Assessment Quality Cycle C1 Business from Academic Senate Committees C2 SCDC Chair’s Report

A motion was passed to adopt the draft resolutions for the unstarred items.

*A3 Business from the last meeting

Nil

*A4 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolved (2015/58):

that the minutes of the previous meeting of Academic Senate held on 1 July 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

*A5 Reports from Senior Executive Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) (DVCA) The DVCA reported as follows:

• Congratulated Dr Sarah O’Shea on receiving the OLT National Teaching Fellow Award for her work on ‘First in Family’, an initiative that considers how to support students to reach university and how to continue to provide this


support throughout their studies. The award is prestigious and is a wonderful achievement for both Dr O’Shea and the University.

• The University of Wollongong Learning and Teaching Forum was held in July. It focussed on assessment and feedback and attracted over 100 attendees. The forum included discussion regarding how to progress the assessment principles endorsed at Senate. The DVCA ‘Big Conversation’ in July was also centred on online assessment and forms part of the consultation and implementation base.

• UOW has recently entered a partnership agreement with UK social learning or a MOOC platform ‘FutureLearn’. FutureLearn offers a diverse range of free online courses from leading educators around the world. UOW is placed in the newly created Centres of Excellence member category, which focuses on research-based education, bringing both world-class research and research-led learning to an international arena, providing an opportunity to work with communities to explore global challenges. UOW will showcase five areas of research. This is a positive move to bring together research and teaching. A trailer for the first ‘MOOC’ is available on the Future Learn website. The first MOOC is based on the work of Professor Gordon Wallace and his team and covers the topic of Bioprinting

• Launch of UOWx, the UOW Co-Curricular Framework took place in May 2015. Over 900 students have registered their interest to participate.

• The 40th Anniversary Celebration of Student Experience Exhibition was launched in May and closes in September.

• Anthony McClaran has been appointed as the new CEO of TEQSA. McClaran is currently CEO of the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

A Senate member asked the DVCA to clarify the meaning of ‘externality’. The DVCA clarified that ‘externality’, in this context refers to, for example, the role of external peers in the assessment process.

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) (DVCRI) The DVCRI reported as follows:

• The Big Ideas Festival took place on Tuesday 25th August and was a huge success. The DVCRI extended her thanks to all those involved, including the staff in the Research Services Office, for their extensive work in making this happen. The festival provided researchers with the opportunity to relate to community and showcased the work carried out at UOW.

• The ‘40 Years of Research Impact’ booklet has been launched. The publication includes 40 selected research ideas showcasing UOW’s research over the last 40 years. It demonstrates the diversity and depth of research taking place in Wollongong and acknowledges that over a billion dollars in research funding has been raised in the last 15 years.

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Global Strategy) (DVCGS) The DVCGS reported as follows:

• IRI graduations took place in Hong Kong on the weekend of 22 August. • Work is continuing in relation to the transitioning nursing programs to Hong

Kong Community College. • Top up programs to be offered at CCCU, Hong Kong have been withdrawn for

this session because enrolment numbers were below target. • International postgraduate enrolment is reported as up 30% and

undergraduate up 24% in comparison to this time last year. The University is short of 2015 target by about 100 students, largely due to a decrease in postgraduate HDR uptake.

• HDR numbers are down by about 32%. The fall in HDR numbers is of concern and the DVCGS urged faculties to focus on this space.


• There has been an overall decline of 9% in the Chinese market. Postgraduate

coursework is 8% down, undergraduate 4% down and HDR 47% down. The Chinese market represents 40% of UOW international market, so a decline in overall numbers will have significant impact. In response, the DVCGS is considering strategies in consultation with the CAO to intercept the decline. This includes, but is not limited to, employing a representative in China. The DVCGS emphasised the importance of a coordinated approach when marketing to China.

• Student numbers from the Indian and Pakistani markets have shown an increase, with Indian students up by 50% and Pakistan by 15%.

A Senate member questioned why ‘Top up Degrees’ have not attracted the predicted level of interest. The DVCGS clarified that marketing of the top up degrees took place after the peak period when students choose their degrees. Accreditation through the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ) is due to be granted by the end of the year. Once this has occurred, students will be eligible to apply for government loans and the information will be incorporated into marketing and recruitment. This is predicted to have a positive influence on the uptake of ‘top up’ programmes. A Senate member asked for clarification regarding the enrolment numbers. The DVCGS confirmed that the enrolment numbers reported relate to spring session, Trimester 1 and Trimester 2, 2015. The Chair acknowledged and congratulated the DVCGS on his 30th anniversary at UOW.

Chief Administration Officer (CAO)

The CAO reported as follows:

• The UOW Open Day held on Saturday 15 August was a huge success with over 4000 students registering in advance and 9000 attending the event. The CAO thanked all those involved in the organisation and running of the event, reporting that the feedback received has been excellent. Significant differences this year included scheduling of the event prior to the early admissions cut off (providing the opportunity to capture additional students) and inclusion of potential postgraduate and international students.

• Consent has been granted by the Joint Regional Planning Panel for the postgraduate accommodation building on Northfields Avenue. The larger, undergraduate accommodation building is scheduled for consideration by the panel in October 2015.

• Works have been completed on the P5 and P5a car parks. Both will reopen the week commencing 31 August 2015.

• The Voice Survey results have been provided to all divisions and a series of workshops will take place intended to discuss feedback and gather ideas and recommendations to address the areas that reported a lower satisfaction rate. The CAO urged members to provide feedback. The feedback will be reported to VCAG in late September 2015.

• The Fellowship and Alumni Awards Dinner will be held at the Uni Hall on 8 October 2015. The Governor of NSW will be in attendance.

A Senate member asked if there is any provision within enrolment planning for targeting Indigenous students. The CAO confirmed that there are a number of programs within the DVCA portfolio that target schools and student groups as well as a number of mentorship programs, and these programs are catered to by recruiting activities.


The DVCA reaffirmed that the regional campuses play a huge role in the recruitment of Indigenous students. Some In2Uni activities are focused on attracting Indigenous students and the Woolyungah Indigenous Centre also has an important role in the recruitment and ongoing support of Indigenous students. Moving forward an Indigenous Education Plan is being developed to assist in a collaborative approach to securing Indigenous students. A Senate member noted that accurately capturing baseline data regarding cultural background is essential and that the current process requires some fine-tuning in order to minimise incorrect identification of students.

Executive Dean Reports The Executive Dean of Social Sciences (SOC) reported as follows:

• The Faculty has attracted record student numbers for 2015. • The current focus is on the second and third year of the Bachelor of Social

Sciences degree, which was introduced in 2014. The Faculty is considering resources and subject offering in relation to this degree.

• Preparations are underway for early admissions interviews. • The annual Early Start Conference will be held at UOW 28-30 September and

will host about 450 delegates. It will include over 100 presentations and speakers from 11 different countries. The Executive Dean (SOC) acknowledged that the conference represents a milestone in terms of the development of Early Start at UOW.

• Workplace Health and Safety programs have been accredited. These are programs that were previously offered but have been revamped and relaunched for 2015 enrolment.

• A Faculty forum will be held the week commencing 31 August 2015 to discuss feedback from the Voice Survey.

• A lunch was hosted on 26 August 2015 to recognise the work of first year tutors, subject coordinators and teachers and their effort in securing record numbers of first year students.

The Executive Dean of Engineering and Information Sciences (EIS) reported as follows:

• There is a strong focus on increasing student numbers through the recruitment of domestic and international students. Faculty representatives will be visiting China and Canberra to increase the visibility of UOW as well as targeting schools and other key spaces.

*A6 Chair’s Report

The Chair informed members of the proposed 2016 Senate meeting dates, as follows:

• 24 February (this may be moved forward to 17 February due to LHA student orientation taking place in building 20)

• 4 May • 27 July • 14 September • 26 October • 7 December

The Chair advised members that in setting the dates, the feedback provided in the Senate Evaluation Survey and at the July 2015 meeting was taken into account. The Chair encouraged members to bring any concerns regarding the proposed dates to the attention of the Senate Executive Officer after the meeting.


The Chair confirmed that she will attend the NSW/Territories Committee of Chairs of Academic Boards/Senates to be held in Sydney on 3 September 2015.

*A7 Vice-Chancellor’s Report The Vice-Chancellor (VC) reported as follows:

• The Big Ideas Festival was very well received with over 400 guests attending. The Festival offered the opportunity for community engagement and for UOW to showcase its research strength. The VC echoed the DVCRI in thanking all those involved and indicated the intention is to repeat the event in two years time.

• The UOW Open Day was a great success and effective in showcasing the University to students and the community. The VC acknowledged the Open Day as strategically important to UOW and reiterated to members the need to focus on how to secure student numbers for 2016. The current market is competitive and there is still a lot of ambiguity in Canberra in relation to fees and funding for the sector.

• The Labor Party’s policy on higher education should be released in the next two months. The VC expressed to members that it is probable that Labor will attempt to secure the ‘amount of money allocated per student’ and the only way to do this without putting more money in is to recap student numbers. If this is the case the need to secure student numbers for 2016 is critical.

• The School of Geography and Sustainable Communities has been created and will be operational from 1 Feb 2016. It will be one of the first of its kind established in Australia for some time. The VC acknowledged the extensive work carried out by academics within the faculty in relation to this.

• League tables released: Good Universities Guide – UOW received 50 out of a possible 60 stars

across the Guide’s 12 categories, ranking it as the leading university in terms of star classification, and at least three stars ahead of the closest metropolitan based competitor. The VC acknowledged this as a huge achievement and a demonstration of the integrated efforts applied across UOW.

In the Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU) also known as the Shanghai Jiao Tong Rankings, UOW jumped about 60 places, gaining a place in the higher-ranking bracket and moving from 13th in Australia to 10th.

The QS ranking will be released on 15 September. The methodology has altered to balance scoring across different areas. The VC predicts this will have a positive impact on UOW and should result in a move up the rankings by around 40 places.

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE) rankings will be released in October.

The VC acknowledged that the positive results are again testament to all the hard work being done across the University.

*A8 Student Members’ Business

A student member acknowledged the proactive approach taken by the University in managing the feedback received in relation to the announced graduation changes. A working group has been established under the Student Representative Forum and a meeting will be held on 31 August 2015 to discuss the feedback with student representatives.


*A9 Members’ Business

The Chair reported that Professor Jenny Beck has been appointed as the representative on the Central Promotions Committee. Professor Jenny Beck will fill the position left vacant by Professor Jacqui Ramagge. The Chair called upon members to put forward expressions of interest for the remaining vacancy on the Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC). The Chair conveyed to members that the Senate Moodle site is now up and running.

*A10 Questions on Notice

Nil

PART B – GENERAL BUSINESS *B1 Strategic Plan Refresh The VC informed members that the Exposure Draft of the Strategic Plan for 2016-

2020 has been developed following approval in February 2015, to initiate and refresh the current Strategic Plan (2013-2018). The draft Strategic Plan 2016-2020 has evolved through an extensive consultation process involving Council members and senior University leaders. The VC pointed out that this is a ‘refresh’ of the existing plan and not a ‘new’ plan. The plan is presented to Academic Senate for discussion, and feedback will be sought from members of Senate, staff, students, and alumni. The VC noted that the revised plan was based on an extension of the University’s existing goals but not a change of focus. The six identified UOW goals are:

1. Research and Impact 2. Learning and Student Experience 3. Connecting Communities 4. Staff and Culture 5. Sustaining a vibrant University 6. Change and Transformation

The VC provided a presentation outlining the key factors that have influenced the plan, including:

• The impact of UOW achieving modest growth of 2% per annum between now and 2030.

• Assets growing slightly faster than income. Growth in income critical, particularly if student numbers are recapped. This has been discussed extensively at Senate.

• The University’s percentage of funding from other income sources has increased significantly in recent years.

• UOW’s Academic Salary to Total Expenditure margin of 34% is above both NSW and Australian averages. This includes leave liability, which has inflated this figure. This could be resulting from a technical issue associated with leave liabilities. If this issue is addressed numbers would be likely to improve.

• UOW Alumni is the fastest growing component. • The reshaped budget approved by Council in 2014 is aimed at reducing

UOW’s cost base and working within a sustainable model. • In terms of research, the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2015, (based on Thomson

Reuters database: 2010 – 2013) currently ranks UOW at 9.9%, with the goal to achieve 11.4% to secure a place in the top 200 of cited publications.


• The VC noted ongoing difficulty in defining ‘Research Active’. Based on the

current definition, 61% of UOW academics are Research Active. Recognised academics have very substantive teaching and administrative commitments.

• Australia’s national research evaluation framework, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) ratings show the degree of optimisation applied. Data has been tweaked as much as possible and this is consistent across the sector. UOW is aiming for a 9% improvement in rating for 2015.

• Latest rankings will show positive movement in terms of UOW’s rating. • UOW has achieved modest growth since student places were uncapped by

the Australian Government, capturing 5.3% of the additional market that has emerged in the NSW domestic undergraduate market between 2009 and 2013.

• The mean ATAR of commencing students has declined from 80 to 75, since the uncapping of student places. Overall however, first year performance (as measured by WAM) has varied little during this time.

• The VC highlighted the significant body of work being undertaken by the DVCA in leading the Curriculum Transformation Project. Ensuring the continuity of this project during the refresh of the Strategic Plan is important. It is recognised that this is a very complex framework that will present a lot of change now and into the future.

• Course offerings have been reduced from 361 to 262 as a result of AQF review. Notably, 31 of 170 UG courses accounting for 80% of students.

• UOW has recently regained its five star rating for graduate destinations and teaching quality by the Good Universities Guide. This information will be publicly released in September. The VC recognised that students should be career ready and have opportunity on graduating.

• The goal internationally is to position UOW as a high profile global University and consolidate transnational education around existing partners and sites.

• Numbers for offshore international enrolments have increased. • The VC acknowledged the importance of UOW students being provided with

the opportunity to study internationally. • Plans to continue improvement and development of the UOW campus will

extend for at least 20 years. • The NSW Population Projection for 2011-2031 shows that population growth

in UOW’s local regions (the Illawarra, South Coast and Southern Highlands) is expected to decline whilst there will be significant growth in the western pockets of MacArthur and Liverpool. The VC noted that UOW will explore opportunities in these growth regions.

• UOW’s progress to positioning itself in the top 1% of world universities will continue to be a focus during the timeframe of the next Strategic Plan.

A Senate member asked how the rankings data recognises the different disciplines and associated publications. The VC clarified that some ranking systems now recognise the type of research outputs and identify the different disciplines. The DVCRI added that whilst books do not count individually in the research rankings, the reputational aspects are taken into account and therefore they do contribute to the overall ranking achieved. The VC conveyed to members that the narrative around the new Strategic Plan has shifted, and the language has moved deliberately to reflect a more ambitious approach. The VC highlighted that the development of the revised plan has been steered by a number of catalysts and drivers including economic and social context, institutional sustainability, and internationalisation of higher education, expectations and demands.


The VC acknowledged that UOW has a need to focus on how it works with existing partners and how it goes about securing new enterprises. He noted that the University needs to engage with UOW alumni and to be adaptable and financially sustainable. There is a need to focus on promoting the University as a destination University and Wollongong as a University City.

The VC commended UOW staff on what has been achieved over such a short period of time. The VC invited questions and thanked Maureen Dibden and her team in the Strategic Planning Unit for their extensive work to date on the revised Plan. A Senate member questioned if there is a plan to increase staff morale. The VC drew member’s attention to goal 3.2 of the plan, reiterating that emphasis on staff engagement and communication is the trigger point that attempts to address staff morale. There is also emphasis on staff to understand and contribute to the University’s goals. A Senate member noted that the curriculum transformation is fundamental to the University’s future, emphasising the need to align the strategic plan with resource planning and focus efforts on expediting curriculum transformation at UOW. The member identified that UOW’s capacity to have a state of the art curriculum drives income and will enable UOW to meet its aspirations around research. A Senate member questioned whether there is provision within the proposed plan to deliver distance learning to offshore students. The VC responded by emphasising the need to first ensure that digital technology on campus is state-of-the art and accessible to all campuses and students. The University can then determine what steps need to be taken to roll out distance learning to offshore partners. The VC invited the DVCA to elaborate. The DVCA noted that the Technology Enhanced Learning Strategy (TEL) was endorsed by Senate in April, an element of which is online learning. The goal is to enhance teaching and the quality of the student learning experience. The DVCA noted that discussion has commenced through SCDC and with ADE’s and that the next step following the SCDC planning day on 18 September 2015 is to consult with faculties. The DVCA anticipates that by the end of Q4 a plan will be in place to identify the resources required and a timeline for implementation. A Senate member asked if the University is satisfied with the reported research active figures. The VC reiterated that there are different research categories and that overall the reported statistic of 61% research active staff is low, however, some technology based universities are running at 45%. The VC acknowledged the need to harness existing resources more effectively. The Chair encouraged Senate members to provide feedback on the exposure draft to the Strategic Planning Unit (e: [email protected]).

Resolved (2015/59):

that Academic Senate review, discuss and provide feedback on the exposure draft Strategic Plan, 2016-2020, as attached to the agenda paper and presented at the meeting, to the Strategic Planning Unit ([email protected]) by close of business 4 September 2015.


*B2 Academic Integrity Review The Chair pointed out to members that both items B2 and B3 are presented to Senate

in accordance with the feedback received through the Senate Evaluation Survey ‘that items are presented to members at an early stage for consultation’.

The Chair invited Dr Ruth Walker, Senior Lecturer, Learning, Teaching & Curriculum (SL(LTC)) to speak to this item. The SL(LTC) reported that an Academic Integrity Task and Finish Group (AITFG) was established in response to TEQSA enquires focused on individual university’s responses to ‘contract cheating’ by online sites such as ‘MyMasters’. This was timely given that UOW was due to review its Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy. The SL(LTC) reported that the AITFG’s recommends the implementation of a more proactive approach to handling student misconduct. To attain this goal the recommendation is to develop an educational and integrated approach through:

• Focusing on educational strategies. • Reviewing academic projects. • Implementing misconduct education intervention. • Providing recommendations to the Primary Investigation Officers (PIO) with the view to take a University-wide consistent approach. • Improve the data management of misconduct; by developing a centrally managed system that can be accessed by all faculties.

