Item 8(ii)
Page 1 of 6
ACADEMIC SENATE
12 September, 2003
COLLEGE BOARDS OF STUDIES
ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE – PERFORMANCE REVIEW
This report disseminates information derived from a questionnaire distributed to members of College
Boards of Studies and its committees based on the Approach-Deployment-Results-Improvement (ADRI)
model employed by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). The questionnaire was adapted
from one used by the University of New England, providing a useful framework for gathering feedback
from members of the Academic Senate and its committees. In the first instance, the survey is of College
Boards of Studies members who were on College Boards from 2001 up to the end of April 2003. 77
questionnaires were distributed with 25 returned, making a return rate of 32.5%. A similar questionnaire
was also sent to 2001-April 2003 Academic Senate members. The questions on the survey were drawn
from a variety of sources to provide members with an opportunity to input into how the College Board of
Studies can improve its functions, its processes and its linkages with other interested groups and
stakeholders within the UWS community. These results inform members of strengths and positive
features associated with the role, goals and activities of College Boards of Studies as well as offering
recommendations for improvements. This report will be used to guide changes and improvements within
Academic Senate and the College Boards of Studies, as well as to provide input into the 2005 audit of
UWS by the AUQA. The original scale of strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree,
slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree and unable to rate have been collapsed in order to
highlight the results. Analysis of written responses to the open-ended questions focused on thematic
categorisation of written statements and paragraphs.
Current Strengths and Positive Features
The self-audit identified a number of notable strengths and positive features associated with the role, goals and
activities of College Board of Studies (CBOS). College Board of Studies would be well served by continuing to
maintain these strengths and, where possible, improve further upon them. The strengths and positive features
identified by the symbol * include:
 The CBOS meetings are perceived as an effective avenue for accomplishing the business of the CBOS.
 The CBOS membership is considered appropriate for its tasks.
 The Chair of the CBOS is thought to effectively discharge the responsibilities of the position.
 The CBOS meetings are perceived as an effective avenue for accomplishing the business of Senate.
 The CBOS is thought to pursue its goals and objectives in an appropriately timely and consultative manner.
 Members agree they have a good understanding of their responsibilities as members of the CBOS.
 They also have a good understanding of their responsibilities in implementing the policies and procedures
of the CBOS.
 There was strong agreement that adequate opportunity to provide input into the business of the CBOS was
available through contributions at meetings, membership and contributions to relevant committees and
direct communication with officers of the CBOS.
Areas for Action and Improvement
The self-audit also identified a number of areas where improvements can and should be made. These are
identified by the # symbol and provide the grist for guiding CBOS’s learning and improvement into the future.
 There is a need to improve mechanisms for seeking appropriate data on the quality of policies, procedures
and activities of the CBOS with respect to how its policies and procedures are working and the quality of its
own performance.
 The CBOS should monitor its own performance more closely.
 A number of members indicate the CBOS does not respond appropriately to data obtained on the quality of
procedures and activities.
 Some members feel the CBOS does not implement appropriate follow-up mechanisms to evaluate the
impact of its procedures, activities and policies developed for Senate.
 Improvements could be made to the flow of information between this CBOS, Senate, other CBOS and
groups.
Questionnaire to College Board of Studies members 2001-2003
Item 8(ii)
Page 2 of 6
BACKGROUND QUESTIONS
B1 Number of respondents to the Board Member Survey by membership category.
B1 Number of respondents to the Board Member Survey by membership category.
Membership Category
Number
Percent
Ex-Officio member
4
16.0
Dean of College
1
4.0
Head of School
6
24.0
College Board of Studies Chair
1
4.0
Elected School Representative
8
32.0
Other
4
16.0
System Missing
1
4.0
Total
25
100.0
B2 Number of Academic Senate, College Board of Studies or University Committees memberships of respondents
Committee
Number
Senate Executive Committee
2
Senate Education Committee
1
Senate Research Studies Committee
2
Senate Research Committee
2
Senate Courses Approvals Committee
2
Senate Appeals Committee
3
Any promotions Committee
3
Other College Board of Studies
2
College Board of Studies Education Committee
13
College Board of Studies Assessment Committee
8
College Board of Studies Research Committee
1
College Board of Studies Misconduct Committee
6
Member of 5 or more committees
2
Total Membership of multiple committees
47
Questionnaire to College Board of Studies members 2001-2003
Item 8(ii)
Page 3 of 6
EVALUATION OF COLLEGE BOARD OF STUDIES
Item Number
Scale
C1.
College Board of Studies meetings
Disagree
provide an effective avenue for
Agree
accomplishing the business of the
College Board of Studies.
C2.
This College Board of Studies seeks
Disagree
appropriate data on the quality of its
Agree
policies, procedures and activities.
Unable to rate
C3.
This College Board of Studies seeks
Disagree
appropriate input from key stakeholders Agree
(e.g., Colleges/ College Board of
Unable to rate
Studies interest groups) with respect to
how its policies and procedures are
working.
C4.
This College Board of Studies
Disagree
appropriately monitors its own
Agree
performance.
Unable to rate
C5.
This College Board of Studies seeks
Disagree
appropriate input from key stakeholders Agree
(e.g., Colleges/College Board of
Unable to rate
Studies/interest groups) on its own
performance.
C6.
This College Board of Studies
Disagree
procedures and activities are of an
Agree
appropriate quality and standard
Unable to rate
compared to similar College Board of
Studies at other Universities of which I
am aware.
C7.
This College Board of Studies responds Disagree
appropriately to data obtained on the
Agree
quality of procedures and activities.
Unable to rate
C8.
This College Board of Studies has
Disagree
implemented appropriate follow-up
Agree
mechanisms to evaluate the impact of
Unable to rate
its procedures and activities, and
policies developed for Senate.
C9.
This College Board of Studies’
Disagree
membership is appropriate for its tasks. Agree
C10.
This flow of information between this
Disagree
College Board of Studies and the
Agree
Senate itself works well, is timely and
effective.
Unable to rate
C11.
This flow of information between this
Disagree
College Board of Studies and other
Agree
College Board of Studies and groups
Unable to rate
(not the Senate itself) works well, is
timely and effective.
Questionnaire to College Board of Studies members 2001-2003
Frequency %
2(8.0)
22(88.0)
7(28.0)
15(60.0)
3(12.0)
7(28.0)
14(56.0)
4(16.0)
10(40.0)
11(44.0)
4(16.0)
13(52.0)
8(32.0)
4(16.0)
Mean(sd)
1.9(0.28)*
1.5(0.71)#
1.4(0.76)#
1.3(0.74)#
1.2(0.69)#
3(12.0)
14(56.0)
8(32.0)
1.2(0.93)
6(24.0)
16(64.0)
3(12.0)
1.5(0.71)#
8(32.0)
12(48.0)
5(20.0)
1.3(0.79)#
6(24.0)
19(76.0)
1.8(0.44)*
8(32.0)
13(52.0)
4(16.0)
1.4(0.76)#
8(32.0)
14(56.0)
3(12.0)
1.4(0.71)#
Item 8(ii)
Page 4 of 6
C12. In light of your responses above, please note any observations/comments you wish to make about how the
Academic Senate, Academic Senate committees, College Board of Studies, and College Boards of Studies
committees learn about and act to improve their policies, procedures and activities and the outcomes that
result from those policies, procedures and activities. Please don’t hesitate to include comments on where
and how improvements could be made in this area. Please suggest things that you think should be
changed.
Themes that emerged from written statements of respondents are as follows:

