Provost’s Strategy Group
2.00-4.00p.m. 5th June 2009
Function Room Chancellery Building E11A
http://www.mq.edu.au/provost/governance/provosts-strategy-group.html
Members
Prof Judyth Sachs, DVC (Provost) (Chair)
Ms Maxine Brodie, University Librarian
Dr Julian De Meyrick, Dean of Students
Prof Julie Fitness, Vice-President, Academic Senate
Ms Ruth Freeman, Director Student Wellbeing
Prof Mark Gabbott, Exec Dean, Business & Economics
Prof Janet Greeley, Exec Dean, Human Sciences
Mr Colin Hawkins, Academic Registrar
Prof John Hooper, Dean Higher Degree Research
Ms Suzanne Kelly, Director Student Business and System
Solutions
A/Prof Bill McGaw, Interim Dean MGSM
Prof Michael Morgan, Dean, School of Advanced Medicine
Mr Lachlan Murdoch, Director Institutional Research
Dr Ian Solomonides, Director, LTC
Prof Mary Spongberg, Acting Exec Dean, Arts
Prof Stephen Thurgate, Exec Dean, Science
Prof Gail Whiteford, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Social Inclusion)
Apologies
A/Prof Bill McGaw, Interim Dean MGSM
Dr Ian Solomonides, Acting Director, LTC
A/Prof Mary Spongberg, Acting Exec Dean, Arts
Prof Gail Whiteford, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Social Inclusion)
In Attendance
Ms Barb McLean, Exec Officer
Prof John Simons, Exec Dean, Faculty of Arts
Ms Angela Voerman, Learning and Teaching Centre (for Item 1)
The Chair welcomed Prof John Simons to his first Provost’s Strategy Group and
hoped that immigration formalities would conclude speedily. She also welcomed Ms
Voerman to the meeting and invited her to speak.
Minutes
1. Update on Learning and Teaching Week
AV
Ms Voerman tabled a draft timetable for Learning and Teaching Week (21-25
September 2009). This timetable has been developed in consultation with the
Associate Deans (Learning & Teaching) and features a different faculty each
day with Friday focussing on recipients of faculty and University Awards and
Grants. Highlights include:
 Monday afternoon, a session on sustainability, led by Prof Tim
Flannery
 Tuesday lunchtime, a panel on learning outcomes, graduate capabilities
and the value-add of Higher Education, led by the Hon Maxine
McKew, the Vice-Chancellor and Dr Dennis Alexander, Assistant
Director, Higher Education Quality Branch, DEEWR
 Thursday morning – a NSW Roundtable on Research-Enhanced
Learning and Teaching
 Friday evening – Learning and Teaching Awards ceremony


Innovative use of Smartboard Technology staff competition
What makes an excellent teacher? Student competition
Staff awareness and participation will be encouraged by distribution of post
cards.
2. Minutes from Meeting 1st May 2009
Adopted
2.1
Survey to assess student demand for alternative teaching
patterns (held over until July meeting)
JG & LM
Prof Greeley reported that it would not be possible to survey students
until the beginning of second semester. This survey could be
combined with others planned e.g. student preferences for people and
planet units. It was also suggested that some student focus groups
would provide valuable qualitative data. It was recommended that
Prof Greeley and Mr Murdoch consult about focus groups with A/Prof
Cynthia Webster.
Adopted
3. Report from Provost
JS
3.1 The Provost congratulated Dr Solomonides for his appointment to
the position of Director of the Learning and Teaching Centre, noting
that he won the position from in an international field of candidates.
3.2 The Provost informed the meeting that there was a process review of
the Admissions and Enrolment process underway, that will explore
the relationship between the centre and the faculties and will report
before the new Academic Program is commenced in 2010.
Prof Mark Gabbott will provide the name of a representative to Ms
Karen Davies, as the Faculty of Business and Economics has done
some work in this area.
Adopted
3.3 The Provost, in the context of the University’s stand on
sustainability, invited comments from the faculties on the amount of
paper provided/sold to students (as course readers). What is the
pedagogical rationale for this? Are there alternative means of
distribution e.g. USB? What do other universities do? [To be placed
on the agenda for the July meeting].
Adopted
3.4 Participation Initiative. Due to confusion over the meaning of this
phrase, it has been decided to change this to “Participation and
Community Engagement Initiative”. Pilot programs are being
organised in health in the Philippines; social research in PNG; and
with Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. With regard
to these pilot studies, AVI is undertaking the risk assessment and
practical issues such as accommodation, etc.
3.5 Relationship with Macquarie City Campus. This is likely to be an
issue emerging from the recent AUQA Review visit. Issues include:
 Load – MQC has 30 HECs places for southern Sydney students
wishing to attend Macquarie; and this may increase as a result of
Bradley. Potential for Macquarie to grow its load without
impacting detrimentally on North Ryde
 Quality/equity of the student experience

Current Agreement – Macquarie gets 25% for rent, staff and
utilities – does this cover the costs involved?