The SL(LTC) reported that current processes had been identified as leading to both under-reporting and misreporting of student conduct incidents. It is recognised that this is largely due to the length of time an investigation takes as well as the lack of information or understanding of the conduct processes.

The SL(LTC) invited feedback from Senate members in relation to the item and noted

that the aim is to submit the draft policy to the November Senate meeting for endorsement before it is submitted to Council for approval in December 2015.

The Chair drew Senate members’ attention to the questions on page 40 and invited

comments. Resolved (2015/60):

that Academic Senate: (i) note the updated Academic Integrity Review and draft Academic Integrity Policy; and (ii) provide feedback regarding the draft policy provisions to [email protected] by Friday 18 September 2015.

*B3 UOW Assessment Quality Cycle The Chair invited Dr Margaret Wallace and Dr Simon Bedford from Learning,

Teaching and Curriculum to speak to this item. Dr Wallace provided members with some background information in relation to the

Assessment Quality Cycle (AQC). Reporting that in mid-2013 the Moderation of Assessment Working Group was established by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education). The group was tasked with reviewing existing policy provisions in relation to moderation of assessment and the development of a policy statement and supporting tools to guide moderation of assessment.



The Working Group has developed a proposed model for a UOW AQC that sets out

requirements and standards for collaborative and collegial design, delivery, quality assurance and enhancement of assessment practice at UOW.

Dr Wallace acknowledged the work of the group and the work of the Academic

Quality and Standards Committee that feeds into UEC in the development of the proposed model.

Dr Wallace advised that the Working Group had identified in conducting the review

that the activities are already in place across the University but what needs to happen is to focus on clarity and direction to reduce the variety in interpretation of the processes.

Dr Wallace conveyed to members that under the draft revised Higher Education

Standard Framework; the University has an obligation in relation to the quality assurance of its courses, assessment methods and grading. It is intended that the AQC will support assurance that standards are met, that subject leaning outcomes and course learning outcomes are aligned and that allocated marks and grades reflect student performance. The AQS will provide a framework for external monitoring and referencing of assessment methods.

Dr Wallace highlighted that assessment quality assurance is not a new concept and

that most components are already embedded into policy and practice across the University.

The proposed model sets out choices for subject coordinators in terms of the most

suitable quality assurance activities for each assessment task. These cover design, delivery, declaration and review and have been designed to offer flexibility. Dr Wallace referred members to the paper provided in the agenda for more information regarding what the AQC will involve.

Dr Wallace informed members that extensive consultation with faculties has been

carried out and the feedback included in the paper. The proposal is to adopt a staged approach to implementation with an internal pilot of internal assessment and quality to be carried out over summer session.

This semester UOW has partnered with RMIT, Curtin and QUT to run a pilot project

looking at external referencing of assessment and focusing on key final year subjects. The Chair thanked Dr Wallace and invited questions. A Senate member noted that the proposed responsibilities or ‘phases of the cycle’

outlining the choices available to subject coordinators as detailed on page 59 and 60 of the agenda presents two fundamental issues. Firstly, the proposed model, in promoting uniformity, will drastically reduce creativity in the way subject coordinators approach assessment tasks and, secondly, have a huge impact on teaching workloads. The member pointed out that both time and financial resources will be an issue and referred specifically to page 57 of the agenda, ‘The current landscape at UOW’ stating that this is not the case, that the components are not activities currently undertaken by subject coordinators. The member listed the activities detailed under the heading ‘delivery’ (page 59) including rotational marking, blind marking and sample marking as not currently undertaken.

The member put forward a proposed amended resolution as follows: ‘That Academic Senate note the Assessment Quality Cycle Discussion Paper as set

out in the agenda paper, and presented at the meeting ignores the crucial issue of impacts of the new assessment policy on effective workloads of academic staff. The new policy is likely to significantly increase the time academics will have to spend on marking and assessment related tasks.


The paper does not discuss the financial implications of increasing workloads of

academics, which means there is a risk that individual academics will bear the cost of the increased workloads. The paper also ignores the regulatory authority of the Faculty Workloads Reference Groups in the Faculties (as constituted through the Employment Agreement) on these matters, and hence it breaches the fundamentals of the EA. Therefore, UOW Senate asks the Academic Quality and Standards Unit to redraft the new Assessment Quality Cycle Discussion Paper, to make explicit the workloads implications of all new polices, to factor in the costs of increased workloads, to identify the budget source for resources that will meet these costs, and if necessary, to indicate how it has negotiated with those in control of resources to ensure that the Faculties will be properly compensated for the resource implications of these changes.”

The Chair reiterated to members that the paper is presented to Senate to note and

provide feedback. A Senate member noted that the resolution should be put forward to establish if there

is a seconder. The Chair acknowledged this and invited the DVCA to speak. The DVCA drew members’ attention to page 59 of the agenda, summarising that the

proposed model has been developed to provide flexibility in the quality assurance process and adding that there is no intention to quash creativity. The policy will not dictate what the assessment tasks should be. It is a requirement that, as a University, UOW must have this in place.

The DVCA added that this is not optional and that UOW will undergo reaccreditation

in 2018 and must comply with the Australian Higher Education Standards Framework. UOW must demonstrate that it has an established, strategic and systematic approach to internal and external assessment quality assurance. It is essential that the element of assessment be right. This work represents a consolidation of a suite of policies into one space to enable clarity. The DVCA recognised that students also deserve to have assurance that the grade that they get is the grade on the piece of paper.

The DVCA highlighted that workload implications are important but also need to be

discussed at the appropriate level. The DVCA expressed that moving forward all faculties need to plan for this and implement a support structure.

The DVCA thanked all those involved in pulling this model together. A Senate member pointed out that the University should be responsible for directing

faculties on how to implement the proposed model in line with time and financial constraints.

Dr Wallace echoed the DVCA’s comments regarding flexibility and identified the need

to improve student satisfaction through providing clarity in terms of the expectation of assessment tasks and the process by which results are derived. Dr Wallace added that moving forward there is scope for some tasks to be completed in a more automated or online way. The intention is to reduce workloads not to increase them.

A student member commended the proposed model acknowledging the work as a

positive step forward from a student perspective. A member asked what the proposed solution is in relation to point 7 (page 61) which

identifies feedback received from faculty staff regarding the multitude of projects being rolled out by the DVCA portfolio, as being overwhelming.

The DVCA clarified that much consultation has been undertaken regarding how the

different frameworks fit together and the external requirements imposed upon the University.


The papers presented to Senate are drafted to articulate the drivers and purposes for

all reviews and proposals. The drivers listed in point 7 are largely external with the exception of the digital learning threshold. The DVCA acknowledged the need to be clear and concise in all communication to staff and encouraged suggestions in terms of how the AQS portfolio can better communicate projects.

A member reported that faculties are under a lot of stress and suggested that

communication is clear and sets out what is being done and why as well as what needs to be done or what is required at faculty level. The member queried the outcome of the findings of the external consultants engaged to review how the Curriculum Transformation Project would impact on workloads.

The Director Learning, Teaching & Curriculum responded confirming that external

consultants were engaged to provide professional advice regarding workload impact and that the findings have been reported to HR. The CAO added that the findings have been fed back to HR but that this is a particularly complex process, reviewing workloads across five faculties, and could take some time to disseminate.

A Senate member noted that statistical analysis is an issue due to the current student

system constraints adding that student systems need attention to increase efficiency and that this has been identified as an ongoing problem.

A Senate member asked if the QA practice referred to in the implementation plan will

extend to offshore processes. The DVCA confirmed the intention is to apply a holistic approach and to reduce duplication as far as possible.

The DVCGS acknowledged the volume of work put into the development of this

model and identified that there may be workload issues but that these issues should be separated from this discussion and instead reviewed and addressed in the correct forum.

The Chair put forward the resolution as suggested by the Senate member as follows: that Academic Senate note the Assessment Quality Cycle Discussion Paper as set

out in the agenda paper, and presented at the meeting ignores the crucial issue of impacts of the new assessment policy on effective workloads of academic staff. The new policy is likely to significantly increase the time academics will have to spend on marking and assessment related tasks. The paper does not discuss the financial implications of increasing workloads of academics, which means there is a risk that individual academics will bear the cost of the increased workloads. The paper also ignores the regulatory authority of the Faculty Workloads Reference Groups in the Faculties (as constituted through the Employment Agreement) on these matters, and hence it breaches the fundamentals of the EA. Therefore, UOW Senate asks the Academic Quality and Standards Unit to redraft the new Assessment Quality Cycle Discussion Paper, to make explicit the workloads implications of all new polices, to factor in the costs of increased workloads, to identify the budget source for resources that will meet these costs, and if necessary, to indicate how it has negotiated with those in control of resources to ensure that the Faculties will be properly compensated for the resource implications of these changes.”

The amendment having been seconded by a Senate member was put and lost. The Chair suggested that an amended resolution be put as follows:

that Academic Senate: (i) note the Assessment Quality Discussion Paper as set out in the agenda

paper, and (ii) note the feedback provided at the meeting and respond to the concerns in the

next iteration of the paper at the September meeting.


The Senate member agreed with the amendment subject to the inclusion of ‘work load’ being added. The Chair read the amendment as follows:


paper, and (ii) note the feedback provided at the meeting and respond to the concerns

expressed regarding workload in the next iteration of the paper at the September meeting.

The DVCA clarified that it is not the role of AQS to respond to issues on workload. A Senate member added that the issues raised at the meeting need to be accurately recorded in the minutes so that they are not lost and are documented for future reference. A Senate member suggested that a further amendment be made to the resolution as follows:


paper, and presented at the meeting; and (ii) note the feedback provided at the meeting and the concerns expressed

regarding the workload associated with the proposed model. The Chair put forward the resolution, which was seconded by a Senate member, and it was carried. Resolved (2015/61):

that Academic Senate: (iii) note the Assessment Quality Discussion Paper as set out in the agenda

paper, and presented at the meeting; and (iv) note the feedback provided at the meeting and the concerns expressed

regarding the workload associated with the proposed model.

B4 Course Policy Framework Resolved (2015/62):

that Academic Senate: (i) endorse the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course

Review Procedures and proposed consequential amendments to the other policy documents as outlined in the agenda paper;

(ii) forward the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures and the Course Review Procedures and relevant consequential amendments to the University Council for approval;

(iii) note that the development of a Conferrals Policy as the final component of the Course Policy Framework is proceeding and will be submitted to Senate in due course.

B5 ESOS Compliance Framework Policy Resolved (2015/63):

that Academic Senate: (i) endorse the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy as outlined in the agenda paper; and

(ii) forward to the University Council for approval, to be effective immediately.


PART C – ACADEMIC SENATE COMMITTEE BUSINESS *C1 Business from Academic Senate Committees

Nil *C2 SCDC Chair’s Report This item is carried over to the next meeting, 23 September 2015, due to time constraints. C3 Prize Proposals from the Student Awards Committee Resolved (2015/64): that Academic Senate:

(i) approve the following new prize proposals, as attached to the agenda paper:

1) Buddhima Indraratna Award for Industry Engagement 2) Dr David Martin Prize for Electromagnetism 3) Top Student Bachelor of Medical and Health Sciences (Honours) 4) Top Student Master of Science (Gerontology and Rehabilitation Studies) 5) Top Student Master of Science (Dementia Care) 6) Top Student Bachelor of Health Science (Indigenous Health) 7) Top Student – Master of Clinical Exercise Physiology 8) Top Student - Human Geography Honours – Previously Science 9) Top Student Year 2 Human Geography - Previously Science 10) Murray Wilson Prize in Human Geography - Previously Science (ii) Note the prize revisions and terminations approved by the Student Awards

Committee as detailed in the agenda paper.

C4 Committee Minutes Resolved (2015/65): that Academic Senate:

(i) note the minutes from the following Senate Committee meetings, as attached to the agenda paper: a) University Internationalisation Committee minutes for the meetings held on 16 October 2014, 4 March, 2015 and 14 May 2015; and

b) University Research Committee minutes for the meeting held on 25 March 2015; and

(ii) note the minutes from the UOW College Academic Board for the meeting held

on 11 June 2015. PART D – COURSE APPROVALS D1 Business Innovation – 2016BUS15 International Economics – 2016BUS17 Qualitative Analysis in Economics – 2015BUS16 Discontinuation of Major Study


Resolved (2015/66): that Academic Senate approve the proposals to discontinue the following majors;

(i) Business Innovation; (ii) International Economics; and (iii) Qualitative Analysis in Economics, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

D2 Graduate Certificate in Applied Finance – 2015BUS04 New Course Resolved (2015/67): that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce a new course, the Graduate Certificate in Applied Finance, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Trimester 1, 2016 D3 Master of Computer Science – 2015EIS10 Master of Computer Studies – 2015EIS11 Master of Information and Communication Technology – 20165EIS15 Master of Information Technology Studies – 2015EIS16 Discontinuation of Courses Resolved (2015/68): that Academic Senate approve the proposals to discontinue the following courses:

(i) Master of Computer Science; (ii) Master of Computer Studies; (iii) Master of Information and Communication Technology; and (iv) Master of Information Technology Studies, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2015.

D4 Master of Engineering Practice – 2015EIS13 Master of Engineering Studies – 2015EIS14 Master of Professional Engineering – 2015EIS19 Master of Technology Engineering – 2015EIS20 Discontinuation of Courses Resolved (2015/69):

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to discontinue the following courses: (i) Master of Engineering Practice; (ii) Master of Engineering Studies; (iii) Master of Professional Engineering; and (iv) Master of Technology Engineering, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2015.

D5 Graduate Certificate in Global Citizenship- 2015LHA03 New Course Resolved (2015/70): that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce a new course, the Graduate Certificate in Global Citizenship, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn 2016.


D6 Master of International Studies Advanced 2015LHA03 New Course Resolved (2015/71):

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce a new course, the Master of International Studies Advanced, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn 2016.

D7 Master of Philosophy, Electromaterials – 2016SMAH07 New Specialisation Resolved (2015/72): that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce a new specialisation, the

Master of Philosophy (Electromaterials), as outlined in the agenda paper; to become effective from Autumn 2016.

D8 Graduate Certificate in Earth And Environmental Sciences – 2016SMAH06 New Course Earth and Environmental Sciences – 2016SMAH03 New Specialisation Geology, Coastal Planning & Management, Physical Geography – 2016SMAH08 Discontinuation of Specialisations Master of Environmental Science – 2016SMAH04 Master of Environmental Science Advanced – 2016SMAH05 Course Discontinuations Resolved (2015/73):

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to: (i) introduce a new course, the Graduate Certificate in Earth and Environmental Science as an exit point only; (ii) discontinue three specialisations, Geology, Coastal Planning & Management, Physical Geography; in affected postgraduate courses (iii) introduce a new specialisation, Earth and Environmental Science, in the affected Masters courses; and (iv) discontinue the Master of Environmental Science, and the Master of Environmental Science Advanced, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn, 2016.

D9 Physical Geography – 2015SMAH13 Change to Major Study Name Geosciences – 2015SMAH10 Discontinuation of Major Study Resolved (2015/74): that Academic Senate approve the proposals to:

(i) change the name of the Physical Geography major to Physical Geography and Environmental Geosciences; and (ii) discontinue the major, Geosciences, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016

D10 Graduate Certificate in Medical Science & Health Research – 2015SMAH09 Graduate Diploma in Medical Science & Health Research – 2015SMAH12 New Courses


Resolved (2015/75):

that Academic Senate approve the proposals to introduce two new courses as exit pathways from the Doctor of Philosophy (Integrated): (i) Graduate Certificate in Medical Science and Health Research; and (ii) Graduate Diploma in Medical Science and Health Research, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

D11 Graduate Certificate in Health Research – 2015SMAH11 Graduate Certificate in Health Practice Development And Facilitation – 2015SMAH14 Discontinuation of Course Resolved (2015/76):

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to discontinue the; (i) Graduate Certificate in Health Research; and (ii) Graduate Certificate in Health Research Development and Facilitation, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

D12 Graduate Certificate in Indigenous Trauma Recovery – 2015SMAH15 New Course Resolved (2015/77): that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce the new course, Graduate Certificate in Indigenous Trauma Recovery, as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from January 2016. D13 Master of Indigenous Health – 2015SMAH16 Amendment to Volume of Learning Resolved (2015/78):

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to amend the volume of learning for the Master of Indigenous Health, from 1 year (48 credit points), to 1.5 years (72 credit points), as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn 2016.

D14 Bachelor of Public Health (Dean’s Scholar) – 2015SOC05 New Course Resolved (2015/79): that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce a new course, the Bachelor

of Public Health (Dean’s Scholar), as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session 2016.

D15 Master of Education (Advanced Pedagogy in Physical Education and Sport) New Course Resolved (2015/80):

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce a new course, the Master of Education (Advanced Pedagogy in Physical Education and Sport), as outlined in the agenda paper, to become effective from Spring 2016.

D16 Master of Work Health and Safety Ergonomics and Occupational Hygiene – 2016SOC13 New Specialisations


Master of Work Health and Safety (Advanced) – 2016SOC14 New Course Resolved (2015/81):

that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce: (i) a new course, the Master of Work Health and Safety (Advanced); and (ii) two new specialisations, Ergonomics and Occupational Hygiene, to the Master of

Work Health and Safety; as attached to the agenda paper, to become effective from Autumn Session 2016.