Committee workloads are too high and timeline pressures are too short with not enough time to read,
assimilate and critically evaluate proposals, making it impossible to give due consideration/discussion to
many issues.

Meetings are not enjoyable to attend. The focus is on regulation and control rather than discussion of
essential core issues.

Structure and governance procedures permit faulty documentation and haphazard consultation.
Procedures encourage disconnection and inhibit inclusion and involvement at Board of Studies level. From
DVC down there is a sense of remoteness in decision-making. Strategic imperativeness is not well
articulated. Both DVC’s have little knowledge of key operations they manage electronically and fail to lead.

So much change so quickly means that no one person can keep up to date and aware of all the changes,
giving rise to confusion and conflict between the ways things were done and how they are done now.

There is too much emphasis on ‘top down’ authority. For example, “The University’s concern about its
legal position has lead to a student discipline policy which in practice is virtually unworkable.”

CBOS is reactive to top-down policymaking, concerned with technical matters of course approvals.

CBOS does not effectively link with sub ACQGs and does not require the College Education Committee to
monitor issues such as quality teaching, course management or student outcomes through the ACQGs.

The CBOS are the forum that has the most staff and student input into board management of University.
However, there is little scope for any useful input. Almost all items are either referred up from the College
Education Committee or referred down from management, too late for input because the decision is
already made. Attempts to influence management through motions having little effect.

CBOS should have a more clearly democratic and representative role in the University. The separation of
teaching and research is a major issue for this University and CBOS could address both issues together.

