Quality Enhancement Committee
Members
Prof Judyth Sachs (Chair), DVC (Provost)
Mr Paul Luttrell, General Counsel
Ms Deidre Anderson, DVC (students and Registrar)
Prof Jim Piper, DVC (Research)
Ms Maxine Brodie, University Librarian
Mr Chris Searchfield, Academic Director , Macquarie City Campus
Mr Andrew Burrell, Director COE
Prof John Simons, Exec Dean, Arts
Prof Julie Fitness, Chair, Academic Senate
Mr Tim Sprague, Director HR
Dr Neil Fraser, Information Director, Macquarie Analytics
Prof Stephen Thurgate, Exec Dean, Science
Prof Mark Gabbott, Exec Dean, Business & Economics
Ms Zoe Williams, Manager Quality Assurance, M.I.
Prof Janet Greeley, Exec Dean, Human Sciences
Mr Jonathan Wylie, Assistant Academic Registrar – Academic Programs
Ms Sonia Jeffares, Principal SIBT
http://www.mq.edu.au/quality/qec.htm
In Attendance
Ms Megan Breden, Acting Director COE
Ms Barb McLean, Executive Officer
Ms Alison Taylor, Exec Director, International Programs
Apologies
Mr Andrew Burrell, Director COE
Dr Neil Fraser, Information Director, Macquarie Analytics
Prof Mark Gabbott, FBE
Prof Jim Piper, DVC (Research)
Prof Judyth Sachs, DVC (Provost)
Mr Chris Searchfield, Macquarie City Campus
Ms Zoe Williams, Manager Quality Assurance, M.I.
th
Minutes
11.00-12.30p.m. Thursday 20 October 2011, Function Room, level 2, E11A
Prof Julie Fitness in the Chair
1. Minutes of the Meeting 28 July 2011 and Business Arising
In 4.2 it was recommended that Curtin be amended to “Curtin University IELTS
Centre”
Minutes Adopted with this change
Mr Luttrell reported that the draft Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Regime will be
circulated within a couple of weeks, ready for implementation in 2012. However the
Student Contract will be worked on over 2012.
2. Strategy and Policy
2.1. Review of Organisational Unit Reviews Procedure
2.1.1. Responses to stakeholder review
It was agreed that the feedback received be incorporated into the Organisational Unit
Review Procedure, specifically:

Change ‘Review Team’ to ‘Review Panel’

Change ‘Administrative Unit equivalent’ to ‘Organisational unit’

Make faculties rather than departments responsible for the funding of reviews

Add principles such as objectivity, confidentiality and collegiality

In order to close the loop and engender good relationships with partner
universities and disciplinary colleagues, that Review Panel members be informed
of the actions planned in response to their Recommendations
Adopted
2.1.2. Template for payment for costs entailed in reviews
Adopted
Page 1 of 3
3. Management and Implementation
3.1. Response to Psychology Review
Adopted
Prof Greeley spoke to the paper noting that the Review Panel were experienced and
tackled all the identified issues, and noted that the major recommendations focussed
on over-teaching.
3.1.1. Undergraduate Programs
Prof Greeley commented how the UG Curriculum Review and its adoption of a 3
credit point model for UG programs (requiring Psychology to add another unit
each semester) in addition to the requirement of the new Assessment Policy
requiring 3 different assessment methods, have combined to increase both staff
and student workload. Alternate delivery modes and reduction in face-to-face
requirements are both being explored to reduce workload.
3.1.2 Postgraduate Programs
The recommendation that Honours be redesigned to allow group projects and
group supervision, with the attached recommendation that the PG Dip be
abandoned, was not supported by the Dept. The PG Dip in Psychology allows
students not on a research pathway to obtain the required 4th year to become
accredited; whilst the PG Dip in Social Health provides a qualification for
frontline counselling agencies with unqualified staff, and as such is a social good.
Recommendations regarding succession planning and market differentiation on
the basis of the strengths in research centres are being pursued. Regarding the
allowing of students to take units outside the Dept, this is being pursued as part of
a strategy to reduce teaching load, however this recommendation needs to be
undertaken in partnership with accrediting bodies.
3.2. CBMS Review Report
Adopted
Prof Thurgate reported that the Dept had been formed some 6 years ago by the
merging of Bio-molecular Science with Chemistry, however the group has not
integrated as one department teaching one curriculum. A major issue is the current
40% failure rate in 100 level Chemistry. It is to be hoped that this Review will be the
catalyst for change as the Review did provide a vision of what a future dept could
look like. It is anticipated that the Dept will go on a retreat to work on an
Implementation Plan for the Review Recommendations.
3.3. Progress against Recommendations of Review of Macquarie Law School
Prof Simons noted that the Review had been ‘interesting’ but not useful. The two
research strengths of the School need re-invigorating and the strife and disharmony
within the School had impacted negatively on income and prestige.
Discussion noted the quality of graduates and their employability and hence the need
for greater marketing focussing on these attributes. Discussion also noted the focus
of the School on the LLB rather than the opportunities available in PG coursework
and continuing professional development. It was also noted that 1-2 year Masters
programs would be very marketable to International students and graduates of
Macquarie’s business programs.
4. Reviews
4.1. Review of PICT (For information - adopted by circulation):
Page 2 of 3
Quality Enhancement Committee
4.1.1. Terms of Reference
Noted
4.1.2. Review Panel
Noted
4.2. Review of Dept of Chiropractic (For information – adopted by circulation):
4.2.1. Terms of Reference
Noted
4.2.2. Review Panel
Noted
5. Any Other Business
5.1. Timetabling for enrolled student numbers
Discussion took place on the recent decision of the SMG to timetable on the basis of
student numbers enrolled rather than the likely attendance at lectures. It was argued that
an unintended consequence of this decision has been a doubling of lecturing load for
larger classes, when history demonstrates that many students prefer to use the iLecture
alternative and to attend tutorials. This decision will result in lecturers giving multiple
lectures to half empty lecture theatres.
In addition to workload issues this has budgetary and quality implications. The decision
has been taken at a time when faculties and departments are required to make budget cuts
as a result in a drop in University income. Hence, the alternative of employing casuals to
deliver these additional lectures was seen as a waste of scarce resources; while the option
to video stream lectures in additional lecture theatres or over the Web, was seen as a
response that decreased quality (as students were not being offered an equivalent student
experience to other students in their cohort).
Mr Luttrell assured the meeting that the new Consumer Protection does not “require” the
University to either provide lectures or seats in lectures; but it does require that services,
e.g. teaching, are provided with due care and skill. It arguably follows that teaching
facilities must be adequate for that purpose. There is little risk of litigation if the
University reverts to ongoing practice and timetables lectures on the basis of history and
the known drop-off rate in student lecture attendance, if this means in effect that students
that wish to attend lectures are able to do so.
There was some discussion as to whether there was a reputational risk in making known
the current practice where there are not enough seats for all enrolled students, but it was
decided that this would be not as great as the risk of staff burnout. It should be made
clear that there will be a seat available for all students that require one.
It was decided that Ms Anderson would take this issue to the Executive meeting next
Monday with two recommendations:
1. That the historic knowledge of student attendance at lectures be the basis
for the timetabling of lecture spaces
2. That over the course of 2012 teaching delivery be reviewed and that
tutorials, workshops and laboratories be the basic teaching delivery
method with the opportunity for lectures be a non-compulsory delivery
method that adds richness to the student experience
6. Next Meeting:
11.00-12.30p.m. Thursday 1 December 2011 in Function Room
E11A
Page 3 of 3