PART E – FUTURE MEETINGS AND OTHER BUSINESS E1 Meeting Dates

Wednesday, 23 September 2015 Wednesday, 18 November 2015

*E2 Other Business

Signed as a true record:

------------------------------ Chair

/ /



AGENDA ITEMS *B1 – B5

PART B

GENERAL BUSINESS



CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AGENDA ITEM *B1 Background The Continuing Professional Development Learning & Teaching (CPD) Framework was endorsed by Academic Senate in December 2014. The Framework was developed to support continuous professional development in learning and teaching across all levels of experience, knowledge and skill, based on three principles:

• supporting all teaching staff to actively engage in professional development for learning and teaching throughout their career;

• external reference to awarding bodies and teaching criteria, as well as the University’s Academic Performance Framework; and

• open learning - allowing for choice by teaching staff; adopting an anytime/any place delivery so that CPD is easily accessible.

Progress to date A transition period has been underway, piloting the CPD program. By 30 October 2015, the phase-out of the University Learning and Teaching (ULT) course will be complete, with the intention that CPD will replace ULT from 1 January 2016 onwards. A new draft policy has been developed, the Continuing Professional Development (Learning and Teaching) Policy (CPD Policy), to underpin the CPD program. It is intended that this proposed policy will replace the current University Learning and Teaching Course Policy (ULT Policy). A one page overview of the CPD Framework Learning Outcomes has also been developed (see Appendix 1 to the draft CPD Policy at Attachment 2 of this item) to accompany the proposed CPD Policy. There are four (4) levels in the CPD Framework that reflect different career stages, roles or specialised focus on scholarship and leadership in higher education. During the CPD pilot there have been six CPD Level 1 completions; 17 CPD workshops held (including two process related sessions); two integrated inductions held (introducing staff to learning and teaching and research and governance requirements); the development of resources including three live online modules and two additional modules near completion. The key differences between the current ULT Policy and the proposed CPD Policy are:

• Requirement for academic staff to complete a CPD (L&T) Level 1 Portfolio instead of completion of ULT assignments for probation and promotion;

• Participants can opt to be recognised at a higher level if they deem appropriate; and • As all newly appointed academic staff involved in teaching on a contract with a

12 month or longer probationary period are required to show evidence of competence at CPD Level 1, there is no need for an Exemption Committee.

References in the draft CPD Policy to the UOW Strategic Plan will be updated once the new Strategic Plan has been approved. Consultation to date Consultation with Academic Quality and Standards Unit and the Human Resources Division has taken place in developing the draft CPD Policy. The draft CPD Policy was provided to the University Education Committee (UEC) on 16 September 2015 for feedback and input. UEC endorsed the draft CPD Policy.


Consequential Amendments to other University Policy Documents Pending approval of the draft CPD Policy by University Council, the following policy changes will need to be made:

• ULT Policy to be rescinded by University Council; and • Academic Probation Committee Procedures to be revised to replace all reference to

the ULT Policy with the CPD Policy. Academic staff will be advised of the changes from the ULT Policy to the CPD Policy as per the Implementation and Communication Plan, as attached to this agenda paper. Academic Senate is asked to review the attached draft CPD Policy and Implementation and Communication plan, and endorse the rescission of the current ULT Policy. Draft Resolution that Academic Senate:

(i) endorse the rescission of the current University Learning and Teaching Course Policy;

(ii) endorse the proposed Continuing Professional Development (Learning and Teaching) Policy;

(iii) note the Implementation and Communication Plan; and (iv) forward the documentation to Council for approval, to be effective immediately.

ATTACHMENTS (i) Draft Continuing Professional Development (Learning and Teaching) Policy

(ii) Appendix 1 to the Draft CPD Policy – Overview of CPD Framework Learning Outcomes

(iii) Implementation and Communication Plan Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Teaching Development Officers, Learning, Teaching & Curriculum

Director Learning, Teaching & Curriculum Executive Officer, Academic Senate



CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (LEARNING & TEACHING) POLICY

Date approved

Date Policy will take effect

Immediately

Date of Next Review

Approved by

University Council

Custodian title & e-mail address

Director of Learning, Teaching & Curriculum [email protected]

Responsible Faculty/Division & Unit

Learning, Teaching & Curriculum (LTC)

Supporting documents, procedures & forms of this policy

CPD Website CPD Framework

References & Legislation

University of Wollongong (Academic Staff) Enterprise Agreement 2005 Academic Probation Committee Procedures

Audience

Internal – UOW Staff Only

Expiry date

Not applicable

Submit your feedback on this policy document using the Policy Feedback Facility.

Contents

1 Purpose of policy

2 Definitions

3 Policy statement

4 Application & scope

5 CPD conditions of engagement

6 Recognition of previous professional development

7 Roles & responsibilities

8 Review and change history



http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/index.html

http://staff.uow.edu.au/personnel/awardagree/UOW016005.html

1. Background

1. The University of Wollongong (UOW) has been committed to quality and excellence in teaching and learning. It aims to “deliver student-centred, challenging programs to the highest standard in a technology-rich learning environment that attracts high-quality students and develops all students for their graduate roles in society and the global workplace” (University Strategic Plan 2013-2018, Goal 2).

2. In addition, the UOW (2013-2018) Strategic Plan has had an explicit goal to enhance staff and culture. It aims to “foster a culture of continuous improvement by rewarding initiative, creativity and performance in an environment which develops staff and encourages the highest quality standards” (University Strategic Plan, Goal 4).

3. The Continuing Professional Development (Learning & Teaching) program tightly couples with the University Strategic Plan by encouraging staff to engage with ongoing teaching and learning professional development.

4. The CPD (L&T) principles are:

• CONTINUING (to support all teaching staff to actively engage in professional development for learning and teaching throughout their career)

• EXTERNAL REFERENCE (to awarding bodies/teaching criteria as well as the APF and teaching awards)

• OPEN LEARNING (allowing for individual choice, adopting an anytime/any place delivery for teaching staff making it easily accessible to all locations and for sessional staff – all evidenced through a portfolio)

5. The aim of these principles are to support the high quality of learning and teaching at UOW to enhance the student learning experience; to empower staff with direction and choice in their own professional development decisions; and to further enhance UOW’s reputation in learning and teaching.

2. Purpose of Policy 1. This policy sets out UOW’s minimum mandated requirements for Continuing Professional

Development (Learning & Teaching) with respect to Academic Probation and Promotion at UOW.

2. This policy replaces the University Learning and Teaching (ULT) Course Policy. In 2015, in course transition, CPD Level 1 was referred to as CPD Level 1 (ULT).

3. Definitions and Acronyms Word / Term Definition Academic staff Staff of the University (whether continuing, fixed-term, sessional or casual)

who carry out teaching responsibilities under the authority of the Head of an academic unit

UOW University of Wollongong

LTC The division of Learning, Teaching & Curriculum at UOW

ULT University Learning and Teaching course

CPD Continuing Professional Development program, coordinated by LTC

CPD Framework

The learning and teaching framework that specifies the criteria and the learning outcomes for five levels of CPD

CPD Portfolio A portfolio of evidence, compiled to demonstrate achievement of the nominated level according to the CPD Framework

Workload allocation The annual workload allocated to an academic staff member by their supervisor


4. Policy Scope

1. This policy applies to all academic staff involved in teaching (refer to ‘CPD Requirements for Probation Table’ in Section 5 of this policy document for minimum requirements as a condition of new appointments).

2. All academic staff affiliated with UOW (including those appointed by a collaborative partner to teach into a UOW course) are strongly encouraged to engage with CPD activities (both internal and external to UOW).

3. Academic staff who are appointed to a research only position are not required to complete a CPD Portfolio (unless it is stated as a condition of employment). However, research staff are strongly encouraged to participate in CPD activities.

4. Prior to 1994, completion of a teaching and learning course was not a probationary requirement. Because of this, Academic staff appointed to UOW prior to1994 are not required to complete a CPD Portfolio (unless it is stated as a condition of employment). However, all staff are strongly encouraged to participate in CPD activities.

5. Policy Statement 1. Newly appointed academic staff who:

a. are employed on a continuing or fixed term contract; and b. are involved in teaching; and c. have a 12 month or longer probationary period,

are required to have completed the minimum of a CPD Level 1 Portfolio to a ‘Satisfactory’ standard (as deemed through the CPD review process) upon application for application for academic probation.

2. In exceptional cases, academic staff may request approval from the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) for an extension of time of up to a further 12 months.

3. Newly appointed academic teaching staff, on continuing or fixed-term contracts, with an 11 month probation or less, are not required to, but are strongly encouraged to, participate in CPD activities (as shown in the CPD Requirements table below).

4. Applicants are required to attach evidence of satisfactory completion of the CPD Portfolio to their probation application (refer to Academic Probation Application form).

CPD Requirements for Probation Table This table indicates the mandatory minimum requirements for academic staff involved in teaching Fixed Term or Continuing Staff

Appointment Probation CPD requirement

Fixed-term or Continuing

12 months or more Satisfactory completion of a (minimum of) CPD Level 1 Portfolio

Fixed-term or Continuing

11 months or less Engagement in CPD optional activities (such as workshops and online modules) is highly recommended. At probation, provide an overview of teaching and learning activities in the relevant section of the probation application form. It is recommended that you use the CPD Framework to guide your overview

5. Staff applying for academic promotion are expected to have completed a minimum of CPD Level 1 Portfolio (or ULT equivalent) upon application for promotion regardless of their probationary period.


6. CPD Conditions of Engagement

1. The CPD Framework comprises four (4) professional development levels with a pre-level for sessional teaching staff and PhD students http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/resources/index.html

2. For probation and promotion purposes, staff must complete a minimum of CPD Level 1 Portfolio, but have the option to choose a higher level if they deem appropriate.

3. Recognition of a CPD Level requires staff to submit a portfolio of evidence to be reviewed by a panel of senior UOW teaching academics showing evidence of achieving the learning outcomes of the self-nominated CPD Level with awareness of the UOW context (policy, curriculum priorities) http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/participate/assessment/index.html

4. Through the portfolio review process, the panel of senior UOW teaching academics will deem the CPD Portfolio to be ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’. If deemed unsatisfactory constructive feedback will be provided to allow the applicant to enhance their portfolio for reconsideration against the learning outcomes.

5. Once deemed ‘Satisfactory’ the applicant will receive dated notification and certification of the CPD Level of recognition. Probation and promotion applicants are expected to attach this evidence of completion to the appropriate probation or promotion application form.

6. Staff are supported in CPD through a range of activities and resources http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/resourcehub/index.html

7. The CPD program of activities is offered at no cost to all staff affiliated with UOW.

8. Any member of staff can submit a CPD Portfolio for review.

9. The mandatory minimum requirements for Academic Probation are stipulated in the ‘CPD Requirements for Probation Table’ in Section 5 of this policy.

10. Academic teaching staff who have completed a minimum CPD Level 1 may seek credit for the equivalent of one subject within a UOW Graduate Certificate in teaching in higher education

11. Academic staff undertaking the CPD Portfolio for probationary purposes will have a minimum workload allocation of three (3) hours per week for one session or one and a half (1 ½) hours per week for two sessions. This minimum allocation facilitates engagement with CPD requirements for probation.

7. Recognition of previous professional development

1. Academic staff may seek recognition of their previous professional development in teaching and learning by incorporating evidence when submitting their CPD portfolio for review. Previous work may include, for example:

a. Graduate certificate in teaching in higher education,

b. HEA or HERDSA fellowships,

c. Other related teaching and learning activities.


http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/resources/index.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/participate/assessment/index.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/resourcehub/index.html

8. Roles & Responsibilities

UOW Human Resources Division will:

1. Issue offers of employment to relevant academic staff as described in Clause 4.

2. Include in each offer of employment:

a. The following statement for teaching staff with a 12 month or longer probation period:

“A requirement of this offer is that you complete a minimum of CPD Level 1 Portfolio to a ‘Satisfactory’ standard as deemed through the review process. Your satisfactory completion of the CPD Portfolio (as outlined in the Continuing Professional Development (Learning & Teaching) Policy) will be considered at probation. It is important that all new staff attend Academic Induction Day (regardless of level of appointment) to gain an understanding of the requirements of the CPD Portfolio. Further details of CPD can found on the CPD website. http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/index.html For your reference, the CPD Policy can be found here(INSERT LINK TO POLICY)”.

b. OR, the following statement for staff with a 11 month or less probation period:

“You are strongly encouraged to engage in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activities coordinated by Learning, Teaching & Curriculum unit. To find out about CPD opportunities visit the CPD website http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/index.html At probation, you will be required to provide an overview of your teaching and learning activities since commencement at UOW, in the relevant section of the probation application form. It is recommended that you use the CPD Framework to guide your overview. All new staff are encouraged to attend Academic Induction Day (regardless of level and duration of appointment) to gain an understanding of the professional development of teaching and learning in the UOW context. For your reference, the CPD Policy can be found here(INSERT LINK TO POLICY)”.

Learning Teaching & Curriculum (LTC) will:

1. Implement and assist with the CPD program.

2. Provide assistance to staff members to engage in the CPD Portfolio process through facilitation of Evidencing Professional Practice workshops, online modules and related resources.

3. Oversee the review process of CPD Portfolios.

4. Provide detailed feedback of the submitted CPD Portfolio to the staff member.

5. Issue notification to the staff member upon satisfactory review of the CPD Portfolio and issue a CPD Completion Certificate. This certificate will include:

a. the CPD Portfolio date of completion; b. the CPD Portfolio level of recognition.

6. Provide the Academic Staff Development Committee with annual statistics on CPD Portfolio completions and engagement in other activities such as workshops and online modules.

7. Evaluate the CPD program and forward those evaluations to the Academic Staff Development Committee.

Heads of Academic Units will:

1. Adjust the teaching, research and/or administrative load of academic staff (within their probationary period) to compensate for their time in undertaking CPD requirements.

2. Refer to Clause 6.11 of this Policy when considering workload allocation.

3. Include discussion on CPD requirements and workload allowance in academic staff annual career development interviews.




Probation and Promotion Committees will:

1. Faculty Academic Probation and Promotion Committees will recognise achievement of the awarded CPD Portfolio Level as evidence of the academic staff member’s competence in Learning and Teaching, aligned with the learning outcomes in the CPD Framework.

9. Review and change history Version Control

Date Effective Approved By Amendment

1 First Version – replaces University Learning and Teaching Course Policy




POLICY: CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (LEARNING & TEACHING) Implementation and Communication Plani

Policy Custodian A/PR Romy Lawson, Director, Learning, Teaching & Curriculum

[email protected]

Policy Author Dr Lisa Thomas & Ms Elise Jeffcott

What is the policy for? This policy sets out UOW’s minimum mandated requirements for Continuing Professional Development (Learning & Teaching) with respect to Academic Probation and Promotion at UOW.

Who is the policy for? Academic staff and Supervisors

Stakeholders

Academic Probation and Promotion Committees

Human Resources

Executive Deans

Heads of School/Academic Supervisors

When does the policy / amendment come into effect?

1 January 2016

What are the potential barriers to successful implementation?

How will they be overcome?

Need to rescind University Learning and Teaching (ULT) Policy, this has been outlined on the New Policy Proposal Form.

What is the impact of the policy / amendment on other policies?

This policy replaces the University Learning and Teaching (ULT) Course Policy. In 2015, in course transition, CPD Level 1 was referred to as CPD Level 1 (ULT).

Related policy documents and/or other supporting documents?

University Learning and Teaching (ULT) Policy

Academic Probation Committee Procedures

ARD-P&F-FRM-028 Policy Implementation and Communication Plan – March 2012 Page 1 of 2 Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to the UOW website or intranet for the latest version.



Implementation and Communication Strategies

Division Responsible

Critical Deadlines

• Procedures and resources related to implementation The CPD Portfolio procedure and supporting CPD program resources have been implemented and communicated via this website http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/index.html

• Methods of dissemination and communication

CPD Program has been and will continue to be communicated through the Universe, website, emails to Associate Deans Education, faculties and staff mailing lists. These strategies will be continued to communicate the new CPD Policy.

• Administrative changes (who, when, how)

The CPD administrative procedures are a continuation of the former ULT procedures.

• Training, induction, briefings (who, when, how) A full suite of CPD activities related to training and induction are offered as part of the program and are advertised on the CPD website http://www.uow.edu.au/dvca/ltc/cpd/index.html and through the Universe.

• Measures to support ongoing enforcement of the policy

Human Resources support the ongoing enforcement of this policy by outlining academic staff requirements in the new employee letter of offer.

• Monitoring and measuring implementation and effectiveness of policy

Through ongoing evaluation of the CPD program and number of annual completions of CPD Portfolios.

LTC LTC LTC LTC HR ASDC

March 2015 Ongoing Ongoing Level 1 complete 2015 2016 onwards 2016 onwards

With respect to the above policy/policy revision, I certify that:

All necessary arrangements to implement the policy have been included in this plan All necessary training and induction arrangements have been included in this plan Stakeholders have been consulted during the development of the policy and their feedback has

been considered All initial and ongoing strategies for communication of the policy have been included in the plan Resources required to implement this policy and associated procedures are available.

Signed: ………………………………………………… Date…………………….. (Policy Author/Custodian) Approved: ……………………………………………… Date……………………. (Senior Executive Member)

This form is to assist staff members in implementing and planning communication strategies when creating or reviewing a policy document.

ARD-P&F-FRM-028 Policy Implementation and Communication Plan – March 2012 Page 2 of 2 Hardcopies of this document are considered uncontrolled. Please refer to the UOW website or intranet for the latest version.




GENERAL COURSE RULES – COURSE VARIATION AGENDA ITEM B2

1. Overview

Relevant Senate Terms of Reference

The Academic Senate shall: make recommendations on proposals for new or amended, university-wide policies relating to research, education, the student experience and administration of courses.

Policy Title General Course Rules Old policy Title (if policy replaces existing policy)

Not Applicable

Policy Custodian Director, Academic Quality & Standards Unit Date revised policy will take effect

On approval by University Council

Date of last review 17 April 2015 Reason for this review/ Context

Faculties and the Conferrals team in the Student Services Division have requested clearer guidance on provisions around students varying their course enrolment. Current lack of clarity causes unnecessary workload and these changes should help to reduce the amount of case-by-case enquiries and ad hoc processes for varying course enrolment.

