Charles Darwin University
Common Units Management Group Minutes
Meeting 1/2013: 2pm, Friday 21st June, Community Room,
Building Orange 12.1.
Present: Chair: Martin Carroll (MC), Jennifer Silburn (JS), Frances Tolhurst (FT), Birut Zemits (BZ), Barbara Coat (BC), Micah Thorbjornsen (MT), Trent Newman (TN), Elizabeth Thynne (ET), Greg Shaw (GS),Sharon Bridgeman (SB).
Apologies: Nicola Rolls (NR), Giselle Byrnes (GB), Barbara White (BW), Greg Williams (GW), Sue Carthew (SC) Sandra Dunn (SD).
Item / Minutes / Action Items1. / Welcome from the Chair. The chair opened the meeting, formally welcomed committee members and in particular Birut Zemits as CUC107 coordinator and accepted apologies from Nicola Rolls, Giselle Byrnes, Sue Carthew, Barbara White, Greg Williams and Sandra Dunn.
2. / Minutes of Meeting 02-2011 held Thursday 8th October 2011. Subject to the inclusion of the following amendments, members of the committee confirmed the minutes of meeting 2/2012 as a true and correct record:
(i)On page 3, Greg Shaw noted as attending the last meeting.
(ii)On page 6, item 4.2 the sentence commencing “However, we need to remember that the current face-to-face model …” to be removed as this is not an accurate record.
(iii)On page 8, item 4.5, the following sentence to be removed “There was no explanation given for this”.
(iv)On page 9, item 4.5 the following sentence to be removed “Other student feedback noted that JH was ‘direct and blunt’ but this could also be attributed to the teaching methodology being different to some students’ expectations.
(v)On page 9, item 4.5, in the following sentence “MC suggested that the SELTS results do warrant further investigation particularly as this is the students’ first exposure to the university”, “is” to be replaced with “can be”.
(vi)On page 12, item 5, “perhaps” to be inserted in the following sentence as indicated “MC noted there was the intention of reviewing the graduate attributes in 2013 and perhaps reducing the number to two”.
(vii)On page 12, item 6, “LSEG” to be replaced with “LSES” (low socio-economic status) the acronym the commonwealth uses and funding schemes are based on.
Matters arising/Action items
Batchelor Institute enrolments in CUC100 – follow up with Terri Dunbar. FT confirmed that discussions have taken place with the BIITE lecturers about the workshop model of delivery that CUC100 has uniquely for students enrolled in all of those programs and delivered at Batchelor or at the desert Peoples Centre.
TN pointed out that there is some cloudiness around this model of delivery and pedagogy that interferes with the coordinator’s ability to understand their role in guiding how the unit is delivered and how much they can say to the teaching staff. TN suggested that it would be helpful if there were an opportunity to attend the workshops, but that it had not been possible to arrange this so far.
MC confirmed that this is a university unit, the university bears ultimate responsibility for the quality of that unit and the way it is delivered. MC reminded the team that in practice, this is a negotiated space. However, the unit coordinator has overall responsibility.
JS pointed out that one of the issues is that it is difficult to contact those staff and get their buy in.
FT pointed out that CUC107 will be taught via this mode next semester as well. BZ advised that CDU students (who are not enrolled in ACIKE) have been enrolling in the BIITE modality.
FT stated that non Indigenous students should not be enrolled in the BIITE modality as they are not eligible to undertake the workshops at Batchelor.
MC stated that the reason for the integration of Batchelor and CDU was to grow the market by moving to a more expensive modality i.e. Learnline facilitated.
The workshop model has been discussed across the suite of programs and there are some areas, including the common units, where the university’s position has been to see what happens out of a collegial approach.MC stated that if the situation does not improve and in order to fulfil CDU’s responsibilities, there may be a need, as a last resort, to pull out of that modality.
FT pointed out that GW was invited to the meeting as a representative of ACIKE and he was going to follow up to see which member of staff should attend.
EF confirmed that the BIITE teaching staff were invited to attend the induction workshop but did not respond. / TN to follow up attending BIITE workshop/s
GB to raise issue at the ACIKE Executive Advisory Group (AEAG) chaired by Stephen Larkin
CUC107 – Plagiarism and collusion
FT advised complaints have been received from students this semester and the team were all now following the designated process. In instances where students do plagiarise they are expected to be able to speak to the lecturer (and/or coordinator) and get another chance, this had not been happening.
MC pointed out that at the last meeting there had been some discussion about whether or not to accept draft submissions and there was general agreement that staff in the common units should allow them. Particularly using SafeAssign.