3.6 Glossary Project – it has been established that there are 5 different
glossaries across the University. A project has commenced to
develop one University Glossary.
3.7 Improving communication – it has been assumed that the existence
of positions such as Assoc Deans and committees would result in
greater communication between the centre and the faculties. This
has not necessarily been achieved. Electronic means such as
MQAnnouncements, the Momentum Website and now the MQSpace
wiki and faculty intranets have also been instituted. Science have
instituted a regular morning tea to underline important issues.
4. Academic Senate – planning issues
JF
Prof Fitness spoke to her circulated Academic Senate: 2010 and beyond paper,
outlining the background to the Academic Senate Transitional Rules and the
opportunity that this has provided Senate to review its role and constitution. It
has been confirmed that the Academic Senate is the overarching University
body concerned with quality assurance in academic matters. Membership is
recommended to continue at the same level as before, but to consist of
additional faculty representation (4 academics and 1 undergraduate student), 1
postgraduate coursework and 1 higher degree research student; while also
allowing for 2 co-opted members.
Discussion took place on what co-option meant (co opted by the Chair, or co
opted by Senate? Would these co-opted members have full membership, or
ability to speak but not vote? Should these be designated for the Director of
Student Wellbeing and the Director of Information Technology Services?).
It was noted that elected representatives become members of Senate, they do
not represent a constituency.
Prof Fitness informed the meeting that it is recommended that the title VicePresident of Senate be changed to Chair, to maintain independence from the
Vice-Chancellor as President and Chief Executive of the University.
Discussion took place on the length of the Senate term of office. As there is a
condition that members should serve no more than 2 terms, it was felt that one
term of 3 years was reasonable, but 2 terms of 3 years had the potential for the
Chair to lose connection with their discipline.
In order to increase the talent pool it has been recommended that the Chair of
Senate be elected from amongst level D and E academics; whilst the Deputy
Chair of Senate (a developmental role) be elected from within the membership
of Senate.
The standing committees of Senate are also being reviewed with the objective
of streamlining and clarifying roles and boundaries, between both Senate
committees and faculty committees. Prof Fitness acknowledged the research
in this area undertaken by Ms Cathy Rytmeister. Should Senate set the
Admissions Criteria and Award degrees while faculties are responsible for
everything in-between?
Prof Fitness also informed the meeting that it was recommended that a new
Governance Committee of Senate be established.
Among the current tasks of the Academic Senate Working Party are:
 Writing the Rules – it was noted that these needed to be written in such
a way that “deeming” was no longer necessary
 Clarifying the role with Council
5. Progress on Planning Template
JG
Prof Greeley and Mr Murdoch provided the meeting with two documents:
 Draft list of Performance Measures for Faculty Planning, and
 University Scorecard – KPIs aligned to strategic directions (potential
use in performance reviews of faculties, departments and deans)
Both sets are required for an integrated system (the first as an ‘item bank’ and
the second as a public tool), however there is a need for the University to
agree on KPIs and for greater integration with financial data.
The Chair informed the meeting that the University would be commencing
work on a Strategic Plan in 2010.
6. Any Other Business
6.1
Australian Graduate Survey
Mr Murdoch informed the meeting that in the April round the response
rate was 45% (achieved by 2 mail outs, 3 SMS messages and 3 emails).
The previous round in October was only 35%, which requires us getting
a 60% response rate from the April round to get an average of 50%
overall. Staff are now telephoning graduates.
6.2
Review of MUSEQ
MUSEQ (U/G – MUSEQ-U and P/G Coursework – MUSEQ-P) could
provide CEQ data earlier (as they are administered to currently enrolled
students) and hence provide time for the University to respond; but
response rate is so low, results cannot be meaningfully disaggregated.
Should these two internal instruments be replaced with focus groups?
Prof Hooper informed the meeting that the PREQ and MUSEQ-R are
key elements in HDR quality assurance. They have useful data over
time and are integrated into the Higher Degree Research Committee.
Qualitative comments are also analysed.
Prof Simons informed the meeting that in Britain it has been found that
higher response rates are also linked to more positive responses and
hence universities actively market the CEQ-equivalent. Faculty staff
take ownership of the survey, as do the Student Unions – they speak in
classes (the lecturer has absented themselves). The danger is that the
scores are changed but the student experience remains the same.
It was recommended that MUSEQ and student surveying be addressed
by the Student Experience Working Group.
Adopted
Mr Murdoch informed the meeting that a decision is required before
September. This will be placed on the Agenda of the next meeting.
Adopted
7.
Next Meeting:
2.00-4.00p.m. Friday 3rd July 2009, Function Room E11A