Summary of key changes

• General Course Rules - Section 6 Enrolment and Variations provisions restrict the capacity to transfer students into courses currently on offer unless a suspended or discontinued course is the only available exit pathway for the student.

• Section 6.6 of the course rules is to make it clear that a variation to course requirements is contingent upon the delegated authority being satisfied that the student meets or will meet course learning requirements for the course as varied.

• Section 6.52 provision is to make clear that a student does not fulfil the requirements of a double degree unless the requirements for the entire course (as varied) are satisfied.

Stakeholder engagement and impact

Consultation has taken place with the Conferrals unit, Head of Students, Education Policy Review Subcommittee (EPRS), Associate Dean’s (Education) and the University Education Committee (UEC).

2. Introduction After substantial review and consultation, the policy provisions that govern enrolment, variations to degree requirements and conferral of awards for courses offered by the University in the General Course Rules (GCR) are now ready to be submitted for consideration and endorsement by the Academic Senate. General Course Rules The GCR are one of the primary sources of information on all stages of the student academic life-cycle. The Rules govern enrolment, variations to enrolment, conferrals and nomenclature of awards offered by the University.


Given the number of recent enquiries from faculties on policy provisions and uncertainties around the processes relating to course and major/minor study variations, the Academic Quality and Standards Unit (AQS) initiated a review of those provisions in the GCR that govern the variation to enrolment. AQS identified that the GCR are silent on some of the more specific situations that can arise. The Conferrals team in the Student Services Division have requested clearer guidance on:

1. Variation to course by transfer into a suspended or discontinued course and variation to major or minor study by transfer into a suspended or discontinued major or minor study;

2. General powers to vary course requirements; and 3. Exit from a single strand of a double degree.

3. Background Suspension or Discontinuation of Courses or Major Studies/Specialisations or Minor Studies When a course or major/specialisation or minor study is proposed for suspension or discontinuation, Academic Senate and, in some cases, senior faculty staff have the delegation to approve this on behalf of the University Council. Upon approval, measures are taken to stop issuing offers or to remove the right of students to declare those majors or minors to prevent further commencements in the course, major or minor study from the year of suspension or discontinuation. These measures ensure:

• accurate reporting to the Commonwealth Government; • compliance with international student obligations (ESOS/CRICOS); • transitional arrangements are put in place to transfer commencing students to other

courses; • teaching out arrangements are made for existing students; and • support payments are managed with Centrelink and the Department of Social

Services. Nevertheless, issues can arise when students seek academic approval, or academic approval is given to transfer students into discontinued or suspended courses, or to allow students to declare discontinued or suspended majors/specialisations/minors. There are no current policy controls in this area. General power to vary course requirements There is a delegation to vary course requirements that rests with senior academic staff in faculties (refer delegation 27.05 in the Delegations of Authority Policy). In the light of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), and its focus on course learning outcomes, it is appropriate to ensure that course requirements are only varied for students where the delegated authority is satisfied that the student will meet the course learning outcomes for the course. Exiting a single strand of a double degree Increasingly, students have been seeking approval to graduate from one strand of a double degree on meeting requirements for that strand, but to stay enrolled in and to complete the other strand. The desire to do this is understandable, but it is often a matter of seeking to satisfy the wishes of a student rather than for any more compelling reason that students are permitted to graduate in these circumstances.


This has given rise to several issues:

• According to the system set-up the course code is unique for a double degree and is a representation of two separate courses. Hence the completion of requirements for the two strands is considered as a course completion.

• Some double degrees have specific course requirements that differ from those within the single strand. Hence, being permitted to graduate from a single strand creates ambiguity about the status of the student in meeting course requirements for that single strand.

• In some cases, students complete the single strand and do not complete the second strand and lapse.

• The Conferrals team has indicated that it is required to manually override the system to effect the completion of the single strand course.

4. Benchmarking with other Universities – Double Degrees AQS reviewed double degree practices at other NSW universities. A detailed report is provided in Attachment 1. The consistent practice across those universities was that they do not allow students enrolled in a double degree to graduate from a single strand until they have either completed both strands or have transferred to a single degree. It is proposed that UOW also adopt this practice. 5. Consultation The Heads of Students (HoSTs) and EPRS were consulted on a number of occasions. EPRS and HoSTs acknowledged the importance of clarifying the policy provisions and administration procedures in conferrals. HoSTs and EPRS welcomed the opportunity to comment and supported proposed amendments to the existing policy provisions. The proposed amendments were put to the UEC meeting of 16 September 2015 and were endorsed. 6. Proposed changes to General Course Rules To provide more consistent and transparent administration of the conferrals process, the following amendments are proposed: Amendments and Additions to Variation of Course - Section 6.14 and 6.15 At present, the General Course Rules (GCR) state for sections 6.14 and 6.15 that:

14. The delegated authority must not grant permission to change registration from one course to another unless satisfied that the student will be able to attain the course learning outcomes for the course to which registration is changed upon completion of the course. 15. Permission for a student to change registration is contingent upon:

a. any restriction that may be imposed on the number of students to be registered for a particular course, location or mode of delivery, and b. satisfaction of any specific admission criteria for a particular course.

The proposed amendment to section 6.14 (below) is to restrict the capacity to transfer students into courses currently on offer unless a suspended or discontinued course is the only available exit pathway for the student.

14. Permission for a student to change registration is contingent upon: a. The delegated authority being satisfied that the student will be able to

meet the course learning outcomes for the course to which registration is changed upon completion of the course;


b. the course to which registration is changed is a course currently on offer at the time of the proposed change of registration (unless a suspended or discontinued course is the only available exit pathway for the student);

c. any restriction that may be imposed on the number of students to be registered for a particular course, location or mode of delivery; and

d. satisfaction of any specific admission criteria for a particular course. The proposed amendment to section 6.15 (below) is to ensure that students are not permitted to declare a major/specialisation/minor that is suspended or discontinued.

15. The delegated authority may grant a student permission to declare a major study or minor study that is not available to a student registered for the course in which the student is registered provided that:

a. The delegated authority is satisfied that the student will be able to meet the course learning outcomes for the course as varied; and

b. the major or minor study approved for variation is not suspended or discontinued at the time of the proposed approval.

Variation to Course Requirements – Section 6.6 The proposed variation to section 6.6 of the GCR is to make it clear that a variation to course requirements is contingent upon the delegated authority being satisfied that the student meets or will meet course learning requirements for the course as varied. At present, section 6.6 states that:

6. Unless otherwise authorised by the relevant delegated authority, students shall follow the prescribed course structure in which they are enrolled, as outlined in the Course Handbook for the year in which they commenced the course. Where a subject listed in that year’s course structure is no longer available, alternative arrangements must be discussed and approved by the delegated authority.

It is proposed that the following sentence is inserted immediately after section 6.6:

Any variation to the prescribed course structure shall only be authorised where the delegated authority is satisfied that the student will meet or has met the course learning outcomes for the course as varied.

Conferral of Double Degrees - Section 6.52 The proposed amendment is to make clear that a student does not fulfil the requirements of a double degree unless the requirements for the entire course (as varied) are satisfied. At present, section 6.52 states that:

52. A course award may be conferred upon a student who has complied with relevant parts of these Rules, is not indebted to the University, and has met the requirements for the course as specified in the Undergraduate Course Handbook or the Postgraduate Course Handbook.

It is proposed that the following sentence is inserted immediately after section 6.52:

A student enrolled in a double degree course award does not meet the requirements for the course unless the requirements for both strands of the double degree course (as varied) are met.


7. Action by Academic Senate Academic Senate is asked to endorse the proposed amendment to the General Course Rules. All changes to University Rules have to be approved by University Council. The Rules will be submitted to the December 2015 Council meeting, effective immediately once approved. Draft Resolution that Academic Senate:

(i) endorse the revisions to Sections 6.6, 6.14, 6.15 and 6.52 of the General Course Rules, as set out in the agenda paper; and

(ii) forward the draft revisions to the General Course Rules to the University Council for approval.

ATTACHMENTS (i) Double Degrees & Concurrent Enrolments – Benchmarking

(ii) Summary of current practices from other Universities Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Course Management Coordinator, Academic Quality & Standards Unit

Executive Officer, Academic Senate




Attachment 1: Double Degrees & Concurrent Enrolments - Benchmarking

University Definition Rationale Structure Course Type Graduation from

single strand?

Governance

Macquarie University

Concurrent degree - Where students are enrolled in two programs of study which are not officially recognised as a double or combined degree. This must be approved on a case-by-case basis.

Allow for students to undertake programs of study which are not established double degrees.

The aim is to study as many units as possible for the second degree as part of the program for the first degree. These units are then transferred to the second degree as credit. Essentially cross counting subjects between the degrees. The duration of the second degree establishes minimum and maximum credit point limits on recognition of prior learning

Concurrent Degree

Yes Assessed against internal course transfer criteria - submit a Concurrent Bachelor Degree Application form. Not allowed in last session of study or if the student has already qualified for the first degree. Not allowed to defer the commencing session of the second degree. Not allowed for international students Cannot start both degrees at the same time

Double Degree - A recognised combination of two programs which allow students to qualify for two degrees with fewer credit points and in less time than it would take to complete each separately.

Allow completion in a faster time frame than completing consecutive degrees.

Highly structured - simultaneous completion Double Degree No Treated as a specific program - students are not allowed to graduate unless they have satisfied all the general requirements of the award.

Combined Degree - A recognised combination of two programs which are studied at the same time. At least one of the programs must be a bachelor degree. Units from one may be recognised as electives towards the other and students may elect to qualify and graduate with the bachelor degree component first (if they meet requirements) and then continue studying the remaining component of their program.

All combined degrees were discontinued in 2014.

N/A Combined Degree

N/A N/A

University of New South Wales

Double Degree - The concurrent study of two (or more) disciplines as a single award. One testamur is awarded on graduation. Unlike combined degree (or Dual Award) programs, double degree program rules do not allow for the award of a single degree for each discipline area studied. Eg BMed/MD

Restricted to the integrated Medicine program.

Students progress directly into the Doctor of Medicine after completing the Bachelor of Medical Studies.

Double Degree No One testamur is awarded on graduation upon completion of the entire course.

Dual Award - The concurrent or sequential study of two (or more) awards under one integrated and coherent program leading to two (or more) awards and two (or more) testamurs (one for each award). Dual Award programs can be within a career or cross-career. Examples include BA LLB, BSc Dip Languages; BE ME; BE MBiomedE, MPH/MHM. Dual Awards were formerly referred to as Combined Degrees.

In principle, any single degree may be taken concurrently with another. A masters coursework program may be combined with another masters coursework program (dual master awards) or with an undergraduate program (cross career programs). Where there is a disciplinary overlap of programs, program documentation will contain information on course sharing and the minimum duration to complete the dual award program. Combinations not prescribed by UNSW require approval of the Academic Board.

Courses completed by a student can, in principle, satisfy more than one academic requirement [course sharing]. Double counting subjects restricted to a maximum. Once the double-counting limit is reached in a dual award program, courses may still be shared but the course UOC is usually counted towards the award component with the larger UOC still to be completed. As a consequence, additional electives will need to be completed to meet the minimum UOC requirement for the other award.

Dual Award Yes No student is permitted to be concurrently enrolled except with the approval of the Faculty/Faculties concerned. Students recieve two testamurs. Students may graduate in one of the component degree programs of a dual award program after the requirements of the component degree have been met [ie the student has completed the minimum UOC, the disciplinary core, and met requirements for majors and/or minors, as specified for that program] or jointly after completion of both component programs. Student cannot graduate from postgraduate whilst yet to complete undergraduate. Dual programs have a unique course code from their single counterparts.


University of Sydney

Combined Degree - A single program with a single set of course resolutions leading to the award of two degrees.

Lower volume of learning if degrees were taken separately. Eg Master of Nursing Combined. Or where single degree is not offered. Eg Law Doubles.

Master of Nursing Combined: Entire first year is undergraduate. Second and third year are a combination of undergrad and postgrad. Fourth and final year is postgraduate. Finish in 4 years rather than 5 (3 years undergrad, 2 years postgrad). Highly structured.

Combined Degree

No Cannot graduate from a single strand as students would not have satisfied the requirements of the single degree if it were taken separately.

Concurrent Enrolment - Simultaneous enrolment in more than one award course at any level. Includes courses offered by other institutions.

Students cannot be concurrently enrolled at any level, except with approval of the relevant Associate Deans or as part of an approved combined or double degree program.

N/A Concurrent Degree

N/A AD approval required - case by case basis.

Double Degree - means a course in which a student completes two AQF qualifications under one set of course resolutions with no cross crediting of units of study between the qualifications. A single testamur or separate testamurs may be issued.

Establish pathways for profession specific courses eg Double Degree Medicine program.

Highly structured - consecutive completion. Double Degree No A single testamur or separate testamurs may be issued. Single course code for doubles.

University of

Technology Sydney

Bachelor Degree - Some Bachelor degrees may be offered as a combined degree which consists of components of two degrees and may, but need not, enable a student to graduate with both degrees in a shorter time than required to complete both degrees independently.

Not detailed in policy. Integrated course structures - reduced volume of learning.

Combined Degree

No Separate testamurs issued. Separate course codes for combined degrees.

University of Western

Sydney

Concurrent Enrolment Students may enrol is more than one UWS course provided minimum progression rates are met.

Structure as per individual awards and minimum progression requirements.

Concurrent Degree

Yes Separate testamurs issued as individual degrees.

Double Degree - A double-degree course of study is a course for two otherwise separate degree programs which have been studied in conjunction, and in which units from one are recognised as electives towards the other.

Not detailed in policy. Flexible structure arranged as per major - able to graduate after completing requirements one either award. Course Handbook lists a 'Recommended Sequence'

Double Degree Yes Each component of the award is identified as an exit pathway. A student may receive both testamurs simultaneously upon completion of each; or complete one before completion of the other, receive a testamur for the completed award and then subsequently complete the other; or complete one award as an exit pathway, receive a testamur and leave the University. A student who exits from a double degree program, but who subsequently elects to complete requirements for the second component of the double degree program, will then be enrolled in that second component as a separate award program and will not be enrolled in the original double degree program.


University of

Wollongong

Double Degree - An approved course leading to the conferral of two degrees as separate awards upon a student who has complied with the course requirements for double degrees and the two individual course requirements inclusively.

The purpose of a double degree is to allow students to complete two degree programs while taking advantage of credit transfer between the two programs accounted for in the design of the double degree - reducing the total volume of learning up to prescribed maximums. A double degree incorporates two separate single degree courses of the same level offered by one or more Faculties. Students who successfully complete a double degree program will qualify for each of the single degree courses.

Prescribed integrated course structure as per handbooks.

Double Degree Yes Separate testamurs issued at the one graduation - only conferred upon completion of the entire course. Separate course codes to individual courses. Only courses of the same level. Separate course codes.

Concurrent Enrolment - Enrolment in two or more courses either at the University or at the University and another tertiary institution

No express provisions relating to concurrent enrolments.

As per individual degrees. Concurrent Degree

Yes Two separate testamurs issued at either one or two graduations.



Attachment 2: Summary of current practices from other Universities Name Definition Structure Rationale Graduation Exit Pathways

Double Degree A course of study combining learning requirements from two separate programs under one integrated and coherent structure with unique course learning outcomes.

Highly structured, integrated course structure. Specific CLOs reflecting integration of individual strands. Individual course code.

Aimed at specific professions. Students benefit from credit arrangements. Reduce double degree offerings to only most suitable courses

Issue single testamur upon completion of prescribed structure

Course transfer to single degree – may graduate provided the course requirements of the individual strand have been met. Completion of second strand is subject to Credit for Prior Learning Policy provisions – credit may be granted for prior learning up to 10 years.

Dual Award The concurrent study of two separate awards as a recognised course program.

As per individual course structures. Units from one program may as electives towards the other.

Greater flexibility – ‘pick your own program of study method’

Separate testamurs (one for each) Students may graduate upon completion of each individual course (or simultaneously)

Students may be conferred with either degree. Subject to minimum progression requirements for each. Unique course codes for dual awards.



UOW GRADUATE QUALITIES POLICY – PROPOSED RESCISSION AGENDA ITEM B3 Background In light of the development of higher education legislation over recent years, a shifting emphasis towards evidencing student achievement in course level learning outcomes and the requirement for all courses to be Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) compliant, a review has been conducted to the necessity for the University’s policy on graduate attributes – the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy. The UOW Graduate Qualities Policy requires courses to map their learning outcomes and assessment to a set of University Level Graduate Qualities. After the recent review, these requirements appear redundant and are adding an unnecessary additional layer of work in course approval and quality assurance. Subsequently, this paper proposes that the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy is rescinded. Further detail on the background, consultation to date, proposed implementation and transitional arrangements can be found in the Discussion Paper attached to this Agenda item. The proposal to rescind the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy was provided to the University Education Committee (UEC) on 16 September 2015 for feedback and input. UEC endorsed the proposed rescission. Consequential Amendments to other University Policy Documents Discussion with the Academic Quality and Standards Unit has established that as a result of the proposed rescission of the Policy, consequential amendment to remove reference to the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy is required to the following policy documents:

• Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment; • Code of Practice – Supervision; • Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience; and the • Academic Review Policy.

It is anticipated that these consequential amendments will be put to Council for consideration alongside the proposal to rescind the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy. Draft Resolution that Academic Senate:

(i) endorse the rescission of the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy, as set out in the agenda paper; and

(ii) forward the documentation to Council for rescission, to be effective immediately.