MC advised that for each of the common units the first submitted piece of assessment work at least should have a draft entry point prior to the final entry point and that this should be set up in Learnline. The expectation is not that staff will mark students’ draft submissions, but rather that students have access to the text matching report via SafeAssign which they can look atbefore they submit a final piece of work. In class there should also be an opportunity for the CU team to teach students about the text matching reports and what they mean. To allow for this, lecturersneed to add another submission point which the Learnline team can help with.
FT confirmed that students use safe assign to submit in CUC107.
TN confirmed that in CUC100 there is a draft submission point which does not use SafeAssign that allows students submission practice. The final essay is put through SafeAssign. Some students have advised via email that they have not received their report back from SafeAssign and wondered whether to just submit without the report to ensure that they meet the due date.
TN agreed that it is a good model to allow drafts and it also gives students the ability to practice submission for other units but that it is unlikely to solve the plagiarism problem and it does create some additional work for the lecturer.
JS pointed out that she was recently speaking to a CDU student who had studied some OUA units and had indicated that 3rd year students had been employed to look at draft assignments for a 15 minute period and give feedback. Via this method students receive formative feedback prior to submitting their final assessment. It taught the student a lot in terms of better ways of organising a persuasive essay.
MC noted that the model could be revisited in the future after the outcomes of the PASS project are known.
MC queried whether the evidence suggested that there is more collusion than plagiarism. FT confirmed that there was both collusion and plagiarism within the one semester. For CUC107 it was largely to do with the last assignment where, due to the nature of the assignment (media interpretation),students tended to rely more on reviews and may not have had the necessary skills to complete the assignment on their own.
MC pointed out that when that happens it is usually the university’s fault; in that the assignment is structured in such a way that the cohort need to work together.
GB to meet to discuss research projects that overlap with the retention and success project
BZ queried whether there had been an outcome from this action item. JS pointed out that this action item referred to the first year experience research work that GB and SC have commissioned. The committee agreed that this action item should be carried over to the next meeting. / GB to arrange meeting to discuss research projects.
3. / Terms of reference Common Units Committee
MC confirmed that the two Faculty Pro Vice-Chancellors have been added and noted the following changes to the incumbency:
5. Associate Dean Learning & Teaching, FEHSE now Barbara White
6. Associate Dean Learning & Teaching, FLEBA now Greg Shaw
7. ACIKE representative
MC queried whetherthere should still be a representative from ACIKE on the committee. Historically the ACIKE representative position was part of the management committee from when one of the units was embedded in SAIKS. However, this is no longer the case. The unit coordinators represent the other units and not individual representatives from schools. However the common units play an important role in terms of students from low SES backgrounds including Indigenous students and it is important to ensure that those voices do not get lost.
FT commented that it would be good to continue to include a representative from ACIKE; as often Indigenous people can be left out of the equation and particularly considering the issues we are talking about with Batchelor.
12. Student representative
MC pointed out that if the PASS scheme gets up and running and one of the foci is the common units then a PASS leader would be ideal. The current policy is to go to the student representative council (SRC) and they appoint from within their elected committee membership. However, this often results in their being no one to attend the committee meetings.
FT advised that the student representative council did advertise this semester but without success.
TN queried whether committee members could approach students who might be interested. MC advised that there is no policy in the university at present indicating that the SRC must be approached if student representation is sought.
MC confirmed that students who are approached by the unit coordinators will be required to submit an expression of interest in the form of a cover letter. They should be sent the TOR and their representation will be recorded on their AHECS.
GS queried whether the current TOR allows the Chair to appoint committee members on a needs basis. MC confirmed that this is commonly used in other committees.
MC proposed that the membership be amended as follows:
12. student representative (internal) appointed by the Chair
13. student representative (external) appointed by the Chair
MC moved that, subject to the amendment noted above, the TOR be recommended to Academic Board for approval. Motion carried. / MC to raise with GB and Steven Larkin and advise that the committee would like to continue to representative from ACIKE ensuring a continuing focus on retention and success for LSES
Unit Coordinators to approach students regarding representation on CU committee
CU Theme leader to arrange for TOR to be tabled at next academic board meeting.
4. / Standing items
4.1 / Academic Consultant report
4.1.1Overview
FT reported that semester 1 ran smoothly, BZ took on the role of Unit Coordinator for CUC107 at the last minute and has carried that through successfully. The CUC100 team have carried a full student load and been working with various teaching cohorts. The CUC106 team have focused on supporting external students particularly in the group work aspect of the unit.
4.1.2 Budget/Staffing
FT advised that the common units are currently underfunded and there are insufficient funds in the budget to last beyond semester 1. The additional funding required is for unexpected student numbers.