CBOS terms of reference are unworkable.
Questionnaire to College Board of Studies members 2001-2003
Item 8(ii)
Page 5 of 6
DEPLOYMENT (HOW THE COLLEGE BOARD OF STUDIES APPROACH IS IMPLEMENTED)
Item Number
Scale
Frequency % Mean (sd)
D1. The Chair of the College Board of
Disagree
3(12.0)
Studies effectively discharges the
1.8(0.51)*
Agree
20(80.0)
responsibilities of the position.
Unable to rate
1(4.0)
D2. The College Board of Studies meetings
Disagree
6(24.0)
provide an effective avenue for
1.8(0.44)*
Agree
19(76.0)
accomplishing the business of the
Senate.
D3. The College Board of Studies creates
Disagree
8(32.0)
effective policies and procedures.
Agree
16(64.0)
1.7(0.48)
D4. The College Board of Studies pursues
A) Disagree
2(8.0)
its goals and objectives in:
1.9(0.28)*
Agree
22(88.0)
A) an appropriately timely
B) Disagree
5(20.0)
manner.
1.8(0.41)*
Agree
19(76.0)
B) an appropriately consultative
manner.
C) a manner that achieves highquality outcomes.
D5.
C) Disagree
8(32.0)
Agree
15(60.0)
Unable to rate
1.6(0.59)#
1(4.0)
I have a good understanding of my
responsibilities as a member of the
College Board of Studies.
Disagree
Agree
23(92.0)
1.9(0.28)*
D6.
I have a good understanding of my
responsibilities in implementing the
policies and procedures of the College
Board of Studies.
Agree
25(100.0)
2.0(0)*
D7.
I have had adequate opportunities to
provide input into the business of the
College Board of Studies through:
A) contributions at meetings of the
College Board of Studies.
B) membership on/contributions to
relevant committee(s).
C) direct communication with
officers of the College Board of
Studies.
A) Disagree
1(4.0)
Agree
23(92.0)
2(8.0)
B) Disagree
3(12.0)
Agree
19(76.0)
Unable to rate
1.8(0.52)*
1(4.0)
C) Disagree
2(8.0)
Agree
22(88.0)
Questionnaire to College Board of Studies members 2001-2003
1.95(0.20)*
1.9(0.28)*
Item 8(ii)
Page 6 of 6
D8.
In light of your responses above, please note any amplifying or qualifying observations/comments you wish
to make about how the College Board of Studies achieves its goals and objectives. Please don’t hesitate
to include comments on where and how improvements could be made in this area.
Themes that emerged from written statements of respondents are as follows:

Communication between CBOS and grass roots school is a big problem.

More thought needs to go into strengthening links between College and School levels. For example,
“Open Board of Studies meetings with observer status for College members.

A ‘think-tank’/intensive workshop’ to radically critique and re-design what CBOS do.
GENERAL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS ABOUT ACADEMIC SENATE, ITS COMMITTEES, COLLEGE BOARDS OF STUDIES AND
WHERE IMPROVEMENTS/ADDED VALUE MIGHT BE REALISED
In this section, you have an opportunity to express any final views you might have about the role and effectiveness
of Academic Senate and/or its committees and, College Boards of Studies and / or its committees, especially, on
where you see that improvements or added value in policies, procedures and activities might be realised.
Themes that emerged from written statements of respondents are as follows:

The timelines set are usually extremely short and unreasonable, allowing inadequate opportunity for quality
reflection and consultation. Greater time needs to be allocated.

Operational and policy guidelines are not promulgated and business is conducted in a precursory and
disorganised manner with futility and carelessness characterising Board procedures.

Consideration to devolving some Senate delegations down to CBOS should be considered.

Greater representation from people responsible for the ‘implementation’ of policy needs to occur so that the
‘workability’ of policies is adequately considered.

There is a problem with Colleges being dependent on outsourced registrar’s staff. Outsourced marketing,
finance, and registrar staffing in Colleges is a disaster.

Communication is a major problem; with over 130 policy documents on the web, there is too much
information for staff to handle. Senate and CBOS can make up policies and procedures but until staff can
be made aware of them, they are not put into practice.

Each CBOS has only one elected staff representative for each school, student representatives have not yet
appeared. Other members are all management and Dean’s nominees. It is necessary to have positions
that are more representative.

Elected Academic representatives are often too remote from Course Development. Program coordinators
apply the policies and rules and are therefore aware of deficiencies.
Questionnaire to College Board of Studies members 2001-2003