ATTACHMENT (i) Graduate Qualities Discussion Paper

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Director Learning, Teaching & Curriculum





GRADUATE QUALITIES PAPER: Academic Senate September 2015

1. Background In 1992, as a requirement of government funding of universities, all higher education institutions were required to make a public statement of graduate attributes (Barrie, Hughes & Smith, 2009). These graduate attributes were defined as “descriptions of the core abilities and values a university community agrees all its graduates should develop as a result of successfully completing their university studies” (Barrie et al 2009, p.1). Responding to this, UOW developed the Attributes of UOW Graduates. These were complemented by the then UOW Tertiary Literacies Policy.

In 2006, a major project to refresh UOW’s approach to graduate attributes resulted in the current UOW Graduate Qualities and accompanying policy and guidelines. These were approved by University Council, in August 2007. This policy described the distinctive qualities of a graduate of the University of Wollongong (“the UOW Graduate Qualities”), qualities that would equip UOW graduates for roles in society and the workplace.

The UOW Graduate Qualities were developed to guide: • UOW students, to develop personally and professionally as they progress through their

courses; • UOW and UOW College staff, in their curriculum development, learning and teaching

strategies, evaluation and assessment practices; • UOW Higher Degree Research (HDR) supervisors, in their role of supporting and mentoring

HDR students.

The 2007 UOW Graduate Qualities Policy stated that the University of Wollongong is committed to developing graduates who are:

• Informed: Have a sound knowledge of an area of study or profession and understand its current issues, locally and internationally. Know how to apply this knowledge. Understand how an area of study has developed and how it relates to other areas.

• Independent learners: Engage with new ideas and ways of thinking and critically analyse issues. Seek to extend knowledge through ongoing research, enquiry and reflection. Find and evaluate information, using a variety of sources and technologies. Acknowledge the work and ideas of others.

• Problem solvers: Take on challenges and opportunities. Apply creative, logical and critical thinking skills to respond effectively. Make and implement decisions. Be flexible, thorough, innovative and aim for high standards.

• Effective communicators: Articulate ideas and convey them effectively using a range of media. Work collaboratively and engage with people in different settings. Recognise how culture can shape communication.

• Responsible: Understand how decisions can affect others and make ethically informed choices. Appreciate and respect diversity. Act with integrity as part of local, national, global and professional communities.

The policy states that the Graduate Qualities were to be addressed in all courses of study taught at the University, and could be interpreted as a list of “Faculty/Discipline Graduate Qualities”, in which Faculties and Graduate Schools articulate the Qualities for students in a particular faculty, discipline or course level. They were then developed through both students’ participation in their courses of study; and a range of programs and activities available to students that supplement their courses of study.


2. Current Climate This focus on university level graduate attributes has shifted since 1992. Under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Act 2011, universities and other higher education providers are responsible for ensuring that their self-accredited courses of study comply with the Provider Course Accreditation Standards. Section five of the framework sets the standards for assessment with the expectation that is designed so that it “is effective and expected student learning outcomes are achieved”. This was reinforced in standard 5.1 which stated:

Assessment tasks for the course of study and its units provide opportunities for students to demonstrate achievement of the expected student learning outcomes for the course of study.

In 2015, the final proposed Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) has been revised and this expectation of demonstrating course (degree) level learning outcomes are met is even more heavily emphasised:

Proposed Higher Education Standards framework (2015) - Section 1.4 - Learning Outcomes and Assessment 1. The expected learning outcomes for each course of study are specified, consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded, and informed by national and international comparators. 2. The specified learning outcomes for each course of study encompass discipline-related and generic outcomes, including:

a. specific knowledge and skills and their application that characterise the field(s) of education or disciplines involved b. generic skills and their application in the context of the field(s) of education or disciplines involved c. knowledge and skills required for employment and further study related to the course of study, including those required to be eligible to seek registration to practise where applicable, and d. skills in independent and critical thinking suitable for life-long learning.

3. Methods of assessment are consistent with the learning outcomes being assessed, are capable of confirming that all specified learning outcomes are achieved and that grades awarded reflect the level of student attainment. 4. On completion of a course of study, students have demonstrated the learning outcomes specified for the course of study, whether assessed at unit level, course level, or in combination. HESF Reference Points (for identifying course level learning outcomes)

i. Australian Qualifications Framework ii. Learning outcomes statements developed for the field of education or discipline by

discipline communities or professional bodies. iii. The requirements for professional accreditation of the course of study and registration of

graduates where applicable. iv. Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Research, Good Practice Principles of Graduate

Research.

3. Proposed Rescission of the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy In line with the development of legislation over the recent years, with the emphasis having shifted to evidencing student achievement in course level learning outcomes; and the requirement for all courses to be Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) compliant, the need for an additional set of University Level Graduate Qualities seems redundant and in fact is adding an additional layer of work in course approval and quality assurance. This paper therefore proposes that the UOW Graduate Qualities Policy is rescinded.


It is felt that none of the richness of the Graduate Qualities would be lost from this exercise, as when the current UOW Graduate Qualities are compared to the AQF levels it is evident that all the attributes are incorporated (See Table 1): UOW GQ Informed Independent

learners Problem solvers

Effective communicators

Responsible

AQF (7) Bachelor Degree

Graduates at this level will have broad and coherent theoretical and technical knowledge with depth in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement and responsibility: • in contexts that require self-directed work and learning • within broad parameters to provide specialist advice and functions

Graduates at this level will have well-developed cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse and evaluate information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to unpredictable and sometimes complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will have well-developed cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse and evaluate information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to unpredictable and sometimes complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement and responsibility: • in contexts that require self-directed work and learning • within broad parameters to provide specialist advice and functions

AQF (8) Bachelor Honours, Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma

Graduates at this level will have advanced theoretical and technical knowledge in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Graduates at this level will have advanced cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse critically, evaluate and transform information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will have advanced cognitive, technical and communication skills to select and apply methods and technologies to: • analyse critically, evaluate and transform information to complete a range of activities • analyse, generate and transmit solutions to complex problems • transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to others

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, well- developed judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner


UOW GQ Informed Independent learners

Problem solvers

Effective communicators

Responsible

AQF (9) Masters Degrees

Graduates at this level will have advanced and integrated understanding of a complex body of knowledge in one or more disciplines or areas of practice

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, expert judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Graduates at this level will have expert, specialised cognitive and technical skills in a body of knowledge or practice to independently: • analyse critically, reflect on and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories • research and apply established theories to a body of knowledge or practice • interpret and transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to specialist and non-specialist audiences

Graduates at this level will have expert, specialised cognitive and technical skills in a body of knowledge or practice to independently: • analyse critically, reflect on and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories • research and apply established theories to a body of knowledge or practice • interpret and transmit knowledge, skills and ideas to specialist and non-specialist audiences

Graduates at this level will apply knowledge and skills to demonstrate autonomy, expert judgement, adaptability and responsibility as a practitioner or learner

Table 1: Mapping of UOW Graduate Qualities to AQF Levels 7-9

With this emphasis on course learning outcomes as the driver of curriculum design, it is therefore vital that time is spent on constructing appropriate course learning outcomes (CLOs) that meet internal and external requirements. If they are constructed well the CLOs will encompass external requirements (for example, AQF Levels; Discipline Thresholds; Professional Body Requirements), university themes and the course context and standard (Figure 1). In this way curriculum mapping need only occur once, to the CLOs – allowing the assurance of learning process to be streamlined to focussing on just assuring the CLOs, eliminating the need to repeat the AQF and Graduate Qualities mapping process to individual subjects.

Figure 1: Streamlining AOL process through Course Learning Outcomes


The University is already undertaking work that supports a focus on course level learning outcomes to meet the HESF. When this is complete, the UOW Graduate Qualities will be redundant. This work includes the proposed Course Policy (see Appendix I) and the proposed Course Design Procedures (scheduled to be put to Council for approval in late 2015), the Assessment and Feedback Principles (see Appendix II) and the new curriculum management system (see Appendix III).

4. Consultation This discussion paper was first presented to the University Education Committee (UEC) in July 2015. The only point raised at this time was that although the rescinding of a policy that made mapping and evidencing graduate qualities a requirement in courses was appropriate, the essence of the qualities should not be abandoned. This has been addressed as they are still evident in the graduates section in both the current and proposed University Strategic Plan. UEC agreed that this was a timely proposal that should be opened for wider discussion to allow the UOW community to comment.

Opportunities have been offered to members of the University community to provide comment on this proposal. These have included:

• Open forum (August, 2015 – 0 attendees); • Requests for feedback via Universe and the UOW web (0 responses); • Invitations to speak to faculties (Business Faculty Education Committee (FEC), September,

2015 where the proposal was met positively with FEC members seeing this would streamline practice. The only concern was in relation to the implementation of the proposal but this was addressed when the phased approach was explained);

• AQSS (positive response in meeting, 0 follow up responses); • ADE discussion (positive response to proposal).

5. Implications and transitional arrangements This proposal would be implemented in a phased approach so work already done in mapping subjects to the AQF and UOW Graduate Qualities will not have to be repeated. Rather than embark on remapping each course, it is proposed that new courses adopted this revised approach and the existing AQF and Graduate Qualities mappings for current courses should stand until the time of each major cyclic course review. At that point, the course mapping will be to course learning outcomes which will be aligned to the AQF and any additional external body requirements.

6. Implementation Timeline Action Timing

Discussion Paper to UEC for comment July 2015 Consultation Phase July - August 2015 UEC Endorsement September 2015 Academic Senate Endorsement September 2015 Council Approval December 2015

Amend related policies including: UOW Graduate Qualities Policy Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment Code of Practice – Supervision Code of Practice – Student Professional Experience Academic Review Policy UOW Strategic Plan 2011 - 2013

January 2016

Implementation by faculties New courses –June 2016; Existing courses as part of cyclical course reviews, commencing June 2016


http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058682.html

http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/ssLINK/3426/UOW058666









http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@spq/documents/doc/uow090598.pdf

Appendix I: Excerpts from the Proposed Course Policy Assurance of learning involves a systematic process of:

a. identifying expected course learning outcomes b. designing courses to foster attainment of learning outcomes c. collecting data about student attainment of learning outcomes d. reviewing and benchmarking this data, and e. continuously developing and improving courses and subjects.

2. The purpose of Assurance of Learning is to ensure UOW graduates achieve the learning outcomes we claim they will achieve. As well as contributing to the improvement of our courses, assurance of learning is also a way of demonstrating our accountability to students and external stakeholders. 3. A well-developed Assurance of Learning process is characterised by:

3.1. clear course learning outcomes, which are consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded and informed by national and/or international comparators;

3.2. teaching and learning activities arranged to foster progressive and coherent achievement of expected learning outcomes;

3.3. methods of assessment which are capable of confirming that students are achieving the course learning outcomes;

3.4. grades which reflect the level of student achievement; 3.5. course review and improvement activities, including periodic comprehensive reviews of

all courses of study; 3.6. review and improvement are informed by consideration of indirect measures of

learning (graduate surveys, employers surveys, alumni feedback) and regular benchmarking; and

3.7. evidence of the way in which this information (learning outcomes, student performance, indirect measures) influences teaching, learning and research by informing students, initiating curriculum change or developing teaching practice and resource development.

Appendix II: Excerpts from the Assessment & Feedback Principles (Academic Endorsed, April 2015) Include the principle of ‘alignment’, stating that: Good assessment design is a whole of course task that requires:

• planning and systematic development by course teams; • explicit alignment with course and subject learning outcomes; and • focus on scaffolding and integrating learning, especially at key points throughout the course.

Appendix III: Curriculum Management System This will include tools for course teams to:

• Align Course Learning Outcomes to internal and external standards, including the Australian Qualifications Framework.

• Describe and map the assessments which will assure attainment of Course Learning Outcomes.

• Optionally, describe and map assessments which will scaffold the attainment of Course Learning Outcomes.

• Visually represent how student attainment of Course Learning Outcomes is progressively developed across the entire program.


COPTA REVIEW PROGRESS REPORT AGENDA ITEM B4

This item relates to the following Academic Senate Terms of Reference: “The Senate shall:

1. advise the Vice-Chancellor and Council on… the administration of academic policies and regulations…

4. make recommendations on proposals for new or amended, university-wide policies relating to research, education, the student experience and administration of courses”

A Working Group of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee (EPRS) is currently undertaking a scheduled review of the Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment (COPTA). COPTA is the primary policy document relating to assessment at UOW, setting out the University’s approach to effective learning, teaching and assessment, the principles underlying teaching and assessment practice, and specific responsibilities of University staff in relation to learning, teaching and assessment. During its review, the Working Group has given particular reference to:

a) issues logged since the last scheduled review; b) issues raised during consultation with targeted stakeholders; c) recent developments in the area of assessment and feedback at UOW (2015 has been

identified as the Year of Assessment and Feedback); d) assessment-related policy and practice at other Universities; and e) external requirements as set out in the Higher Education Standards Framework.

Considerable work has now been undertaken to address issues and incorporate feedback received into a revised version of COPTA. During the redrafting process, however, it has become increasingly difficult to maintain a single document that is clear and cohesive. Additionally, the policy provisions to be included are now considerably broader than what is expected for a Code – that is, “a statement of rules and expectations which have been approved in some formal way but without the legal force of legislation or regulations. They focus on duties and responsibilities for particular circumstances, often outlining the required standard of practice or behaviour” (as defined in the Standard on UOW Policy). To address these challenges, the Working Group has considered different ways to present the required information and has also looked at what other Universities have in place for their assessment-related policies. In light of this, an alternate model is proposed: a Teaching and Assessment policy suite, which will involve packaging three separate policy documents as a suite with a connecting title “Teaching and Assessment:” (similar to the existing Intellectual Property (IP) policy suite), i.e.

• Teaching and Assessment: Code of Practice – Teaching • Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy • Teaching and Assessment: Subject Delivery Policy

The breakdown at Attachment 1 indicates the components of each proposed policy document, with potential new elements underlined (noting that there will be major revisions to most of the existing sections as well). In re-shaping the presentation of COPTA, the Working Group proposes to look at how the policy requirements relate to the UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching, i.e. how the revised package of policies fit under each of the Framework elements of ‘Design, Support, Delivery, and Performance’.


Consideration is also being given to whether any other existing education policy documents should sit within the Teaching and Assessment suite, either as standalone policy documents or by being incorporated within the three proposed policy documents above. Policy documents currently being considered for inclusion are the Code of Practice – Casual Academic Teaching, Good Practice Guidelines – Leading Teaching Teams, and Good Practice Assessment Guidelines, all of which are overdue for review. The current breakdown of these policy documents is shown at Attachment 2. The proposed model for a Teaching and Assessment policy suite was presented to EPRS at its 19 August 2015 meeting, where members indicated their support for the proposed model. Academic Senate members are asked to consider, and provide feedback on, the proposed model for a Teaching and Assessment policy model to replace the existing Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment. Members are encouraged to consider the following questions:

• Do you think the proposed Teaching and Assessment policy suite is a sensible approach to presenting policy provisions relating to teaching and assessment?

o Will users find it clear and accessible? o Are there any risks in presenting the policy provisions in this format?

• Does the proposed breakdown of the Teaching and Assessment policy suite make sense? • Are there any components that are missing from the proposed breakdown? • What communication and implementation activities should be undertaken to foster

engagement with the proposed policy suite? Feedback on the proposed model for a Teaching and Assessment policy suite will be taken into consideration by the COPTA Review Working Group as it continues to review and redraft teaching and assessment policy provisions. The resulting policy provisions will then be the subject of both targeted and broad consultation, prior to being submitted through the appropriate approval pathway. Draft Resolution that Academic Senate note the COPTA Review Progress Report and provide feedback on the proposed Teaching and Assessment policy model, as set out in the agenda paper and attachments, via [email protected] by Friday, 2 October 2015.

ATTACHMENTS (i) Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite: Proposed Breakdown

(ii) Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite: Additional Potential Inclusions Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Academic Quality & Policy Specialist, AQS





Attachment 1 - Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite: Proposed Breakdown

Teaching and Assessment: Code of Practice – Teaching

• Purpose • Definitions • Application & Scope • Principles • Responsibilities

o University o Faculty o Faculty Education Committee o Associate Dean (Education) o Head of Academic Unit o Course Leadership and Direction o Subject Coordinator o Supervisor (Creative or other Special

Projects) o Teaching Staff

• Schedule 1: Leadership and Coordination of UOW Courses Framework

• Schedule 2: Teacher Qualifications and Equivalence

Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy

• Purpose • Definitions • Application & Scope • Policy Principles • Principles of Assessment and Feedback at

UOW • Assurance of Learning • Assessment and Feedback Practice

o Assessment Methods and Tasks o Feedback to Students o Procedures for Managing Submission

and Return of Written Assessment Tasks

o Faculty Examinations o Recording of Student Marks o Determination of Final Results

• Assessment of Honours Projects • Assuring Standards of Assessment [new

Assessment Quality Cycle provisions] • Retention of Assessment Records • Student Complaints • Roles and Responsibilities (ref COP-T) • Cross-reference to other assessment-

related policies • Schedule 1: UOW Grade Descriptors • Schedule 2: Retention of Assessment

Records

Teaching and Assessment: Subject Delivery Policy

• Purpose • Definitions • Application & Scope • Subject Delivery • Digital Learning • Subject Outlines

o Subject Outline Checklist and General Advice

• Annual Subject Review • Subject Quotas • Subject Instance Cancellation • Not On Offer Subjects • Roles and Responsibilities (ref COP-T) • Schedule 1: Digital Learning Thresholds

*Potential new elements indicated by underline



Attachment 2 - Teaching and Assessment Policy Suite: Additional Potential Inclusions [current] Code of Practice – Casual Academic Teaching

• Purpose • Definitions • Application & Scope • Principles • University Responsibilities • Faculty Responsibilities

o Recruitment o Employment o Induction and Preparation o Management o Resourcing o Communication o Professional Development o Recognition o Implementation and

Monitoring • Casual Academic Employee

Responsibilities • Professional Development Provider

Responsibilities • Academic Services Division

Responsibilities

[current] Good Practice Guidelines – Leading Teaching Teams

• Introduction • Scope / Purpose • Definitions • Key Principles for Leading Teaching

Teams o Recruitment and Employment o Resourcing and Access to

Teaching Materials o Building a Community of

Practice o Training and Professional

Development o Quality Assurance

[current] Good Practice Assessment Guidelines

• Introduction / Background • Scope / Purpose • Definitions • Flowchart • Frequently Asked Questions • Part A: Designing Assessment

o General Assessment Principles o A Comparison of Assessment Methods o Considerations o Designing Assessment Tasks to Minimise Plagiarism o Indicators of Quality Assessment Checklist

• Part B: Implementing Assessment – Practical Issues o Introduction o Assessment Criteria o Providing Feedback to Students o Marking o Group Work o Assessing Practical Skills – Laboratory Exercises and Reports o Assessing Large Classes o Class Participation o In-session Tests o Online Assessment o Disabilities Support o References

• Part C: Faculty / Unit Processes o At the Course Level o At the Faculty/Unit Level

• Roles and Responsibilities • Appendix 1: Faculty/Unit Guidelines for In-Session Tests –

Checklist • Appendix 2: Group Work – Good Practice Example • Appendix 3: Sample Subject Outline • Appendix 4: Sample Assignment Coversheet



TEQSA RE-REGISTRATION UPDATE AGENDA ITEM B5 1. Background The University of Wollongong’s (UOW) registration as a higher education provider with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) expires on 31 March 2018. Submission of UOW’s renewal of registration application is due 30 September 2017. The preparation process for re-registration has commenced and is detailed in this paper. 2. UOW’s Renewal of Registration Planning A TEQSA Re-Registration Project Plan was endorsed by the Academic Quality & Standards Subcommittee (AQSS) of the University Education Committee (UEC) at its meeting on 28 July 2015. The Plan has three stages (Preliminary, Active and Formal & Focussed) to ensure that the University is ready to submit its application for re-registration by the due date (see diagram below). A TEQSA Steering Group will be established under the leadership of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) in 2016 to oversee preparations.