JS advised that the figures quoted are conservative, Jean Mary Robbins came to these figures on a pro rata basis and the figures quoted may be insufficient for the remaining semesters.
MC queried whether JS had submitted a mid-year budget review.
JS advised that she had consulted with MC, GB and Scott Snyder about the budget deficit and the fact that a new funding model is needed as there are insufficient funds each year, despite these units being some of the largest in the university.
MC pointed out that this matter was raised at the last meeting and it was agreed that all of the funding for the common units was to be allocated to SALL and then the teaching would be ‘bought back’ depending on how it was distributed. However, the timing of this decision, at the end of November, was after the budget process had been completed.
JS stated that this year the various schools were apportioned EFTSL according to their teaching loads.
4.1.3 Induction for teaching in the common units
FT confirmed that two half day workshops were run prior to the start of semester 1 for internal common unit staff. Topics included the philosophy of the common units and English language development in them. Two online workshops were run for external lecturers. Both groups discussed moderation and assessments.
MC pointed out that next time it is important to chase up both the BIITE and Essington lecturers.
TN commented that MEGA and Essington were not involved this semester as the teachers had not yet been appointed. However, JS advised that the MEGA lecturer was invited to both the internal and external sessions but did not attend. / MC to raise with GB the need for additional funds for S2 and SS.
JS to discuss redefining budget approach for 2014 with GB.
CU Theme leader to ensure BIITE lecturers attend next induction session where possible.
4.1.4 Preliminary investigation into credit transfer for CUC100 students of tertiary bridging programs.
FT was asked by NR to formalise the exemption process of TEP, PTS and Navitas students. The process has begun, but is not yet finalised.
Navitas students
FT confirmed that TamarzonLarner, Director of Studies at Navitas believes that Navitas students should study CUC100 rather than being exempt from it as is currently the case. Navitas students receive a lot of support including editing help, even with their last assignment and therefore there is no clear picture about what they can actually do independently when they finish.
FT confirmed that Navitas students have been given exemption at a credit level for some time, this is an informal arrangement made some years ago between the CU Theme Leader and the Director of studies at that time.
MC pointed out that there is a pipeline that needs to be considered and exemptions need to be honoured for current students. However future students can be prevented from being given an exemption.
MC advised that articulations with advanced standing are all approved by the Course Delivery Relationships Oversight Committee (CDROC). Whenever the university has an articulation partner or a third party delivery partner it is overseen by CDROC and their terms of reference include articulations.
FT confirmed that the current Director of Studies does not think that there should be advanced standing. Students receive editorial assistance, before completing their written assignments. They also use the highest grade; if students complete 4 examinations in speaking reading listening and writing the highest grade is recorded on their certificate, which may not be for writing.
GS moved a motion recommending to CDROC that advanced standing and specifically the waiving of the common units for Navitas students cease. Evidence does not show equivalence and thereby support the provision of advanced standing. As the Chair of CDROC, MC abstained from voting.Seconded by JS. Motion carried.
PTS
FT confirmed that it has taken a considerable amount of time to discuss PTS with staff and so far, it has not been possible to make a decision about credit transfer for these students. PTS staff decided that students need at least a distinction to achieve equivalence, whereas with TEP there is credit level equivalence and the level of support students receive seem to differ.
MC pointed out that as both TEP and PTS are enabling programs, a progression analysis is needed to compare PTS students with TEP students and look at their progression. This would determine whether, in the subsequent year of university,PTS students complete and pass at equivalent rates to TEP students. If there is equivalence then no change may be needed. However, if the rates are lower then some change may be necessary.
4.1.5 Annual review of CUC107
FT confirmed that an annual review was held for CUC107 and it went well.
MC thanked Fran and pointed out that the program had been in good hands while NR was away. / FT to provide memo to MC regarding motion for consideration at CDROC.
CU Theme leader to investigate.
4.3 / CUC100 report
TN confirmed that CUC100 is in good shape, TN and EF work well together and there is a good relationship with BC, the library and there is ongoing consultation with the other unit coordinators, who are all working toward additional clarity across the common units.
TN outlined a concern that the unit coordinator’s role involves not only coordinating the internal classes it also includes liaising with variety of other distance teams including MEGA, Essington and also Growing our own and also Batchelor and ACIKE. There is some ambiguity about jurisdiction, students’ needs and the selection of appropriate staff. Communication can also be difficult at times. James and Pauline (MEGA staff in Sydney) have maintained good communication with TN and EF. However, Pauline’s qualifications to teach the unit are questionable and there has had to be some remarking. More permanent staff are needed to share the load and ensure the quality control across these programs.