Figure 1: Staging of TEQSA Re-registration Planning

The AQSS also considered the findings of three separate self-assessments:

1. A gap analysis against TEQSA’s re-registration minimum evidence requirements; 2. A review of outcomes since the last major external audit (Australian Universities

Quality Agency (AUQA) Audit 2011); and 3. A preliminary gap analysis against the proposed new Higher Education Standards

Framework (onshore).

Phase 1 Mar 2015- Mar 2016

Phase 2 Mar 2016- Mar 2017

Phase 3 Mar 2017- Sept 2017

1

• PRELIMINARY •Gap analysis against TEQSA Re-registration minimum evidence requirements •Gap Analysis against new draft Higher Education Standards Framework •Progress report on Implementation of AUQA Audit recommendations •Development of new Quality Improvement Plan

2

• ACTIVE •Establishment of TEQSA Steering Group under auspice of DVCA •Assessment of priorities •Active monitoring of improvement actions •Regular reporting to relevant committees

3

• FORMAL & FOCUSSED •Discussion with TEQSA re scope>formal advice on scope and evidence

requirements •Collection and compilation of evidence/documentation •Completion and approval of re-registration application •Submission of re-registration application by 30 September 2017


The results of the three assessments will inform the development of a UOW Quality Improvement Plan (QIP). This Plan will enable UOW to monitor and report key improvement initiatives in a systematic way. The QIP will be forwarded to Academic Senate in the second quarter of 2016 for Academic Senate’s information.

3. Gap analysis against TEQSA’s re-registration minimum evidence requirements This assessment was conducted in March-April 2015 by the Academic Quality & Standards (AQS) Unit. Evidence gaps were identified in five key areas:

# Evidence Gaps Work-in-progress 1 Benchmarking of assessment

processes (external moderation)

UOW is participating in an external referencing project Spring Session 2015 with RMIT, Curtin and QUT. New Assessment QA (moderation) principles and requirements to be incorporated in new policy replacing the Code of Practice – Teaching and Assessment (COPTA).

2 Monitoring of academic review outcomes

New course review schedule developed for 2015-2019. Annual report on course reviews/academic policy reviews to go to AQSS>UEC>Academic Senate>Council.

3 Course re-approval or re-accreditation process

New Course Policy Framework endorsed by Senate on 26 August 2015. To go to Council in October. Revised Course Review Procedures will require time-limited course approval and re-approval by Senate with comprehensive course reviews occurring on a 5 year rolling cycle.

4 Systematic approach to student feedback surveys across all locations

The Student Experience Questionnaire (SEQ) is conducted by UOW and UOW Dubai but not at Transnational Education (TNE) partner locations. Review into SEQ and Subject Evaluation Surveys (SES) is underway. A proposed move to online SES will assist to ensure they are administered across all locations.

5 Systematic means of collecting, analysing and responding to management information on student complaints and cases of academic misconduct across all locations

Revised Academic Integrity Policy endorsed by the Education Policy Review Subcommittee (EPRS) and on track to go to September UEC > November Academic Senate > December Council. Proposed Policy strengthens records management requirements of alleged academic misconduct and outcomes of investigations. New draft Collaborative Provision procedures stipulate requirement to report student complaints/ student misconduct data as part of annual review process.

4. AUQA Audit Recommendations – Review of actions taken since July 2011 A review of progress in implementing the recommendations arising from the 2011 Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) Audit has been completed. For a summary of the findings, contact [email protected]. Eight recommendations were received and significant progress has been made in five of these areas. Three areas have been assessed as requiring further attention:

# AUQA Recommendations Work-in-progress 1 Subject and teaching

evaluation A review initiated by AQSS is underway. It is expected to report by the end of the year.

2 Performance reviews for academic staff

Non-compliance issue raised by Human Resources Division at Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group (VCAG) on 24 August 2015. Executive Deans to raise matter at faculty meetings and report back to VCAG by October 2015.

3 Benchmarking offshore teaching partnerships

To be discussed with Transnational Education & Alliances (TNE&A) and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Global Strategy).



5. Compliance Assessment – Higher Education Standards Framework A compliance assessment against the proposed Higher Education Standards (the Standards) Framework was undertaken by AQS between May and July 2015. For a summary of the findings, contact [email protected]. This assessment is preliminary as it has not yet involved input at a faculty or University-wide level and its scope is limited to onshore campuses. The next stage will involve wider input, a closer interrogation of evidence and the extension of the assessment to include UOWD and collaborative teaching arrangements. This stage will be completed by the end of the first Quarter in 2016.

The desk-based assessment was conducted using a three-point rating scale to assess compliance with all 102 proposed Standards. The results of this assessment are below:

Rating Description Results Compliant The assessment of policies, practices and evidence clearly and

consistently support the conclusion that the University is compliant with the proposed Standard (although there may still be room for improvement).

70

Compliant but…

The assessment of policies and practices support the conclusion that the University is compliant with the proposed Standard, however, the evidence to support this conclusion may be weak or work is in progress (there are identified areas for improvement).

25

Working towards compliance

The assessment indicates that the University is not yet compliant with the proposed Standard, or the evidence about compliance is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that the University is compliant.

7

Many of the proposed Standards are multi-faceted, open to interpretation and the assessment of compliance is not always clear. That said, the assessment team found seven Standards for which the evidence indicates that UOW is not yet compliant (see Table below). However, work is underway to ensure compliance for all standards by 2017.

# Standard Work-in-progress 1 1.4(4) Learning Outcomes and

Assessment – assurance of learning outcomes

New Course Management System (under development by Information Management and Technology Services Division (IMTS)/ Learning, Teaching & Curriculum (LTC)/ AQS) provides opportunity to develop new tools to assist with mapping of Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) to Subject Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and assessment tasks (Paper presented to recent meetings of AQSS and UEC).

2 3.2(3) Staffing – teacher qualifications (AQF+1) or equivalent

AQSS Working Group established to develop policy guidelines to support assessment of equivalency – draft policy expected to be released for consultation by end of year.

3 5.1(3) Course Approval or Accreditation – course re-approval with independent input

Proposed Course Review Procedures require two external persons on Course Review Panel – with courses to be reviewed on 5 year rolling schedule.

4 5.2(2) Academic and Research Integrity – preventative action

Proposed Academic Integrity Policy places more emphasis on education and prevention of academic misconduct.

5 5.2(4) Academic and Research Integrity – third party arrangements

Revised policy includes new clause to ensure that academic integrity is maintained in arrangements with collaborative partners (contract template will need to be revised accordingly). Further discussion with TNE&A needed.

6 5.3(1) Monitoring, Review and Improvement – external referencing/benchmarking of courses

As noted above - UOW is participating in an external referencing project Spring Session 2015 with RMIT, Curtin and QUT. New Assessment QA (moderation) principles and requirements to be incorporated in new policy replacing COPTA.



7 7.2(4) Information for Prospective and Current Students – notice about changes to fees

New Admissions, Fees and Scholarship Senior Manager within Student Services Division is reviewing fees policy and practices to ensure students are notified when fees are increased (currently letter of offer warns students that fees can be changed but no notice is given when fees do change).

6. Next steps A summary of the actions to be taken over the next six months appears below:

# Step Timing 1 Conduct gap analysis against the Higher Education Standards Framework

for UOWD – with assistance of UOWE/UOWD Sept-Feb 2016

2 Conduct gap analysis against the Higher Education Standards Framework for offshore locations – with assistance of TNE&A and offshore partners

Sept-Feb 2016

3 Develop draft Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) By end Feb 2016 4 Establish TEQSA Steering Group

(QIP will become the work plan for the TEQSA Steering Group) March-April 2016

5 New QIP to be endorsed by AQSS, Academic Senate and Council By mid-2016

7. Other TEQSA News TEQSA Visit – 3 September UOW hosted an informal visit by two TEQSA representatives on 3 September 2015. Ms Pauline Carrafa and Ms Lorraine Buckman visited the main campus and the Innovation Campus as part of an extended stay in Wollongong to attend the Association for Tertiary Education Management Conference. Thanks go to Julie Kiggins, Margie Jantti, Alan Champion and Vickie Giffen for taking the time to speak to our visitors. They were particularly impressed with the Early Start building, the Library, the new Science building and the campus environment. They also met with representatives from UOW College.

TEQSA Forum – 7 September The Forum was held in Sydney and was for self-accrediting providers in NSW. The Chief Commissioner, Professor Nick Saunders AO, provided an update on the higher education sector and TEQSA’s evolving role as a regulator. Professor Saunders focused on risk assessment, re-registration and the transition to the proposed Higher Education Standards. Legislation to give effect to the proposed Standards is currently being drawn up and Professor Saunders expects the proposed Standards to be in place and applied to any registration or re-registration occurring after 1 January 2017.

UOW’s latest Risk Assessment by TEQSA A provider’s risk assessment is updated each year, however TEQSA does not send the assessment to the provider unless there are issues or unless the provider requests to see the document. UOW requested and received its 2015 risk assessment. On all 12 indicators, UOW is rated as low risk and our overall risk rating is ‘low’. Across the sector there are 70 institutions that fall into the ‘low’ risk category, including most universities.

TEQSA releases its Corporate Plan TEQSA has released its latest corporate plan which sets out its activities and priorities for 2015-19. See http://www.teqsa.gov.au/about/corporate-plan.


http://www.teqsa.gov.au/about/corporate-plan

Draft Resolution that Academic Senate note the TEQSA Re-registration Update as set out in the agenda paper.

NO ATTACHMENT Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

Acting Director, Academic Quality and Standards





AGENDA ITEMS *C1 – C3

PART C

ACADEMIC SENATE COMMITTEE BUSINESS



STRATEGIC COURSE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (SCDC) CHAIR’S REPORT AGENDA ITEM *C2 Academic Senate members should note that this item was deferred at the 26 August 2015 Academic Senate meeting and has been carried over to this meeting. Professor Eeva Leinonen, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Chair of the Strategic Course Development Committee has provided the attached Chair’s Report and will speak to it the meeting. The 2015 SCDC Work Plan and 2017 Implementation Key Dates are available here or by contacting Course Management. Draft Resolution that Academic Senate note the Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC) Chair’s Report as attached to the agenda paper, and are encouraged to provide feedback on the issues raised at the Senate meeting, or at any time through the Chair of SCDC, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

ATTACHMENT: SCDC Chairs Report

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

Course Management Coordinator, Academic Quality and Standards

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)



https://intranet.uow.edu.au/coursemgmt/2015meetingdatesagendasminutes/index.html

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Course%20Management


Attachment I Strategic Course Development Committee Chair’s Report Background In 2013, the Curriculum Transformation Group, under the direction of the DVC(A), reviewed and renewed the course approval process and proposed to introduce a new sub-committee of Academic Senate, the Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC), which would replace the Course Approval Management Group. The establishment of SCDC was approved by Academic Senate for commencement in January 2014. Strategic Orientation The University identified that it would benefit significantly by creating a space for innovative course proposals to be initiated and developed. SCDC’s strategic position undertakes to oversee and identify potential opportunities and develop new courses that will support internal strengths and external opportunities. SCDC is also responsible for the oversight of the development of new domestic and offshore teaching partnerships and aims to capitalise on existing partnerships. 2014/2015 Appraisal Implementation of AQF In 2014, the University community’s main focus was ensuring compliance with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). This essential compliance activity limited the ability of the Committee to create space for a truly strategic approach. However, members have committed to improving on this through the implementation of planning and review cycles. Market Intelligence SCDC has successfully engaged key stakeholders, instituted financial rigour into the course planning process, and has articulated a way forward for evidence based portfolio planning. Some of the challenges SCDC continues to contend with:

• availability of appropriate market intelligence • barriers in the course development process • lack of focused resourcing • understanding of the critical importance to the future sustainability of the University’s

course offerings Through the implementation of a rigorous planning and consultation cycle, SCDC will continue to work through these challenges to improve UOWs strategic approach to course design. Postgraduate Coursework Courses SCDC has established a group to respond to the decline in postgraduate coursework enrolments at UOW since 2013. The working group aims to address issues related to the interpretation of market information and course marketability, as well as ways in which course design capitalises on recognition of prior learning, flexible delivery modes and market exposure. The Group will report its final recommendations to SCDC in Quarter 4, 2015. Emphasis has been placed on providing a tactical approach to addressing immediate challenges for the 2016 recruitment process.


Summary of 2015 Resolutions Course Approval Activities The table below summarises Course Approval Activity for 2015 SCDC to date*:

Proposal Type Admin BUS EIS LHA SMAH SOC Total New Course 2 5 - 2 6 8 23 New Major/Specialisation - 1 2 - 2 2 7 Significant Amendment 2 6 4 1 2 3 18 Course Discontinuation - 13 8 2 5 3 31 Major/Specialisation Discontinuation - 3 - - 2 - 5

Total 4 28 14 5 17 16 84 *accurate as at 27 July 2015 Course Portfolio Plans The review of UOWs overall course portfolio is a priority set out in the UOW Strategic Plan 2013 – 2018. SCDC has conducted a retrospective assessment of Course Portfolio Plans, and the will continue to review portfolios on an annual basis. A planning day will be held in September 2015 to discuss future initiatives and to set out strategies for developing new courses for implementation from 2017 onwards. SCDC Work Plan and other Key Business SCDC has introduced an Annual Work Plan which outlines course related activities that fall outside of specific course approvals. These include key issues that provide scope for members to discuss areas of development identified through 2014 and 2015. Some of the actions taken outside of the usual business of facilitating course approvals include:

i. the addition of the Director of Learning, Teaching and Curriculum to the membership of the Quality Assurance Review Group.

ii. the initiation of pre-proposal discussions. iii. the establishment of a Weighted Average Mark (WAM) Working Party to consider

amendments and improvements to WAM methods. iv. inclusion of environmental scanning to provide marketing intelligence to the SCDC to

make informed decisions. v. the establishment of a Postgraduate (PG) Coursework Working Group to consider

improvements to PG coursework degrees; and improvements to the way in which course approval pathway information is communicated between committees.

vi. External Curriculum Appraisal Committee (ECAC) waiver provisions to better articulate the grounds on which an ECAC waiver may be sought and granted and to establish consistent practices.

vii. review of course structures.


COMMITTEE MINUTES AGENDA ITEM C3 Minutes from the following Academic Senate Committees have been submitted for the information of Academic Senate members:

• University Education Committee (UEC) minutes for the meeting held on 15 July 2015

(unratified) and minutes for the extraordinary meeting held on 11 August 2015 (unratified); and

• University Research Committee (URC) minutes for the meeting held on 17 June 2015 (ratified).

In addition, the UOW Dubai Academic Board have submitted their minutes for the meeting held 18 June 2015 for the information of Academic Senate members. Draft Resolution that Academic Senate:

(i) note the minutes from the following Senate Committee meetings, as attached to the agenda paper:

a. University Education Committee minutes for the meeting held on 15 July 2015 and the extraordinary meeting held on 11 August 2015;

b. University Research Committee minutes for the meeting held on 17 June 2015; and

(ii) note the minutes from the UOW Dubai Academic Board for the meeting held on 18 June 2015.

ATTACHMENTS: (i) UEC minutes for 15 July 2015

(ii) UEC minutes for 11 August 2015 (iii) URC minutes for 17 June 2015

(iv) UOW Dubai Academic Board minutes for 18 June 2015

Drafted by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Executive Officer, Academic Senate




UNIVERSITY EDUCATION COMMITTEE – 15 JULY 2015 MINUTES Minutes of the 04/2015 meeting of the University Education Committee, held at 9.30am on Wednesday 15th July 2015 in Building 20, Room 5. PRESENT:

Professor Eeva Leinonen (Chair) Professor Joe Chicaro Dr Julie Francis Ms Yang Ming Goh Dr Jennifer Heath Ms Debra Hocking Ms Megan Huisman

Ms Fiona Rankin Ms Julie Renwick Mr Dominic Riordan Mr Martin Smith Ms Anne Snowball Dr Marcelo Svirsky Ms Carina Tobia

Dr Julie Kiggins A/Prof Romy Lawson A/Prof Grace McCarthy

Professor Wilma Vialle A/Prof Rodney Vickers A/Prof Margaret Wallace

Dr Dominique Parrish Professor Graham Williams Mr Jim Davies (Executive Officer) Ms Marion Allen (Admin Assistant)

IN ATTENDANCE: Ms Fiona MacDonald (Senior Manager, Library), Ms Xanthe Knox (Manager, Client Services, Student Services Division), Ms Rebecca Daly (Library Services), Ms Anne Melano (Project Manager, LTC), Ms Sarah Tillott (School of Nursing) and Ms Viji Venkat (Course Management Co-ordinator, AQS)

UNABLE TO ATTEND: Professor Paul Chandler, Professor Tim Marchant and Ms Fran

Walder The Chair welcomed new Senate representatives Dr Marcelo Svirsky, Dr Julie Francis and Dr Reetu Verma (Dr Verma is an apology for this meeting), new student representatives Ms Yang Ming Goh and Ms Carina Tobia, and all members to the meeting. PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS A1 Apologies and Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Ms Margie Jantti, A/Prof Christian Ritz, A/Prof Ian Porter, Professor Anne Cusick, Dr Sandra Chapple, A/Prof Gary Noble, A/Prof Katina Michael, Dr Ian Piper, Professor Patrick Crookes and Dr Reetu Verma. No members are currently on a Leave of Absence.

A2 Arrangement of Agenda

2.1 Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest noted.


2.2 Starring of Items

In addition to the items already starred on the agenda paper, the starring of item C7 was requested.

A3 Business Arising from the Minutes *A4 Confirmation of Minutes

RESOLVED: 35/2015 that the minutes of the 03/2015 University Education Committee meeting of 13th May 2015 be confirmed and signed as a true record

A5 Chair’s Report

The Chair informed members that Dr Sarah O’Shea has now been confirmed as a National Teaching Fellow, based on the strength of her work relating to first in family university students. The Chair called on committee members to congratulate Dr O’Shea. In relation to the issue of changes to the structure of the Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) outlined in the 03/2015 meeting, the Chair noted that consultation on the new initiative has now commenced, and that UOW has submitted a response to the proposal. It was stated that the response sought to highlight the outstanding work undertaken by the OLT domestically and internationally, and noted that this should continue after the restructure. In particular, UOW are keen to ensure that links back to decision makers for all projects be maintained. UOW raised concerns with the concept that the new body would be housed by a single institution, noting the potential for conflicts of interest to arise as a result of this. It was further noted that funding for the new initiative would be approximately half of that made available to the OLT. In relation to this issue, members noted the following:

Similar feedback has been supplied through the Australian Business Deans. The issue of impact will become more prominent. It is likely that the importance

of impact in relation to education matters will mirror the importance for research. There needs to be further discussion regarding how impact can be demonstrated.

The University of Wollongong has joined Futurelearn, the global MOOC provider operated by the UK’s Open University. It is currently offering four MOOCs centred around UOW’s research strengths of AIIM, Early Start, the Graduate School of Medicine and Archaeology. UOWX, the University’s Co-Curricular recognition program, launched at the end of May, and has already seem over seven hundred expressions of interest submitted by students. The refresh of the University’s strategic plan is currently underway. Outcomes from working groups are being considered, and drafting of the revised plan will follow. The amended strategic plan will be submitted to the University Council in October.

PART B – COMMITTEE BUSINESS B1 Academic Quality and Standards Subcommittee B2 Education Policy Review Subcommittee


RESOLVED: 36/2015 that the University Education Committee receives the draft minutes of the Education Policy Review Subcommittee meeting of 17th June, as attached to the agenda paper.

PART C – GENERAL BUSINESS *C1 Course Policy Framework

The Chair noted that the suite of documents that comprised the Course Policy Framework contained a significant amount of detail, but that this was significantly influenced by a number of external drivers. It was further noted that the detail contained within the suite of documents had already been debated at the subcommittee level, in addition to other governance forums. Mr Dominic Riordan noted that influencing factors for the framework include the Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) – in particular the standards around course design and review, and the UOW Standards and Quality Framework for Learning and Teaching. In addition, Mr Riordan noted the need to align the Framework with the Curriculum Transformation Project and AQF. The framework meets the need to bring all complex issues around course design and review into one place. In addition, the following issues have been included in the new documents:

AQF requirements have been embedded into all documents

The issue of credit point values previously debated by UEC has been included in the draft presented to the committee.

Issues of external accreditation in course reviews are addressed. The ESOS compliance framework ensures that all fourteen national code

standards are met. All feedback provided to AQS has been considered, and is presented to members in the feedback register forming part of the committee papers. The following points were made with regard to the Framework:

On the issue of specialist degrees being phrased as deepening, it was noted that the terminology of broadening and deepening was re-introduced through the AQF. Specialist degrees are classified as deepening due to their focus on one specific area of study. It was agreed that the word deepening would be removed from the policy in relation to specialist degrees.

The concept of each credit point requiring 1.5-2 hours of study per week, while un-auditable and, in some instances, not conducive to good subject design, is intended as a guide to the level of work required to pass a subject. It was suggested that it be noted that the caveat of ‘equivalent to’ or ‘as a guide’ could be inserted to mitigate any issues that this concept might cause.

It was argued that the framework was heavily compliance-based, and that it might be better to phrase the policy in terms of a set of principles and desired outcomes, and allow different approaches to how these could be achieved. However, it was noted that this was contrary to the bulk of the feedback received during consultation, which overwhelmingly favoured a more prescriptive approach.

In relation to the application of the double badging principles to HDR students, it was argued that the relevant clauses should contain the words ‘without coursework components’ to ensure that those HDR courses containing taught elements still be subject to the requirements of the double badging section of the Course Design Principles. It was agreed that this would require further investigation to determine why HDR degrees were excluded.


It was noted that the requirement that masters level courses contain a minimum of 48 credit points at 900 level was an adequate protection for the quality of Masters degrees and that the added controls on double badging of subjects were excessive. However, it was argued to the contrary that some restrictions on the amount of study at a lower level was required to maintain the integrity of masters-level study.

A number of additional minor edits were suggested by members. Representatives from the Academic Quality and Standards Unit undertook to include these edits in the draft. Discussions relating to the framework remained un-concluded. As a result, the Chair undertook to organise an extraordinary University Education Committee meeting solely to consider members’ concerns with the framework. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 11 August from 9-11am. Members were requested to forward any matters that they wish to discuss to the executive officer as soon as possible, in order that these matters can be used to form the agenda.

RESOLVED: 37/2015

that the University Education Committee:

i. note the agenda paper on the development of a Course Policy Framework for the University of Wollongong;

ii. note the development of a Conferrals Policy as the final component of the Course Policy Framework is proceeding;

iii. forward issues for discussion at the extraordinary meeting to the University Education Committee executive officer prior to the meeting.

*C2 Academic Consideration Policy Ms Xanthe Knox informed members that the proposed policy changes are to be implemented from spring session 2016. Consultation to date has been both robust and extensive. Key drivers for the revision of the policy include concerns regarding the submission of fraudulent documents, records management, and the administrative burden of processing 24,000 Academic Consideration applications annually. Ms Knox informed members that the most significant amendments to the policy include:

The inclusion of professional practitioner’s certificate in place of a doctor’s certificate. The certificate requests more information than is usually presented on a doctors certificate, and should allow for a more considered approach to making decisions on academic consideration requests. Requiring such certification to support request for academic consideration is standard practice across UOW competitors.

Provisions to allow for automatic recognition of known critical incidents (for example, the recent Nepalese Earthquake). This prevents students already suffering significant hardship from having to supply evidence.

In relation to the issues identified in the documents, members made the following comments:

Issues around who can accept late applications for academic consideration remain. In particular, there needs to be further thought given to the freedoms available to those considering late applications. Ms Knox noted that, in instances where students are unable to meet the requirements of the policy, a higher level of authorisation is required.

Some of the wording within the practitioner’s certificate requires further consideration. The cultural implications of the policy amendments on Aboriginal and Torres Straight

Islanders require further exploration.


A number of additional minor changes were also suggested. Ms Knox acknowledged that all issues highlighted by the committee would be addressed and incorporated where appropriate, and that the policy would be resubmitted for endorsement at the next meeting.

RESOLVED: 38/2015 that the University Education Committee endorse the revisions made to the academic consideration policy as set out in the agenda paper and attachments, and note the recommendation for a future policy review.

*C3 Wellbeing and Resilience Discussion Paper Ms Sarah Tilllott noted that the aim of the project was to form a cohesive approach to wellbeing across the University, and one that is aligned with the University’s strategic goals. Dr Marcus O’Donnell informed members that this issue is receiving significant interest across the sector, both nationally and internationally. Dr O’Donnell noted that there was good practice in this area across the University, and that the real aim of the project was to place this practice in and evidence-based framework. In relation to this item, members made the following comments:

The principles highlighted by the wellbeing paper need to be integrated into the University curricula. This will required a change in mindset from delivery to integration.

There is the potential for these issues to be combined with subjects already delivered by the University, such as the mindfulness subject delivered by LHA.

The social inclusion initiatives highlighted by the paper may need to be amended to account for deregulation in the sector.

The nexus with career development and employability requires further exploration. The focus of the paper should be spread to include reference to the University’s regional

campuses and offshore delivery locations. Wellbeing as it relates to staff needs further consideration, and could be reflected in the

new strategic plan. There needs to be a deeper focus on embedding wellbeing within the culture of the

University.

RESOLVED: 39/2015 that the University Education Committee:

i. note the Discussion Paper, as attached to the agenda paper; ii. provide feedback; and iii. note that the final recommendations of the Wellbeing and Resilience Task &

Finish group will be presented to the University Education Committee for endorsement mid-2016.

*C4 Annual Review Procedures – UOW Dubai The Chair noted that the checklist presented with the agenda paper is based on the work undertaken by a working party looking into the quality assurance of academic activities transnationally. It was further noted that representatives of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) portfolio would assess teaching and learning related issues, including student welfare, support and facilities. The elements of annual review that related to finance and viability would continue to be undertaken by the Transnational Education and Alliances Unit (TNE+A). In relation to the issues presented in the paper, members made the following comments:


The procedures should note that at present, the process is coordinated by TNE+A, but undertaken by the Faculties.

The checklist will form the basis for an evidence based review of academic operations at UOW Dubai.

The review will be chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), and will feature representatives from the partner institution and all faculties involved in the delivery of subjects at UOW Dubai.

If adequate reporting to the UOW Dubai Academic Board exists, that reporting will be used as evidence for the annual quality assurance review.

The documents as presented in the agenda paper conflate annual review and quality assurance review, and will require clarification prior to piloting in November.


i. note that the draft quality assurance policy suite will be submitted to the 05/2015 university Education Committee;

ii. endorse the piloting of the revised annual quality assurance procedure at UOW Dubai at the 2015 scheduled annual review;

iii. provide feedback on the draft quality assurance checklist, as attached to the agenda paper

C5 Academic Advice to Students Policy


i. note the current issues relating to the provision of academic advice to students; ii. note that the finalised amendments will be submitted to the 05/2015 University Education

Committee. iii. invite members to provide feedback on proposed amendments to the policy, and any

other information that may inform the policy review.

C6 External Referencing Pilot Project

RESOLVED: 42/2015 that the University Education Committee note the report on the External Referencing Pilot Project as attached to the agenda papers.

*C7 Graduate Qualities Policy Associate Professor Margaret Wallace noted that it was important when rescinding the Graduate Qualities Policy that the good features contained within the policy be embedded elsewhere. Consideration should be given as to which aspects should be kept, and which are no longer required. In particular, graduate qualities should be considered in the process of designing courses. The Chair noted that there were many ways of capturing graduate qualities, and that the issue now requires University-wide consultation. It was further noted that as a University, we are gathering data on graduate outcomes.

RESOLVED: 43/2015 that the University Education Committee note the case for revoking the Graduate Qualities Policy and approve the proposed action to progress to a university wide consultation phase.


C8 TEQSA Update

RESOLVED: 44/2015 that the University Education Committee note the TEQSA Update as set out in the agenda paper.

C9 Other Business There was no other business brought to the committee. C10 Next Meeting

An extraordinary UEC meeting will be held on Tuesday 11th August from 9-11am. This meeting will be used to consider substantial issues around the Course Policy Framework alone.

The next UEC meeting is scheduled to be held at 9.30am on Wednesday 16th

September in the University Council Room.

The meeting closed at 11.30am Signed as a true record:

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

Chair / /


Meeting/ Deadline

Issue Responsible Person/ Committee

Progress to Date Further Action Required

January 2015

Technology Enhanced Learning Benchmarking (ACODE)

Romy Lawson Report and presentation tabled

Nil

Academic Integrity Task and Finish Group

Stephen Kirk Establishment supported

Report back to UEC at 06/2015 meeting

Extension of Library Opening hours

Margie Jantti Report tabled Nil

Offshore Quality Assurance Framework – Update

Dominic Riordan Update submitted Report back to UEC at 04/2015 meeting

March 2015

Technology Enriched Learning Strategy

Romy Lawson/ Bill Ashraf

TEL strategy endorsed – forwarded to Senate

Nil

Assessment and Feedback Principles

Romy Lawson Principles endorsed – forwarded to Senate

Nil

Digital Learning Thresholds Phase 1

Bill Ashraf Update provided at the meeting

Nil

Inherent Requirements Project

Fran Walder Submitted to 03/2015 Meeting

Director - Student Experience, to form Task and Finish Group

Reasonable Adjustment Process Review

Fran Walder Held over until 04/2015 meeting

Learning Analytics Pilot Jennifer Heath Report provided at the meeting

Nil

Course design Procedures, Course Review Procedures and Course Policy

Dominic Riordan Update provided – policy documents to be submitted to UEC at 04/2015 meeting

Nil

UOW College Audit Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan Submitted to 03/2015 meeting

Nil

International Student Barometer Outcomes Report

Jennifer Heath Report provided and noted

Nil

Student Experience Questionnaire Outcomes Report

Jennifer Heath Held over until 04/2015 meeting

May 2015 Course Leadership Role Romy Lawson Submitted to

03/2015 meeting Implementation to follow

Learning and Teaching Spaces

Marcus O’Donnell

Submitted Nil

Teacher Evaluation Jennifer Heath Held over until 04/2015 meeting

Comparative Student Outcomes Report – Spring 2014

Dominic Riordan Report provided to 02/2015 meeting

Nil

Accreditation Status Across UOW Courses – Report

Dominic Riordan Submitted Nil – ongoing oversight by AQSS

COPTA Audit Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan Audit rescheduled for Q3 2015


Policy Reviews Academic Advice to

Students ESOS Framework Mandatory Reporting of

Student Impairment to AHPRA Procedure

Dominic Riordan/EPRS

Mandatory reporting submitted, others pending

ESOS framework and Academic Advice submitted to July meeting

Indigenous Education Plan Paul Chandler Held over until 05/2015 meeting

July 2015 External Moderation (Peer

Networking) Model Margaret Wallace

Update Provided Nil

WATTLE Review Paper Patrick Crookes Held over until 05/2015 meeting

Learning Analytics Early Adopters Update

Jennifer Heath Held over until 05/2015 meeting

Co-Curricular Recognition Policy

Alexandra McPaul

Held over until 05/2015 meeting

ESOS Audit Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan Held over

Review of WAMs – Report Dominic Riordan Held Over Policy Reviews:

COPTA L&T Good Practice

Guidelines Graduate Qualities Policy

Dominic Riordan, Romy Lawson, EPRS

Graduate Qualities Policy submitted others held over

September 2015

Learning Co-Op Alisa Percy

Teacher Evaluation Jennifer Heath Course Management

System Romy Lawson

Policy Reviews: Supplementary

Assessment Guidelines Exam Rules Student Academic

Consideration Policy and Guidelines

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy

Dominic Riordan/ EPRS

Revision to Course Structures - Proposal

Dominic Riordan

November 2015

Continuous Professional Development

Romy Lawson

English Language Policy – Review

Alisa Percy

Co-Curricular Award Alexandra McPaul

Comparative Student Outcomes Report – Autumn 2015

Dominic Riordan

HE Standards Framework – Gap Analysis Report

Dominic Riordan

Course Management Audit – Outcomes Report

Dominic Riordan

Annual Review of Offshore Courses – Report (Pending adoption of new approach to offshore QA)

Dominic Riordan



University Education Committee – Extraordinary Meeting 11 August 2015 MINUTES

Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the University Education Committee held at 9.00 am on Tuesday 11 August 2015 in the University Council Room. PRESENT:

Professor Eeva Leinonen (Chair) Dr Sandra Chapple Professor Anne Cusick Dr Julie Francis Dr Jennifer Heath Ms Debra Hocking Ms Margie Jantti Dr Julie Kiggins A/Prof Romy Lawson A/Prof Grace McCarthy A/Prof Katina Michael A/Prof Gary Noble Dr Dominique Parrish Dr Ian Piper Mr Martin Smith Ms Anne Snowball Dr Reetu Verma A/Prof Rodney Vickers A/Prof Margaret Wallace Professor Graham Williams Professor Patrick Crookes Mr Jim Davies (Executive Officer) Ms Marion Allen (Administrative Assistant)

IN ATTENDANCE: Ms Anne Melano (Learning, Teaching and Curriculum), Ms Jodie

Crawford (IMTS), Dr Henry Lee (UOW College – for Ms Julie Renwick), Ms Viji Venkat, Ms Jan Sullivan and Mr Ian Butler (Academic Quality and Standards Unit)

UNABLE TO ATTEND: Professor Paul Chandler, Professor Tim Marchant, Dr Marcus

O’Donnell, A/Prof Ian Porter, and Dr Marcelo Svirsky PART A - OFFICIAL BUSINESS A1 Apologies and Leave of Absence

Apologies were received from Professor Joe Chicharo, Ms Yang-Ming Goh, Ms Megan Huisman, Ms Fiona Rankin, Ms Julie Renwick, Mr Dominic Riordan, A/Prof Christian Ritz, Ms Carina Tobia and Professor Wilma Vialle.

PART B – GENERAL BUSINESS B1.1 Consultation and Feedback on the Course Policy Framework

The Chair noted that the draft minutes relating to the discussion on the Course Policy Framework that occurred at the 04/2015 University Education Committee were included with the agenda papers. Some feedback had been provided to the Academic Quality and Standards Unit subsequent to the UEC meeting, and this feedback had been included. In particular, it was noted that a full summary of all feedback was included from p.153 of the agenda papers. The Chair noted that some late feedback that had been submitted prior to the meeting, but after the agenda deadline, would be considered prior to the framework being submitted to Academic Senate.

The Chair reminded members that they had been requested to provide the Executive Officer with significant issues for discussion prior to the meeting, and that minor issues that did not impact on the nature or intent of the framework were no longer open for


discussion. It was requested that all minor feedback be forwarded to the Academic Quality and Standards Unit via email after the meeting.

B1.2 Issues Raised by Members

Discussions on the Course Policy Framework centred around the following issues: Principle-Based Approach At the 04/2015 meeting, there was a discussion as to whether a principle-based approach was preferable to a procedure-based approach. It was noted at the time by Mr Dominic Riordan that the overwhelming majority of feedback on the issue demonstrated that there was a desire for the framework to be procedure-based. Members commented that the present approach is intimidating, in that the documents seem to mandate the consideration of a significant amount of information. A principle-based approach would enable staff to adapt the process to fit the differences that exist between courses. The Chair reiterated that feedback from staff demonstrated that there was a desire for a practical, applicable approach, and that the use of a principle-based approach would require interpretation at every stage of the process. Statement of Purpose Members noted that overarching statements of purpose were required for each document, and that these statements needed to be tied to the principles underpinning the procedures. It was noted by the Chair that the principles and external drivers for the framework are outlined in the documents. On this issue, the following points were made:

Principle statements within the documents should be linked back to the purpose, to demonstrate alignment. This would allow for a better understanding of why the Course Policy Framework requirements are mandated.

Much of the language around the purpose of the Framework is aligned with regulatory requirements. More should be done in the purpose statements to outline how the framework underpins the principles of quality improvement and course viability.

While the documents are to be commended for embedding a single, University-wide approach, the purpose statements give the impression that the framework exists to provide structure to a compliance exercise.

It was noted by the Chair that the Higher Education Standards Framework uses strong language in relation to course design and review. A 2013 audit found significant gaps in course reviews undertaken across the University. The strength of the language is a reaction to these University-wide issues.

The framework supports the University’s position as a self-accrediting higher education provider. This should be made more explicit.

Statements relating to alignment with the University’s strategic goals, self-reflective culture and self-accreditation should be included in purpose statements, and should be couched in language that highlights that the documents are designed to assist staff throughout the process.

Statements in the purpose and scope of the documents should be tied into the University’s continuous quality review cycle.

Guidance on Implementation It was noted that, while staff had expressed a desire for the framework to be procedure-based as opposed to principle-based, guidance was needed to support implementation. In particular, the Chair informed members that it was the intention of the Academic


Quality and Standards Unit to develop ‘how-to’ guides, with faculties, to support the implementation of the framework. It was noted that the intention behind the framework was to enable reflection on existing practice and data. At present, course analytics datasets are being developed to support this, and as more data becomes available, dashboards will be developed to enable the data to be interpreted and manipulated. Members noted that making data easily available, and presenting it in a manner that facilitates its interpretation, would remove barriers to proper and appropriate use. Other issues Members raised a number of other issues with the framework, as follows:

Statements relating to the cross-counting of subjects relate to students, and are not intended for staff designing courses. As a result, this information would be inserted into the General Course Rules.

Definitions should be checked in all documents to ensure that they are consistent, as at present different documents contain different definitions for the same terms. It was also noted that definitions of flexible learning should be cross referenced with hybrid learning, as there are differences between the two that should be accounted for.

The term ‘coursework course’ should be defined, as this term is found across all documents, and there is some scope for misinterpretation at present (particularly in relation to research courses that contain coursework elements). It was noted that the Dean of Research had been contacted on this issue, and discussions were underway to resolve this matter.

The proposition that higher level qualifications should have exit awards embedded within them is owned by the Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC), where the issue will continue to be debated.

References to nested courses in the documents are taken directly from AQF clauses, but will be simplified to facilitate interpretation by staff.

In relation to the presence of external representatives on course review committees, the chair noted that it is for faculties to decide whether their presence on the review panel or the review team is more appropriate. The intention is to mandate their presence in the review process, and to ensure that the data is scrutinised by the relevant people, and not to dictate where in the process these people should be placed. This will be made clearer in the final version of the framework.

It was noted that the power of the reviews exists in the work that is undertaken post-review. There is a need to ensure that the lines of communication that are open between faculties and units at present are preserved, and that communication of changes occurs across the entire institution.

The issue of course viability does not, at present, have a consistent approach across the University. However, reflections on the viability of a course can and should be used during the review process. This includes student numbers, comparative student outcomes and student feedback data and information.

RESOLVED 45/2015:

that the University Education Committee: a. Note the agenda paper on the development of a Course Policy Framework for the

University of Wollongong; b. Endorse the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review

Procedures the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents as outlined in the agenda paper, subject to amendments agreed at the extraordinary meeting;


c. Note the development of a Conferrals Policy as the final component of the Course Policy Framework is proceeding;

d. Forward the Course Policy, the Course Design Procedures, the Course Review Procedures and the ESOS Compliance Framework Policy and the proposed consequential amendments to other policy documents to Academic Senate for endorsement, and to the University Council for approval, to be effective immediately.

The meeting closed at 10.20 am. Signed as a true record:

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

Chairperson / /














AGENDA ITEMS *D1-D3

PART D

COURSE APPROVALS



BIG DATA – 2016EIS24 CYBER SECURITY – 2016EIS25 NEW MAJORS AGENDA ITEM *D1 Proposal Summary The Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences proposes to offer two new major studies in the Bachelor of Computer Science – Big Data and Cyber Security from Autumn 2016. Rationale The Faculty plans to capitalise on recent technological advances by offering these two majors. Issues relating Cyber Security and Big Data are wide reaching, and the Faculty hopes that this will generate jobs for Computer Sciences graduates into the future. Review Process Strategic Course Development Committee Assessment The Academic Quality and Standards Unit (AQS) reviewed the proposal and recommended that the following items be considered by the Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC):

i) AQS understands that the term ‘Big Data’ represents a broad term for large or complex data sets. However, there is no evidence in the proposal that this name is marketable or if attractive to students.

ii) The subjects in the major study refer to analytics, mining and computing. Is this reflected in the major study name “Big Data”?

iii) The Faculty to confirm that these new majors will be offered in Wollongong and Singapore (SIM).

iv) The projected numbers for Wollongong, 40 students and SIM, 100 students. Has the faculty consulted the marketing teams regarding the projected numbers?

v) In the new major study Cyber Security, a new subject is proposed ‘Ethical Hacking’. There are controversies about the term ‘Ethical Hacking’ and the computer security professionals have objected to the use of this term. Has the Faculty investigated this and considered a different name for the subject?

vi) AQS noted that the stakeholder consultation and approvals sections are yet to be completed by the Faculty.

SCDC Minutes and Recommendations Associate Professor Rodney Vickers provided background on changes to both the Bachelor of Information Technology and the Bachelor of Computer Science. The two majors are expected to be attractive to students interested in Computer Science and Information technology disciplines. Associate Professor Vickers also confirmed that these majors will be available at the Singapore Institute of Management a year after onshore implementation. The proposals were endorsed by SCDC on 6 May 2015. Quality Assurance Review Group Minutes and Recommendations Members noted the additional information provided by the Faculty. Members recommended that the following items be addressed either before or at the Academic Senate meeting.

i) Faculty is encouraged to adopt good practice of embedding Course Learning Outcomes (CLO) / Major Learning Outcomes (MLO) into subjects rather than these re-written/changed versions that appear in subjects.

ii) CLO "demonstrate an understanding" has too wide a meaning to measure and should not be used in LOs.


iii) The assessment description in the new subject proposal are minimalistic "assignments" does not help us to understand if the assessment design is appropriate and so this needs rectifying.

iv) In the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) mapping the assessments have a different description/weighting (they do have a better level of detail in the tool though).

v) All assessments claim to meet Subject Learning Outcomes (SLOs). Is the Faculty aware of work required from the perspective of having to develop multiple resources to support this (example – rubrics)?

vi) The information presented requires closer editing and attention. vii) The assessments were described as authentic to the work place yet they are

predominately exams. Faculty to explain how they support or change the assessment type.

The proposal was endorsed by QARG on 3 September 2015, subject to the Faculty addressing the recommendations either before or at the next Academic Senate Meeting. Current Proposal Status SCDC The items noted at SCDC have been resolved, and additional information on financial viability as well as stakeholder feedback is included in the proposals. QARG At the time of going to print of this agenda, recommendations provided by QARG are yet to be addressed. A verbal update will be provided at the Academic Senate meeting on the Faculty’s response to the recommendations provided by QARG. Approval Course Approval is a function of Academic Senate under its Terms of Reference. Pending resolution of the recommendations provided by QARG, Academic Senate is asked to approve the proposal as set out in the agenda paper. Draft Resolution: that Academic Senate approve the proposals to introduce two new majors in the Bachelor of Computer Science; (Big Data) and (Cyber Security), as outlined in the agenda papers, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

The full proposals are available via the following links: Big Data: New Major

Cyber Security: New major

For more information on Course Approvals, please contact the Course Management Team [email protected]


Course Management Coordinator, Academic Quality and Standards Unit




https://intranet.uow.edu.au/content/groups/internal/@web/@gov/documents/doc/uow192670.pdf



EDUCATION FOR CHANGE – 2015SOC15 NEW MAJOR STUDY AGENDA ITEM D2 Proposal Summary The Faculty of Social Sciences proposes to offer a new major, Education for Change, within the Bachelor of Social Sciences, from Autumn Session, 2016. Rationale This new major is expected to provide an additional entry pathway for students who do not meet the entry requirements for the Teacher Education degrees. Students will be given the opportunity to increase their numeracy and literacy skills, as required by the Board of Studies, Teaching and Education Standards (BOSTES) for entry into a teaching degree. Review Process History Since the first iteration of this proposal, the Faculty has received notification from BOSTES regarding entry requirements for Teacher Education programs. In light of admission requirement changes outlined in this communication, the Faculty was required to amend the proposal;

1. 4th March 2015 - Original proposal for a Bachelor of Education Studies 2. 6th May 2015 - Withdrawal the proposal to introduce the Bachelor of Education

Studies in light of communication from BOSTES 3. 6th May 2015 - Introduce a new Major, Education Studies in the Bachelor of

Social Sciences 4. 29th May 2015 – Faculty submitted an amendment to the major proposal, settling

on a new name Education for Change, after receiving additional feedback from BOSTES.

Strategic Course Development Committee - 4th March Professor Graham Williams noted that the purpose of this course is to allow entry for students who do not meet the entry requirements for the Bachelor of Teaching. This may impact on the enrolment numbers for the Bachelor of Arts. This could involve up to 10% of new students (approx. 100 students), which would add pressure to the existing numbers, already affected by the introduction of the Bachelor of Social Sciences. Over two years this could be up to 150 students lost. Professor Williams also noted that the Bachelor of Education Studies may need to include additional English language to compensate for those students who do not meet ATAR requirements of a Band 5 in English. Additionally, given that this course is tailored for students who are intending to transfer, there could be an additional components included in this course to allow for a broader exit options. Professor Anne Cusick noted that the proposal is intended to help streamline students into the Bachelor of Teaching. These students do not normally transfer into the Bachelor of Teaching (Primary) from the Bachelor of Arts, and is not expected to have a significant impact. ATAR requirements and limitation on student numbers may also help to mitigate the impact on student numbers in the Bachelor of Arts. Additionally, Bachelor of Education Studies students will be encouraged to complete a major, which may further their options. The Faculty is seeking endorsement from the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards for the first year of this course. This is expected to help ensure students who transfer into the professional undergraduate degrees still meet accreditation requirements. The Chair noted that the two faculties will need to confer on ways in which a collaborative approach may help increase student numbers in both courses. The proposal was endorsed by SCDC on 4 March 2015.


Strategic Course Development Committee - 6th May In light of recent updates from BOSTES, the Faculty is now proposing an additional amendment to the new major. This new major will be offered under the Bachelor of Social Sciences and will now be named “Education for Change”. Naming the major “Education Studies” may inhibit the potential for students to transfer into Teacher Education courses. It is hoped that this new major will be an attractive offer for students interested in transferring to a Teacher Education program. Credit and articulation arrangements are expected to be compliant with BOSTES requirements. Professor Williams queried whether the Faculty was intending to introduce a minor in Education. Professor Cusick noted that this could be a viable option and the school is considering this for introduction in 2016. Professor Williams also queried the rules for the major in Education for Change, noting that there was no requirement for students to undertake Sociology subjects. Professor Cusick noted that students who continue in the Bachelor of Social Sciences will be expected to catch up on Sociology. Professor Williams also noted that student numbers in the Bachelor of Arts are still likely to be impacted by the introduction of a pathway program into education degrees. Members also discussed the credit arrangements for course transfers may be quite complicated and noted the need for clear mapping of subject equivalence. The updated proposal was endorsed by SCDC, noting the withdrawal of the previous proposal, on 6 May, 2015. Quality Assurance Review Group (QARG) Minutes and Recommendations Members noted the AQF Validation document and Financial Impact assessment tabled at the meeting. The proposal was endorsed by QARG on 6 August, 2015. Current Proposal Status No items required resolution. Approval Course Approval is a function of Academic Senate under its Terms of Reference. Academic Senate is asked to approve the proposal as set out in the agenda paper. Draft Resolution: that Academic Senate approve the proposal to introduce the new major, Education for Change, as outlined in the agenda papers, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

The full proposal is available via the following link: Education for Change: New Major

For more information on Course Approvals, please contact the Course Management Team

[email protected]








MASTER OF EDUCATION ADVANCED – 2016SOC16 NEW COURSE AGENDA ITEM D3 Proposal Summary The Faculty of Social Sciences proposes to introduce a new course, the Master of Education Advanced in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), to be offered from Autumn, 2016. Rationale The Faculty is hoping to capitalise on the strong reputation of the current TESOL with International Students, and provide prospective students with a two year study option. Review Process Strategic Course Development Committee (SCDC) Assessment The Academic Quality and Standards Unit (AQS) reviewed the proposal and recommended that the following items be considered by SCDC members:

a) The Faculty is asked to consider amending the course name, as the current nomenclature does not allow for additional specialisations to be added to this course. This would also allow this course to better align with the nested Master of Education (TESOL).

b) There is a note on the proposal about Faculty requiring or recruiting new academic staff – usually Fred provides the viability analysis on this – can you please check with Fred if the course is financially viable with one full time academic recruitment?

c) 5.4 is filled incorrectly, if students can exit for Grad Cert and Grad Dip then the nested qualifications should be Grad Cert and Grad Dip – why does it just stage MEd?? While MEd is not listed for exit pathway in 5.3?

d) 7.2 – Intended date of application states “38T” which is an error that can occur when converting text boxes to pdf. Please clarify what should be included here.

e) Information in the handbook regarding streams will need to be refined, as this does not refer to any aspect of UOW Policy or Procedure. Using the terms “stream” and “specialisation” when referring to study options can be confusing for students.

f) Consultation is yet to be conducted with stakeholders, of particularly concern is that marketing deadlines for 2016 have come and gone. The faculty is asked to provide feedback from UniAdvice on potential student numbers if this course is approved by Academic Senate in September. Information on Financial Viability may need to be reassessed (i.e. 24 students in 2015, 32 students in 2016, and 40 students in 2017) as the first instance of this course will be offered from Autumn 2016, with little time to sufficiently market to International Students.

g) Course Learning Outcomes may need to be reassessed as they; i. Do not articulate learning outcomes clearly as the include several separate

concepts in a single CLO, making mapping difficult; and ii. Are not written in complete sentences.

h) Course information on Handbook Page states that the course is designed for people with experience in TESOL, will there be credit arrangements for those with previous experience/education?

i) How is the enrolment in this proposed course expected to impact on current enrolment numbers in similar postgraduate courses?

j) There is not information on curriculum transformation or evidence of consultation with LTC, and as such there is no evidence of the course being designed in line with the Transformational Practices, as part of the Curriculum Transformation Project.

Minutes and Recommendations Professor Anne Cusick tabled a memo at the meeting outlining the Faculty’s response to items noted by AQS. These items have now been resolved and the Faculty endeavoured to complete the changes to the proposal in time for submission to the Quality Assurance Review Group (QARG).


The proposal was endorsed by SCDC on 12 August 2015, and an ECAC Waiver was approved. Quality Assurance Review Group Minutes and Recommendations Members noted the updated proposal, including the amended course name and Course Learning Outcomes. The proposal was endorsed by QARG on 3 September 2015. Current Proposal Status SCDC The items noted at SCDC have been resolved. The Faculty has implemented the suggestions noted by AQS and this has been reflected in the proposal document. QARG No items required resolution. Approval Course Approval is a function of Academic Senate under its Terms of Reference. Academic Senate is asked to approve the proposal as set out in the agenda paper. Draft Resolution that Academic Senate approve the proposal to offer a new course, the Master of Education Advanced, as outlined in the agenda papers, to become effective from Autumn Session, 2016.

The full proposal is available via the following link: Master of Education Advanced: New Course

For more information on Course Approvals, please contact the Course Management Team

[email protected]






